Sitting of 14 March 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  INDUSTRY

    Financial Assistance
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Industry what was the total subsidy paid to British Leyland, British Shipbuilders and the British Steel Corporation in the last year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures for one and two years before.
    The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): Assistance to BL, British Shipbuilders and the British Steel Corporation was nearly £1·75 billion in 1980–81, £1·5 billion in 1981–82 and is forecast to have been about £1–25 billion in 1982–83. My forecast for 1983–84 is a further reduction to under £0·75 billion.
    Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information and I welcome the trend. Will he confirm that there has been a dramatic improvement in efficiency, especially in output per man, in those three industries? Will he further confirm that assistance to those industries represents a smaller proportion than hitherto of total Government funds available to industry?
    Mr. Jenkin: The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is yes. Support for those casualties of the
    2
    past will be less than 40 per cent. of my total budget for 1983–84 for the first time in several years. There have been notable improvements in efficiency. However, those industries must become fully competitive if they are to survive in today's world.
    Dr. Bray: What is the Secretary of State's view of the proposal of BSC' s chairman to spend £100 million on buying an American steelworks and closing the strip mills at Ravenscraig? Is he aware that Ravenscraig is producing more than 35,000 tonnes of steel a week, that it is achieving a level of productivity that is better than 4·1 man hours per tonne and that it is expected to break even this month, contrary to the views of the chairman of BSC and of the Industry and Trade Committee?
    Mr. Jenkin: The Government have received no formal proposal from the BSC about a deal with an American steel company. Negotiations of that type would initially be a matter for the corporation. The Government would expect the BSC to consult them about such an arrangement before any final decisions were taken.
    Mr. John Grant: Did not the Minister of State show extraordinary ideological fanaticism last week when, in a speech about the steel industry, he suggested that its trials and tribulations were paving the way for privatisation? Will that not undermine further the moral of the industry and create additional uncertainty?
    Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend made an excellent speech, which was well reported. The Social Democratic party believes that ownership, finance, the appointment of managers and accountability to the public are irrelevant to the problems of these industries. I profoundly disagree. The decisions that I and my colleagues have taken in recent years about those industries have convinced me that they ought to be in the private sector.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Could not those gigantic sums have been used to provide more jobs, possibly in the tourist industry? Failing that, would not those sums have been better employed in providing the country with decent social services?
    Mr. Jenkin: I gave a full explanation of that decision in the House on 20 December 1982. Certain comments have been made by the Select Committee, to which the Government will be replying in due course. The Government took the right decision to maintain steel making at Ravenscraig.
    Mr. Orme: Will the Secretary of State confirm that if the proposed agreement goes ahead, it could lead to the loss of 2,000 jobs at Ravenscraig, the closing of a strip mill and the investment of £100 million outside the United Kingdom? Does that not contravene what the Government agreed in December, which was to keep the five major plants open and fully employed?
    Mr. Jenkin: As I understand the proposal that Mr. MacGregor has been discussing with the trade unions in Scotland, it would involve—as I think he put to them—a five-year guarantee for the off-take of steel made at the heavy end at Ravenscraig. As I said to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray), if the proposals involved the closure of the hot strip mill, the Government would need to be consulted.

    Teletext
    Mr. Colvinasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will report on progress in setting up Teletext.
    Mr. Butcher: Teletex is British Telecom's text communication service which enables word processors and computer terminals to communicate over the telephone network. BT hopes to begin a service later this year.
    I announced a Teletex promotion initiative in November 1982, offering £4 million support to stimulate the use of Teletex. STC, Mitel, Plessey, Ferranti and GEC have been selected to provide equipment starting in the autumn of this year.
    Mr. Colvin: I should point out a misprint on the Order Paper? Teletex is spelt with an "x". There should not be a "t" at the end.
    I am sure that the House will welcome my hon. Friend's announcement, which is further proof that the Government are putting their money where their mouth is on high technology. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to welcome British Telecom's initiative?
    Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend is right to say that Teletex should not be confused with Teletext. Teletex is a means of communicating text rapidly between terminals over the BT network. The scheme is one of enlightened purchasing, which is designed to pull through technology on a user requirement basis. It will leave the United Kingdom Limited very well placed in international markets.
    Mr. Hoyle: I may agree with the Minister, but is it not also true that we are falling behind many of our competitors in information technology and technology in general and that we need even more money and an even greater drive?
    Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, under this Administration, there has been a huge shift of resources towards the new technologies, particularly information technology, under the guidance of my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information
    4
    Technology. This is a most dynamic area of the market, and we are anxious to ensure that British companies begin to redress the imbalance in payments in high technology.

    Space Programme
    Mr. Michael Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Industry how much Government expenditure there has been on the United Kingdom space programme in each of the last four years; and whether he intends to increase the budget for the financial year 1983–84.
    Mr. Viggersasked the Secretary of State for Industry how much has been committed over the last four years to the United Kingdom space programme; and whether he intends to increase the space budget.
    The Minister for Industry and Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): Over the last four years my Department has invested the sums of £37 million. £44 million, £58 million and £64 million, respectively, in the United Kingdom space programme. The published estimate for 1983–84 is £61 million. Expenditure beyond that year has not yet been decided.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the majority of that expenditure represents our contribution to the European Space Agency? Does he agree that, although those contributions are matched by other member states within ESA, they produce a substantial return which has made this country the pre-eminent manufacturer of communications satellites in Europe?
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is correct. ESA is one of the most striking examples of the success of international co-operation in technology. It has ensured that Europe has a space industry, and we are one of the leading countries in the world—second only to America—in making communications satellites.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that many people still find it difficult to grasp the benefits of the space programme? Does he further agree that the programme is not science fiction or pie in the sky, but will be of real economic benefit both to industry and to employees in this country?
    Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. Few people realise how significant our space industry is. It employs about 3,500 engineers and has a turnover of more than £200 million per year. There are many jobs in it for us. In addition over the next 20 years the market for communications satellites will be worth about £10 billion. Britain cannot afford to fall behind.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that after Ariane IV and the space laboratory follow-on programme there are some fundamental decisions to be made for Europe? Would it not be better for this country to put more money into the ESA budget so that we may obtain decisions in favour of a manned space programme, reusable vehicles and so on?
    Mr. Baker: In cash terms we have more than doubled the amount that we shall spend on space during the lifetime of this Government. I agree that there are some large projects in the offing, and I particularly want to support earth remote sensing, in which we have considerable skills.

    Small Workshop Units
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the rate of progress of completion and take-up of English Industrial Estates Corporation small workshop units.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): Since 1 April 1982 EIEC has completed 782 small factories and workshop units. Four hundred and seventy-three have been let or sold to new occupiers. A further 106 units are reserved for new tenants who have not yet taken up occupation, and serious inquiries continue at well above the rate of recent years.
    Mr. Mawby: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is one of the most effective ways of increasing our national income and of providing better employment prospects? How does the figure compare with previous years? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that everything possible is being done, or should more be done?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree that this trend and the progress that is being made are important, because, especially in assisted areas, there was a serious shortage of small workshop units for small businesses. Such units can add greatly to economic activity. The rate of lettings was more than double that of last year, which was itself a record. It shows that the corporation and the Government are justified in concentrating on small workshop units, because that is what the market needs. I should like to see that encouraging progress continue and the private sector involved rather more. Another encouraging aspect is that the corporation is finding that it is now getting a good return on the lettings of those small units.

    Paper and Board Industry
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will take steps to assist the paper and board industry to become more competitive by help with restructuring and re-equipment.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: Companies in the paper and board industry, like other industries, can already benefit from a wide range of industrial support measures to improve their competitiveness.
    Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister agree that it makes more sense, is cheaper and more efficient to save rather than to create new jobs in the paper and board industry? If so, will he consider putting between £5 million and £10 million into Thames Board Mills, Warrington, to prevent it from closing, and thus save between 800 and 1,000 jobs?
    Mr. Baker: I have met the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), as well as the chairman of Thames Board Mills, to consider the problems facing that plant. The company has told me that it has examined the possibility of keeping the mill open, but unfortunately it cannot foresee a viable future for it.
    Mr. Moate: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the increased use of indigenous raw materials, energy resources and new technology, there is no reason why the British paper industry should not continue to flourish and play a major role in the economy? Does my hon. Friend further agree that to achieve that we must ensure a flexible use of the Industry Act for worthwhile projects?
    Mr. Baker: We provide support for various projects in the paper and board industry. There has been a freeze in
    6
    the average level of electricity prices for 1983–84. Of course, new investment is being made all the time. There is a big investment of £100 million in Workington and about £40 million or £50 million has been invested in Ellesmere Port by Consolidated Bathurst.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does cheaper energy in Europe damage the interests of British producers?
    Mr. Baker: That is a very wide question. The disadvantage that high energy users have borne in this country has been to some extent reduced, although not entirely eliminated, by the adjustment in the value of sterling.

    Electronics (Northern Region)
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the development of the electronics industry in the northern region.
    Mr. Butcher: The electronics industry is now considered to be one of the growth sectors of the northern region's economy. There are 120 companies in the region involved in electronics employing some 16,000 people. Of special importance is the growing number of smaller companies which have a positive attitude and are eager to expand into new markets, products and technology.
    Mr. Dormand: Is consideration being given to the location of the next Inmos factory? Is a decision about the location to be made by the summer? If so, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the northern region will be given full consideration? Could not a direct Government decision have an effect on the high level of unemployment in the north?
    Mr. Butcher: The immediate problem for Inmos—although I hope that it will not be a problem for much longer—is the ramping up of production on its current site. There are no decisions on the locations of future plants. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be proud—at least hope he is—of the record of electronics companies in the northern region and the northeast, which have made a magnificent response to some of the Government's schemes, because they are moving into new markets in areas where there is a positive and growing balance of payments.
    Sir Dudley Smith: I do not detract from the point made about the northern region, which I fully accept, but does my hon. Friend agree that there is also a very good case for persevering with the electronics industry in the midlands, which should form one of the main springs of future growth in the second industrial revolution?
    Mr. Butcher: The midlands region—in particular, the west midlands—is conscious of the fact that there is an imbalance in the representation of industries in the region. The Department of Industry's regional office is conscious that more can be done in that respect, and we are anxious to help in any way we can. However, it must be remembered that these are demand-led schemes, and the response from the regions depends on the number of applications received from the companies within the regions.
    Mr. John Garrett: Is the Minister proud of the fact, that, throughout the Government's term of office, our deficit in balance of trade in electronics equipment, has worsened?
    Mr. Butcher: The major reason for the deficit is the imbalance predominantly in VRCs. There are examples now of companies wishing to come here and manufacture video recorders, but in regard to the main thrust of our policy, particularly in the areas where we can pall through new companies and technologies, such as the minis and the main-frame computers, the Government's record is nothing to be ashamed of. We have introduce some new growth in those areas.
    Mr. Conlan: Is not the proof of the pudding in the eating? Would it not have been more beneficial to the northern region if the Government, through the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence, had placed orders for antennae for RAF Oakhanger at Baldock ratfte than with the United States?
    Mr. Butcher: There is always a difficult balance to maintain in public purchasing orders. We have to balance the needs of users and the specifications they lay down in public purchasing policies with the capabilities of the United Kingdom industry. Wherever British companies, on merit, can win contracts, we are in favour of it, and will do everything to encourage it within the GATT and EC obligations placed upon us.

    Manufacturing Investment
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Industry what is his most recent estimate of the level of investment in manufacturing industry in 1982.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It is £7·14 billion at today's prices, including leased assets.
    Mr. Hooley: Is the Secretary of State aware that a sustained high level of investment is essential for competitiveness? Is not the Government's record disastrous in the four years in which they have held office?
    Mr. Jenkin: The fall in investment is reflected by the severe effects of the recession in the United Kingdom. I am convinced that by far the best way to encourage investment is for industry to feel a recovery in its profit levels, for without profits it cannot hope to invest.
    Mr. Proctor: Will my right hon. Friend reiterate the firm commitment that he gave to manufacturing industry on Thursday when he met representatives of the paper and board industry?
    Mr. Jenkin: In response to my hon. Friend's request—[Interruption.] I do not know why hon. Members should laugh. This is a very important issue. I calculated recently—imagining a purely hypothetical situation—that if we did not have any manufacturing industry whatever we would have to earn about £70 billion a year from services, which is a ludicrous figure. Manufacturing industry is absolutely essential, and pert of the Government' policy is to encourage and promote the health of manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Orme: Does the Secretary of State agree that manufacturing industry has suffered a mortal blow under this Government? Does he further agree that the Government's policy has led to manufacturing industry being made leaner, but not fitter? Does he accept that investment in manufacturing industry has fallen by 33 per cent.? What does he propose to do about it?
    Mr. Jenkin: Industrialists wanted more than anything a fall in inflation, in interest rates, and in the increase in
    8
    unit labour costs. All those things are happening under this Government. They are the essential preconditions for our industry becoming more competitive.
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has read the survey in the Financial Times today of the reports from industry, which show that a great deal of industry is now beginning to win back orders in Britain and overseas. That is what it is all about.

    Development Areas
    Mr. Allan Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the average length of time it takes to process development area grants
    The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): On average, regional development grants are now paid eight or nine weeks after receipt of the grant application.
    Mr. Roberts: I know that the Minister is aware that the question relates to a firm called Fusidex, in my constituency, which has experienced considerable delays in getting Government grants. I received a letter this morning from the Minister about the matter. Will he do all he can to help the company, which is hoping to employ a considerable number of my constituents and has export orders, but none of which will come to anything if Government grants are not made available quickly?
    Mr. Lamont: We shall, of course, do everything we can to help the company. My right hon. Friend has written to the hon. Gentleman about the matter. No application for regional development grant has yet been received from the company, although my officials visited the company and there have been discussions about selective financial assistance. The company made an application for urban development grant, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but we shall do all we can to help.
    Mr. Warren: I sympathise with the concern of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). Does my hon. Friend feel that the time has come to review the value of development area status to the country as a whole, bearing in mind that it is a considerable burden on industry, reduces its competitiveness, and is not available to substantial areas which would like to have the same opportunities?
    Mr. Lamont: As my hon. Friend knows, there has been a fundamental review—the Quinlan review—of regional policy. We have completed the first stage and are now considering what further work needs to be done. My hon. Friend is right in thinking that very serious issues are involved.

    British Leyland
    Mr. John Huntasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on his most recent discussions with the chairman of British Leyland on capital investment for new product development.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: There have been a number of discussions with BL about its capital programmes. Details of these are commercially confidential.
    Mr. Hunt: Can my hon. Friend confirm that British Leyland is now firmly on course to achieve profitability within the next year or two years?
    Mr. Lamont: British Leyland, as it has revealed in the summary of its corporate plan placed before the House, is on target to break even before interest this year, and is on target to break even after interest next year. It has been immensely encouraging that the new models, the Maestro and the Metro, have been so well received. I am sure that the House would want to congratulate British Leyland on the success of the Metro, which in February was the best selling car with 10·3 per cent. of the market.
    Mr. Stoddart: Will the Minister accept our congratulations—I have seen the Maestro being made—on the new product? Will he assure the House that British Leyland will continue to have the support of the Government in developing new models for the future? Will he also ensure that British taxpayers' money will not be used by British Leyland to buy gear boxes and other parts from foreign lands?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman will know that the purchase of components is a matter for the commercial judgment of British Leyland, but over 90 per cent. of the content of the Maestro has been purchased in Britain. I know that British Leyland intends that the overwhelming majority of its purchases shall be in Britain.
    The Government will assist BL, but in its corporate plan—this will be welcome news to my hon. Friends—BL has said that it does not intend to apply for more money beyond the £100 million that I announced to the House a short time ago.
    Mr. Grylls: When does my hon. Friend expect to be able to allow private sector investment to go back into major parts of British Leyland?
    Mr. Lamont: British Leyland, in its corporate plan, has said that it expects to introduce private capital into its mainstream activities within the next two years. We hope that that will pave the way for the eventual return of the business to the private sector.
    Mr. Stan Thorne: Has the Minister discussed with the chairman of BL the use of flexible machine systems and, if so, will he be buying British?
    Mr. Lamont: Yes, we have discussed that matter with British Leyland. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that at Longbridge and at Cowley there is a high degree of automation and that those factories are planning to introduce flexible manufacturing systems. The vast majority of British Leyland's purchases are made in Britain. Where they are not, it is because what is wanted cannot be obtained at the right price.

    Free Ports
    Mr. Aitkenasked the Secretary of State for Industry what recent representations he has received from manufacturing industry concerning free ports; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend has received one representation about free ports.
    Mr. Aitken: Despite that rather small harvest of support, will my hon. Friend nevertheless lend his Department's weight to backing the recommendations of the recent Treasury working party, which proposes early legislation to introduce free ports into Britain? Is my hon. Friend aware that free ports are likely to be good news to
    10
    British industry because, in the view of many British industrialists, notably Mr. Clive Sinclair, they are likely to produce new marketing opportunities and many new jobs?
    Mr. MacGregor: I should make it clear that the primary responsibility for this issue does not rest with my right hon. Friend, which explains why there have been only a few representations to him. The Government are considering the report and will in due course announce their recommendations. As my hon. Friend will know, the working party recommended that free ports should be set up. I have no doubt that in so doing, it took into account some of the comments that he has made.
    Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister agree that it would be an interesting concept to have one of the proposed new free ports linked with an existing enterprise zone? The Minister will be aware of the pressure of Swansea city council to this effect.
    Mr. MacGregor: If the Government did decide to accept the recommendations in the report, widespread consultations would still be necessary before a decision on sites could be taken, because the working party did not consider individual locations. The working party did recommend that experimental locations should be chosen on the basis of demonstrated demand and economic viability.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Following the question of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that there is an enterprise zone in my constituency and a port just a few miles down the road, called Immingham? Will he be making representations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in the event that he has something interesting to say on the matter in his Budget speech?
    Mr. MacGregor: I note from the exchanges in the House the considerable interest in the free port concept, but it is not for me to make individual choices or make recommendations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. If the Government did decide to go ahead, I am sure that full consultation would be undertaken over a wide area before individual sites were chosen.
    Mr. Palmer: Will the Minister say something about the claims of the port of Bristol in these matters, which is at present a heavy burden on Bristol ratepayers?
    Mr. MacGregor: It is already clear that many hon. Members would wish to put forward recommendations for individual sites, but as I have already said, it would be a matter for widespread consultation, if we went ahead, before these were chosen.

    British Steel Corporation
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Industry when he is likely to meet the chairman of the British Steel Corporation to discuss future investment in the industry.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: In less than an hour's time.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Secretary of State advise the chairman of the British Steel Corporation to use his commercial judgment and to press for an early authorisation for the Concast plant at the Llanwern

    11
    steelworks, particularly as the works is breaking all records at present? That plant is vitally necessary to improve the finish of the product.
    Mr. Jenkin: There is no proposal in the BSC corporate plan, which I am currently considering, for such a plant at Llanwern, but I shall certainly mention the hon. Gentleman's concern when I meet the chairman.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Steel, will he take the opportunity to remind him of the advantages of privatisation in attracting capital and, indeed, in providing employee shareholding? Does he not agree that the BP pattern, which has been followed for Cable and Wireless, British Aerospace and the National Freight Corporation, goes a long way to depoliticise many of these great industries?
    Mr. Jenkin: Mr. MacGregor must be one of the best private enterprise industrial managers in the world. He does not need convincing of the merits of the private enterprise system, not least after his experience over some years of trying to run a state corporation. He has had a tremendous success, but I am sure that he would recognise the enormous advantages of being answerable to the market and to shareholders rather than being accountable to Secretaries of State.
    Mr. Orme: Is this the last meeting the Secretary of State will be having with the chairman of British Steel? We would all be very interested in the answer to that question. With regard to the corporate plan and to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes), when are we likely to see the details of the plan?
    Mr. Jenkin: As Mr. MacGregor's term does not finish until the end of June, I think that I shall have the pleasure of many more meetings with him before then.
    I had hoped to be able to make a statement to the House about the corporate plan before Easter, but this now appears to be unlikely. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I wish to come to the House with my conclusions on the plan just as soon as I can.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise to Mr. MacGregor that the House might not be willing to grant further investment in British Steel until there has been some resolution of the demarcation between the public and the private sectors and until there is a sure basis of competition for the future?
    Mr. Jenkin: I hope that my hon. Friend noticed the remarks that were made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State when he spoke to the British Constructional Steel Work Association dinner last week about the proper delineation of the boundary between BSC and the private sector.
    That is something that I should very much like to see and I have been discussing it both with the corporation and with BISPA. Progress has been much slower than I had hoped, but I have made it clear that I want to see very much faster progress in this area than has happened in the past.
    Mr. James Hamilton: When the Secretary of State next meets Mr. MacGregor, will he tell him that a great deal of gloom was cast over my constituency when it was
    12
    made known this morning that 721 jobs on the tube-producing side will now be lost? Will he also tell Mr. MacGregor that the House will determine the future of Ravenscraig, not Mr. MacGregor?
    Mr. Jenkin: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the redundancies in his constituency. They are the direct result of the end of the boom in the American oil exploration industry, of which I am sure he is well aware. The effect of the decision has meant that the number of workers in the plants in question will be just marginally below what they were before that oil investment boom took place. With regard to Ravenscraig, I have nothing to add to what I said in reply earlier to the question from the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray).
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Reverting to that earlier question and to the answer the Secretary of State gave, may I ask whether, if he were to consent to a successful negotiation by MacGregor, he would regard that as consistent with what he said in December about the retention of Ravenscraig as an operating integrated plant?
    Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Member may know more about the details that Mr. MacGregor has in mind than I do. I have no firm proposal from Mr. MacGregor. The right hon. Gentleman's question is therefore hypothetical.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us on the Conservative Benches are great admirers of the work Mr. MacGregor is doing at British Steel? After reading the recent Select Committee report, does he accept that Mr. MacGregor would be better occupied in continuing the task that he has set upon instead of moving to pastures new?
    Mr. Jenkin: That is not a question for me. I have greatly admired Mr. MacGregor's work. Not the least of his achievements at the British Steel Corporation is the fact that he will leave in place a management structure with people who are well able to carry on the excellent work of restoring the steel industry to profitability.

    Hunstanton Employment Area
    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will now consider giving assistance to the Hunstanton employment area under the assisted areas scheme.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: In his statement about assisted area gradings on 28 June last year my right hon. Friend made it clear that the Government do not expect to make further changes during the lifetime of this Parliament.
    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Does the Minister agree that the Hunstanton employment area, with unemployment at 28·8 per cent., is the only one in England with more than 25 per cent. unemployment that does not receive special area assistance? Since Corby has unemployment currently running at 21·3 per cent., and is an enterprise zone, if he will not consider special area status for Hunstanton, will he at least consider establishing it as an enterprise zone or, if free ports are introduced, as part of a free port.
    Mr. Lamont: I agree that Hunstanton has high unemployment, although, of course, it is small in absolute numbers, which is a factor we take into account. The level of unemployment in East Anglia generally is fairly low.

    13
    I agree that the hon. Gentleman has a problem. It seems to me that the best way to tackle it is through CoSIRA. Hunstanton is a special investment area under CoSIRA. Recently, the Department of the Environment has given permission for the building of some small units and at Hesham there are to be 50–50 workshops developed with the West Norfolk county council. The problems of the hon. Gentleman's constituency are best dealt with through rural policies.
    Mr. John Garrett: Does the Minister agree that the Government's policies on rural development have had no impact on rural Norfolk? Is not Hunstanton a good case in point? Have not the Government's cuts in public expenditure, backed by the Stone Age Tory attitudes of the Norfolk county council, meant that industrial development has been choked—not only in Hunstanton, but throughout rural Norfolk? The Government have done nothing about that.
    Mr. Lamont: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Much work has been done by the Development Commission, especially in encouraging small businesses and factory building. The hon. Gentleman knows that, even under the Labour Government, there was no assisted area status for such areas in East Anglia. It is only because he is in opposition that he changes his mind.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that this case, as many others, exemplifies the position well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren)? Is it not yet another argument for putting maximum effort into getting the national economy right, rather than seeking to iron out the local variations in employment by costly subsidies?
    Mr. Lamont: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The most important factor in reducing unemployment in any area is national economic policies, not regional policies.

    Industrial Design
    Mr. Michael Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Industry when he last met the chairman of the Design Council to discuss innovation in industrial design.
    Mr. Butcher: I have frequent contacts with the chairman of the Design Council, its members and its senior officials. I last met the chairman on 9 March, and my right hon. Friend will be seeing him later today when he opens the "Young Creators" exhibition at the Design Centre.
    Mr. Morris: Does my hon. Friend think that the money spent on the "Design for Profit" scheme is well spent? Does the scheme involve the applied art colleges?
    Mr. Butcher: The money committed to the "Design for Profit" campaign is well spent. The campaign is designed to persuade finance and managing directors of medium-sized companies that the skills of British designers can be used to better effect to help us to reconquer our domestic markets and to make inroads into international markets, where design is the key factor in the purchasing decisions of consumers.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Is the Minister aware that press reports claim that Britain is becoming old-fashioned, that our industry is short of young designers and that they have to go abroad to obtain posts? Will he take action to
    14
    ensure that our industries take advantage of the young industrial designers leaving our universities, and employ them, to ensure that we get new projects going in our industries?
    Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. It is precisely because we wish more British-trained designers to be employed by British companies that we are mounting the campaign. I agree that it is a tragedy that some of the products now being bought in large volume in Britain were designed by British people and manufactured by foreign companies. We wish to redress that position through the campaign.
    Mr. John Garrett: Why has the Department of Industry allowed the British Technology Group to sell to American companies two computer-aided design companies—one of which is already being run down by its new American owner? Is that not a case of public investment and expenditure on developing new design capabilities being transferred to American ownership? How does that serve the national interest?
    Mr. Butcher: The benefits of computer-aided design, regardless of the ownership of the companies, should be better promoted in the United Kingdom. Before the controversy arose many multinational companies kept a disproportionately large number of their software engineers and designers in Britain, simply because Bri tish-trained designers are so good. We should ask what is the benefit overall to the United Kingdom economy.

    Northern Region
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will convene a meeting of representatives of industry, local authorities and trade unions to discuss regional policy and other measures to deal with unemployment in the northern region.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: I am all in favour of those concerned with industrial development in particular areas coming together to consider local problems, but I de not think that it is necessary for me to convene such meetings.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that many people in the organisations in the northern region believe that the mild reflation forecast for this week's Budget, if unaccompanied by direct intervention and Government decisions to direct factories into the English regions, will lead to few jobs being created in the peripheral regions and more jobs being created in the major centres of population in the south? Is that what the Government really want? Is that the sort of divided society that they have set out to create? Why do they not consult those in the regions prior to taking the industrial component decisions in their Budget strategy each year?
    Mr. Lamont: We spend a considerable amount of time talking to representatives of the northern region. It is ludicrous for the hon. Gentleman to say that the northern region has not received assistance from the Government. It has had £469 million of regional development grant since 1979, £77 million of selective financial assistance, considerable help—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Answer my question.
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman called for intervention to help the northern region. It has had that

    15
    through regional policy, enterprise zones, assistance to the shipbuilding and steel industries and, above all, more than 90 per cent. of the northern area has assisted area status. It receives a great deal of Government attention.
    Mr. Dormand: Does the Minister recall making a speech last year in which he urged companies to move their headquarters and research and development units to the regions? How many companies have done so? What is the Minister doing about it? Is he aware that some of us believe that it might have been only a "paper speech" and that he does not have any real interest in the northern region?
    Mr. Lamont: The office and service industries scheme is designed to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman asks. There have been a number of examples of service industries and offices moving to the northern region. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with details.

    Loan Guarantee Scheme
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he intends to extend the loan guarantee scheme; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have now completed my review of the loan guarantee scheme. An announcement of the outcome will be made shortly. By the end of February this year 8,861 guarantees had been issued in respect of £295 million of bank lending.
    Mr. Carlisle: Is my hon. Friend aware that the scheme has proved most satisfactory and helpful, but that it needs to be expanded? However, does that not depend on the banks having a positive attitude? Is he aware that there is concern that some banks are not being as helpful as they could be? Will he take steps to ensure that they play their part fully in the scheme when it is extended?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his complimentary remarks about the scheme. I have very much involved the banks in the current review that I am completing. They are aware that, despite all the efforts that they and I have made, there is sometimes a need for more knowledge and awareness by some of the bank managers. We have considered a report by outside consultants—Robson Rhodes — who also mentioned that point. Following the announcement of the review, I shall arrange for copies of that report to be placed in the Library.

    Engineering Council (Grant in Aid)
    Mr. Palmerasked the Secretary of State for Industry how much of the grant in aid made to the Engineering Council of £150,000 under section 6 of the Industry Act 1981 had been spent up to 31 December 1982; and if, in view of the transfer of 30 staff from the Council of Engineering Institutions to the Engineering Council, he will make additional finance available to the council.
    Mr. Butcher: I understand that by 31 December 1982 the Engineering Council had spent £499,000 of the £550,000 grant in aid which had been paid to it up until then. A further £182,000 was paid in January. Subject to Parliament providing the necessary funds, the Government are prepared to continue to help finance the council's initial running costs during its first three years.
    Mr. Palmer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Engineering Council, which was set up under the recommendations of the Finiston report, has made slow progress during the past two years? Does that not vindicate the view of many of us that there should have been legislation in the first place?
    Mr. Butcher: I am not so sure that I can agree with the hon. Gentleman's assertion that slow progress has been made. The first priority has been to secure the voluntary approval of the members of the engineering profession through the recent ballot. I am delighted that engineers nationally have endorsed the move towards certification. I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's comments, and it may be convenient if I write to him later this week.

    Steel
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a further statement on the position of the steel industry.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I have nothing at present to add to the statement which I made about the British Steel Corporation on 20 December last year.
    Mr. Taylor: Since that date, has my right hon. Friend been aware of any progress in persuading the continental countries of the European Community to make cuts in manpower and production similar to those that Britain has made? Does he agree that it would be outrageous if we were to make further cuts when, on the continent, no similar progress and no similar move has been made by EC countries, which in some instances have been increasing their production and capacity, instead of slashing it as we have done?
    Mr. Jenkin: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have lost no opportunity to impress on the Commission and on my opposite numbers in other Governments that there is a need to match capacity and demand and that this will require them to make substantial cuts in their capacity. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have read the three wise men's report on the German industry. The Commission has received proposals from the French Government for cuts in capacity that are not out of line with those that we have already made. At a recent meeting with the Italian Industry Minister I received an assurance from him that there would be substantial cuts in the private sector in steel in Italy. The problem remains with the public sector in Italy. I shall continue to press this issue on Foreign Ministers in the Italian Government.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Sir Oswald Mosley
    Mr. Norman Atkinsonasked the Attorney-General if the Lord Chancellor will review the decision to withhold the details of the appearance of Sir Oswald Mosley before the Birkett tribunal for a period of 100 years.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): There has been no decision to withhold for a period of 100 years the records relating to the interrogation of the late Sir Oswald Mosley before the Birkett tribunal. These papers are retained by the Home Office under the provisions of section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958 on the grounds

    17
    of national security and pursuant to an approval given by Lord Chancellor Gardiner in 1967. At my noble and learned Friend's request, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary reviewed that decision a year ago. I understand that my right hon. Friend has no plans to reconsider the matter.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is it not a fact that the 100-year ban imposed by the Home Office was designed originally to conceal the identity of current members of the Conservative party who, during that time, were known to sympathise with the idea that there should be a negotiated truce with Nazi Germany and a common front against the Soviet Union? Does the review that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is about to undertake involve the release of papers relating to the British Union of Fascists, or will it involve papers dealing with the arrest and imprisonment of Sir Oswald Mosley?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman has talked about the imposition of a 100-year ban, but that is not the fact. Authority was given by Lord Chancellor Gardiner for the Home Office to retain the papers. This open-ended retention has recently been reviewed. I have not read the report of the interrogation and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has not seen it. I cannot deny what he says because I do not know what the report contains. I suspect that he is making an assertion on the basis of what he has been told and that it is very unlikely to be true.
    Sir Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there would be much advantage to be gained from releasing these papers after such a long period? They might reveal what happened to an ex-member of the Labour party who created the Fascist organisation in Britain.
    The Attorney-General: The grounds for the refusal to disclose the papers are based upon security and intelligence considerations. Those who have had to take the decision have been satisfied that it is in the public interest that secrecy should be maintained.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is no excuse.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: There has been a welcome change in recent years and various Administrations have released such papers as early as possible. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider releasing these papers now to avoid suspicion that there is some form of cover-up?
    The Attorney-General: For the future there will be a review when approval for retention has been given by the Lord Chancellor. The review will take place within a maximum period of 20 years.
    Mr. Warren: I appreciate what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, but will he put it to the Lord Chancellor for his consideration that at the next review the time will surely have to come when we should try to excise the scars that Fascism and Communism have scored across Britain during this century, and that revealing these papers would be in the best interests of democracy?
    The Attorney-General: I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor are made aware of that view.

    British Union of Fascists (Public Records)
    Mr. Newensasked the Attorney-General if the Lord Chancellor will reconsider the decision to withhold certain public records relating to the British Union of Fascists for a period of 100 years.
    The Attorney-General: I wrote to the hon. Member on 4 March explaining that at the request of the Lord Chancellor the Home Office is to review the closure period.
    Mr. Newens: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. Does he not think that it is a disgrace that administrative means should be used to retain papers that relate to the interrogation of Sir Oswald Mosley and are eligible for release, and thereby prevent facts coming to light that could clarify the position of the establishment in the light of assertions by hon. Members on both sides of the House? Does he agree that it would be unjustifiable to prevent these records being released merely because a section of the establishment and of the Conservative party which was opposed to Sir Winston Churchill, the Labour party and others who took an anti-Nazi stand wished to conceal their support for a separate peace in 1940?
    The Attorney-General: It is necessary to distinguish between the two types of control. There is the type of control that means that documents are retained by the Department which originally held them. That power comes under section 3 of the Public Records Act 1958. The other type of power takes effect when the records have been transferred to the Public Records Office and there is approval by the Lord Chancellor of the day that they should be retained in secrecy—in this instance they relate to the British Union of Fascists—for an extended period such as 100 years. It is interesting that the first order was made in 1959, shortly after the 1958 Act was passed, by Lord Chancellor Kilmuir, and was considered and confirmed for the 100-year period by Lord Chancellor Elwyn Jones in 1976.
    Mr. Stokes: As there is no evidence of which we are aware that Sir Oswald Mosley was a traitor, unlike Blunt, Maclean, Philby and Burgess, why do we have this incredibly long period before the truth can come out?
    The Attorney-General: Those who are responsible have to satisfy the Lord Chancellor that retention is justifiable. Over the past 20 years they have satisfied a Conservative Lord Chancellor and a Labour Lord Chancellor.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson.: I accept that successive Lord Chancellors have confirmed the period, but is it not clear from what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that there is a belief that these facts should be revealed as soon as possible? To reveal the truth would clearly be in the public interest and would stop some of the accusations and counter-accusations that are now flying about.
    The Attorney-General: This issue was reviewed by Sir Duncan Wilson's committee. A White Paper was published last year in which all the issues that should be considered were set out in paragraphs 26 and 27. The Government accepted the committee's recommendation. Public interest concerns questions involving the general public and individuals. Sir Duncan Wilson's committee set

    19
    out three grounds for retention and these were accepted. It recommended that retention should continue if exceptionally sensitive papers were involved, whose disclosure would be contrary to the public interest, whether on security or on other grounds. Secondly, it recommended that retention should be continued if a case involved documents containing information and supplied in confidence which, if disclosed, would or might constitute a breach of good faith. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be the first to recognise the importance of that.
    Thirdly, documents containing information about individuals, the disclosure of which might distress or endanger living persons or the immediate descendants of those involved, are subject to the principles upon which the disclosure of documents operate. They were set out in the White Paper last year.
    Mr. Speaker: Statutory Instruments—
    Mr. John Hunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As we did not start this section of Question Time until 3.21 pm, would you exercise your discretion and allow me my question?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The thought was in my mind, but I thought that I might get away with it. I shall call the hon. Member because we did not start until 3.21 pm.

    Unification Church
    Mr. John Huntasked the Attorney-General if he is now in a position to make a further statement with regard to his application to the charity commissioners for the removal of charitable status from the Unification Church.
    The Attorney-General: The chief commissioner having twice declined to hold an inquiry into the affairs of the two trusts, I wrote to him on 7 March calling on him to remove them from the register of charities. On 9 March I provided the chief commissioner with a detailed statement of the grounds for de-registration. It is now up to the charity commissioners to decide whether to take steps to remove the trusts from the register. They will require a little time to consider the statement.
    Mr. Hunt: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain the complacent and obstructive attitude shown by the chief charity commissioner in this case? If, as Mr. Peach now tells us, he is waiting for evidence to justify the removal of this so-called Church from the register, could his attention be directed to the transcript of the Daily Mail trial and to the anguish suffered by hundreds of parents in this country who have lost children to the Moonies and who look with despair at the charity commissioners' reluctance to take effective action?
    The Attorney-General: Over the past 12 months I have provided the charity commissioners with all the transcripts that I believed would assist them in reaching a conclusion. They will also have had the opportunity of reading the Court of Appeal judgments. We had, of course, to wait until the petition for leave to appeal to the House of Lords had been dismissed. Thereafter, I moved quickly. I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to comment upon the charity commissioners or the merits of the case, because they are now acting in a quasi-judicial capacity in reaching a decision upon my request.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: Nonetheless, as the Attorney-General has, to his credit, had to lean heavily on the charity commissioners and seems to have been faced with considerable difficulties in removing charitable status from a body that most people would regard as being distinctly uncharitable, when the question of reappointments arises will he consider changing the composition of the charity commissioners so as to appoint people with perhaps a broader view of life than the present charity commissioners seem to have?
    The Attorney-General: The appointment of the charity commissioners is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, on the two occasions on which I asked the charity commissioners to set up an inquiry under section 6, it was a complete surprise to me that they twice refused that request.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the three motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Hire-Purchase (Increase of Limit of Value) (Great Britain) Order 1983 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Valuation (Communal Accommodation) (Scotland) Order 1983 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit (Amendment) Scheme 1983 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

ESTIMATES
[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]—considered
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1982–83
Class XIII, Vote 23, Stationery and Printing Supplies to the Houses of Parliament, etc.

Parliamentary Stationery and Printing
[Relevant document: Second Report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, House of Commons Paper 228, Session 1982–83.]
Motion made and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £414,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1983 for expenditure by Her Majesty's Stationery Office on the reimbursement of the trading fund in respect of stationery and printing supplied to the Houses of Parliament and to United Kingdom Members of the European Assembly.—[Mr. Hayhoe.]
3.33 pm
Mr. Edward du Cann: Since the procedure upon which we are embarking is novel, perhaps I may be permitted a few general words about it as Chairman of the Liaison Committee of Select Committee Chairmen. I was making a speech in France recently, and I was introduced as Monsieur du Cann, "M. le President de la Societé des Presidents", which I thought was something of an honour. When these matters are better understood, we can deal with the Supplementary Estimates. The historical role of the House of Commons, established, understood and practised after protracted and sometimes dangerous struggles, was to force the Crown and those acting in its name—the Executive—to account for their actions. That is what Members of Parliament are expected and trusted to do. It is what, in my view, we do not always, do adequately. We have allowed the Executive, as its role and authority in our nation's affairs has necessarily expanded, to dominate the legislature and thus to narrow the limits of effective parliamentary scrutiny and criticism of its actions.
It is the urgent duty of those of us who are proud to call ourselves House of Commons men to seek to increase the power of Parliament to open further the processes of government to examination by this representative body. That must increasingly include, of course, the process of policy formation. We need to let a little more daylight into what is done in our name.
22
The control of government is at the heart of Parliament. At the heart of government is the correct handling of our country's finances. For centuries the procedures of the House have been constructed around the process for evaluating carefully Government expenditure, Supply, Estimates, the Supplementaries, the Vote on Account, the Consolidated Fund Bill and the Appropriation Bill. We all know the complicated and stately dance through which we go every year, which is designed to see that our constituents' money is not wasted. We also all know that for many decades this process has been largely unproductive—a charade of concern with nothing much to show for it, as contemporary, I would argue, as a stately minuet would be—a fatuous charade, fun but largely pointless.
When was the last time, in the memory of any of us, that the House withheld from the Government money they estimated that they needed? I believe that one has to return to the early 1920s for the period when the House would sometimes force the Government to reduce an Estimate. Those with a keen historical sense, or someone as venerable as the Father of the House, might reflect that in 1919, in a daring foray into the heart of government, its doings and purposes, the House refused money to spend on a second bathroom for the Lord Chancellor, to find that it had already been spent. There has been agreement between all of us on the Back Benches that there is something seriously wrong with our procedures.
Every Parliament has its essence, patina and character. I hope that we, the "class of '79", as it were, will be remembered as a reforming Parliament. We shall be if we deserve to be and if we see through the processes that we have already begun. We started by making the fundamental change of establishing Select Committees to oversee Government Departments and their work on a continuous basis. In addition, we have now created these new opportunities for the House to debate Estimates against a background of Select Committee inquiries and reports. What we are beginning today is due largely to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). I am sure that the whole House would wish to pay a warm tribute to my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on that Committee.
Today is our first opportunity in the Chamber to take advantage of what we have created. There was an earlier opportunity, when some winter Supplementary Estimates were laid before the House, but it was not taken because the Liaison Committee felt that, in the absence of suitable subjects for debate, there was no point in having a debate for the sake of it.
The themes of our debates today are perhaps not dramatic, but the principle underlying them is dramatic. The House has always said that it wants to control Government spending. It has now made such control easier to operate and it must ask itself how sincerely it wants to cut out inefficiency and waste when they are clearly displayed before its eyes.
The debate is a parliamentary occasion of some significance—a historic opportunity, if only on a minor scale. Perhaps most important, it is the precedent for much to come.
I wish to make one point for the record. The Standing Orders of the House provide that three days should be allotted to debate Estimates. I have no doubt that it would be the wish of the Liaison Committee and the House that

23
if only half a day is taken, as it will be on this occasion, the second half of the day should be carried over, so that two and a half days would remain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I believe that that is the understanding and I am grateful for the obvious support for that assertion. I hope that that view will be formally agreed.
We might have three separate debates, one for winter Supplementary Estimates, one for spring Supplementary Estimates and one for the main Estimates. However they are arranged, the total should always be three days. I know that some hon. Members think that the allowance of three days could be expanded with advantage.
The House, which is generous in these matters, will agree that some of the credit for our reforms can properly be given to the Government. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip, both of whom have been sympathetic to the proper desires and wishes of Parliament. This is not a party occasion—there has been as much support on the Opposition side; it is basically a House of Commons matter—but the Government have sensed the feelings of Back Benchers and translated them into our new procedures. I think it proper that, as the first speaker in the debate, I should pay tribute to the Government for that.
I especially draw that point to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Some may be in two minds about whether to support the motions if they are pressed to Divisions. If the arguments today or on any other day, whatever the political complexion of the Government in power, lead us to criticise some aspects of the Government's administration, we shall be doing only what the Government envisaged we should do, and we shall be acting to make good the mistakes of an over-large public service. That is surely in line with the prime policies of this Government and should be in line with the policies of any Government.
There need be no tears in the Whips Office if we make some modest cuts in the Estimates. On the contrary, the episode would, paradoxically, reflect credit on a Government who have not been afraid to seek the help of the House in weeding out instances of inefficiency.
Mr. John Roper: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a vote on such motions should be regarded not as a vote of confidence in the Government but as a decision by the House on a matter of housekeeping?
Mr. du Cann: I agree. Indeed, I would go further and add that there is a strong duty on the broad shoulders of hon. Members to insist at all times on value for money. Their national duties should, and I believe would, always take precedence over party loyalties. In any case, an insistence on value for money should be supportive of a competent Government.
As so often in the House, history is beginning in a small way and in a hurry. By the accident of the timetable, we are having to begin with the spring Supplementary Estimates, and we do so in a year when the fall in the inflation rate has reduced the need for them. In the batch of Estimates that the Select Committee looked at, there was no great scope for major economies, though there may be such scope on future Estimates days.
The hurry has been exacerbated by the early Budget. Hardly four weeks have passed since the Supplementary Estimates were tabled. In that period, they have been
24
examined in Select Committees, evidence has been taken on them, reports have been agreed in the Committees and discussed by the Liaison Committee, the House has accepted a timetable and we are now debating the Estimates.
The procedure has made inordinate demands on all those involved in it and we may have to look at it again, but I think that the House will wish to give credit to all who have made the procedure work against the odds.
The choice of subjects for today's debates was made by the Liaison Committee after full and spirited discussion. It is fair to take account of the fact that a Committee of 23 Chairmen, with immense experience of the House between them, has commended these matters to the close attention of hon. Members.
I start with Class XIII, Vote 23, on which the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service has reported to the House. Her Majesty's Stationery Office is seeking £382,000 because in 1976 and in 1980 it failed to send returns to the Post Office for Hansard deliveries, so that the Post Office did not charge for them. The House may wish to know that the Public Accounts Committee has, on other occasions, expressed anxiety about the HMSO's system of financial controls and hon. Members may think, in the context of this particular piece of neglect, that there is much merit in the general comments of the PAC.
Since the original evidence was taken by the Select Committee, we have had some interesting further evidence from both HMSO and the Post Office. In particular, the Post Office's evidence shows that its auditors criticised the system for charging Government Departments as long ago as 1973–74 and in four of the next six years.
During that period, protracted negotiations were conducted with the Civil Service Department. Agreement was not reached until 1980 and implementation of it was achieved in two tranches, in April 1981 and April 1982.
If people had really got a move on, as they should have done, a new system might have been in operation before 1976, when the first HMSO error occurred, and certainly before 1981, when the second error occurred. In any case, there is something remarkable about the fact that auditors of the Post Office criticised the system of accounting year after year and no action was taken by the Civil Service Department.
Mr. John Garrett: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this Vote to the HMSO is nonsense, now that the office has been set up as a trading fund? The costs should fall on the House of Commons Commission, because they relate to services provided for the House. Under the present arrangements, the accounting officer of the HMSO cannot be held accountable for the costs. Since the services are provided for the House of Commons, the costs should be included in the Estimates of the House of Commons Commission.
Mr. du Cann: The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) takes a keen and continuous interest in these matters. When he intervened, I was about to remark that it is surprising what larger horrors are discovered when a small stone is lifted. The hon. Gentleman's point may have some merit. The matter was discussed by the Treasury Select Committee. The matter is not quite as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests, because House of Lords deliveries are also involved, but it is simple enough. The system was not working properly. The auditors to the

25
Department concerned reported on it several times, but neither that Department nor the Civil Service Department took any action. Furthermore, there was apparently no consultation between the Stationery Office and the sale office before figures were inserted in the Estimate. That shows an unacceptable casualness in the preparation of Estimates presented to the House of Commons.
Lastly, the evidence on this Vote and on the other Vote reported on by the Treasury Select Committee, but not chosen for debate, must lead one to question the effectiveness of the Treasury and its monitoring of HMSO's expenditure, and the way in which Estimates are presented to the House of Commons.
I have explained why we are starting today with a comparatively small Supplementary Estimate. We are also starting, as it may be right that we should, in our own building. The picture that emerges is not painted on a large canvas. There are no broad brush strokes to remind us of Crichel down. This is art on a small scale. It is a perfect miniature of inefficiency, a cameo of incompetence and casualness and of failure to inform the House properly.
This afternoon, not for the first time in this Parliament, Members of Parliament are giving notice that they will no longer be content to be a mere reactive body. We shall not be content to be mere commentators after the event on the already decided proposals of the Government of the day. The balance of authority has for too long tilted too far in favour of the Executive and against the people's elected representatives. We propose to alter that balance and restore an older and constitutionally correct emphasis, and this debate is an earnest of our intention.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me remind the House that this debate cannot last for more than a hour and a half.
3.54 pm
Mr. Michael English: As the senior Labour member of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, I should like to say that I wholly agree with the last words of its Chairman.
I cannot understand why, on so many occasions, simple matters, which would be dealt with fairly speedily in trade unions or in industry, take so long in government. This issue has been with us for more than 13 years. I should like to fill in some of the comments made by the Chairman of the Select Committee.
I shall quote some words given to us by the Clerk to the Committee, after checking with the Departments concerned. He said:
"Following Corporation status in 1969 a Civil Service Department (CSD) Post Office (PO) working party was set up".
In other words, this was not even considered before 1969, when the House was considering whether there should be a Post Office corporation. There had been criticism for many years of the inadequacy of the Post Office accounts, so that it was considered that the Post Office should become a separate corporation. After it was all agreed by Parliament and had happened, the parties concerned finally got down to thinking about the consequences.
We must remember that we are talking about the Civil Service Department. That Department is now almost defunct. Its name was changed to the Management and Personnel Office but it is not abolished. That Department was responsible for efficiency in government. That is the Department that is being criticised. It waited until a
26
separate corporation had been created before it even considered how Government Departments should be charged for deliveries.
Parliament decided that the Post Office should be a separate corporation and it should charge everybody, including Her Majesty's Government and the House of Lords and the House of Commons. In 1969, a
"working party was set up to look at the arrangements for Government Departments' mail." It "concluded that the system was unsatisfactory; negotiations went on for some time, but agreement was not reached on an alternative."
The first criticism must be of the new corporation. I understand that when an organisation suddenly ceases to be a Government Department and becomes a corporation independent of the Government it might not realise that it is autonomous, although it should, and should do something about it. It meekly accepted the Government's view that the Government should not be charged in the same way as everybody else.
The matter has been decided 12 or 13 years after it was first considered. There can hardly be a simpler comment than that about what is basically wrong with our system of government. There cannot be a better illustration of why we are having this debate today. Such a debate has been excluded from our consideration for 50 years.
Without the publicity of error there is no sanction upon inefficiency. Without it the inefficiency goes on. I shall not weary the House about the first lack of decision:
"In 1978–79 a 6 month mat of public posting methods took place in selected Departments."
That experiment was still being tried, when all that was needed was an invoice. Generally in the United Kingdom, if one provides goods or services, one sends an invoice fairly quickly and one hopes that within a month, or within three months at the most, one will be paid. In this case 12 or 13 years later the accounting system was still not agreed. All that was needed in law was to send an invoice.
Although we can vote against the Estimate tonight, that will not worry the Post Office. According to its current accounts, which are available in the Vote Office, last year posts alone made a profit of £91·6 million and National Girobank a profit of £8·2 million. Slightly more than £400,000 will not worry the Post Office.
If, after so many years, an organisation suddenly wakes up to the fact that it should have charged for a service, even when it has discussed the method with the Government for many years, it should suffer the consequences.
4 pm
Mr. Terence Higgins: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) has pointed out, this is the first occasion for a long time that we have had an opportunity to debate a specific Estimate. I hope that the new procedures that have been adopted will enable hon. Members to keep a much tighter grasp on Government expenditure and the manner in which taxpayers' money is expended. I join my right hon. Friend in saying that the reforms put forward and accepted by the Government have been achieved on the basis of Government co-operation. I believe that there was a widespread feeling throughout the House, not only on the Back Benches but also on the Government Front Bench, that there was a need to redress the balance between the Executive and Parliament. I am glad that some progress has been made.

27
I should like to make one or two specific remarks about the procedure itself. It is interesting that, at the end of the day, we can make a specific decision. This contrasts with the debate last week on the public expenditure White Paper when the consequence, even if the Government had been defeated, was that nothing would have happened. The previous Government were defeated in a debate on the Government White Paper. The result was absolutely nothing. It is salutary, therefore, that hon. Members should have the opportunity to debate the Estimates and also specifically to vote on them. We should also be grateful to the Government for arranging these proceedings on a half day.
I am sure that it is the intention that at least three days should be spent on Estimates debates. From time to time, particularly on Supplementary Estimates, it is appropriate that time should be divided and that a half day rather than a full day should sometimes be provided. I should like the Leader of the House to note that the present debate lasts for one and a half hours and that, with another debate on a Foreign Office Estimate to follow, there will be something of a lacuna before we come to a vote. The gap between the debate and the vote is not highly satisfactory. This is an issue to which more attention should be given. I understand that, at the end of the day, there will be votes on all outstanding Votes. When a half day is allocated, there may be a case for making it the second half of our proceedings rather than the first.
The machinery that now exists has worked pretty well on this occasion. It is important that the Select Committee should have the opportunity to examine the Estimates, take evidence on them and then report to the House. It is not likely that debates will be effective without a proper report having been produced and without evidence having been taken on particular items of expenditure that hon. Members are to discuss. It is true that the sums involved today are not great. No one supposes that the debate and the vote will have an enormous effect on the Budget of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor tomorrow. However, it is possible that on future occasions—for example, on the main Estimates—a significant and large sum of money would be involved. That is not the case today. None the less, the Estimate under debate raises some important points of principle.
It is worth hon. Members reminding themselves that the debates we can hold on such Estimates are only for reductions and not for increases on particular items. There are divisions of opinion about this procedure. My own feeling is that it is right that we should maintain the royal prerogative. It is also important that our debates should be genuine and that hon. Members should be concerned to see that the sum of money involved is reduced, or at any rate that the debate should be concerned with whether or not it is reduced, rather than a more general debate on some token reduction. To go along that route would mean rapidly reverting to a situation that existed for many years, when Opposition or Back Bench Members chose a debate on a general subject. We need to confine the debates to the particular Estimate that we are in a position to vote upon.
Mr. Frank Hooley: We are placed in some difficulty today by the action of the Government in putting down a token Supplementary Estimate in
28
relation to the second half of this afternoon's procedures. This has precluded the Select Committee doing what it wished and making a real reduction instead of a token one.
Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There is a distinction between debate on a token Estimate and a token reduction. The latter, it seems to me, presents the real danger to which I have referred. Nevertheless, if the form of the Estimate is such that it is only a token Estimate, it is right and proper that it should be debated, because the House has the opportunity to express a view upon it. This may be increasingly important in the future if some of the evidence that the Select Committee on Procedure has taken into account recently suggests that we should have Estimates that involve massive increases in later years but only a small expenditure in the first year suitably designated. In that case, if we wanted to stop the thing dead in its tracks at the beginning, it would probably be on a token Estimate. There is a distinction between a token Estimate that we can rightly debate and a token reduction, which might merely be a device that the House is employing.
It would be wrong for the Government to regard the result of a vote as a vote of confidence. It is possible that, at some point, there is a dividing line. It could happen that the particular Estimate being debated involved vast sums on which the whole Government economic strategy was at stake. In those circumstances, one can understand that the Government should feel that it is a matter of confidence. Generally speaking, however, I do not envisage that this is likely to be the position. One might also hope that, if the arguments in such debates were persuasive, the Government would decide to withdraw the Supplementary Estimates rather than proceed with them.
Mr. English: It is fair to say, I think, that the Government have not applied a three-line Whip. Is it true, however, that they have put on a two-line Whip?
Mr. Higgins: It is understandable that, at the end of the day, if we are to vote on all the outstanding Votes, the Government have some interest in ensuring that they are passed. I understand that otherwise the entire mass of Government expenditure would come to a sudden halt. That would be a rather undesirable circumstance.
Mr. English: In this case, as I pointed out, the only effect would be that the taxpayer did not pay £414,000 or whatever but that the Post Office would pay it out of £91 million plus £8 million from giro.
Mr. Higgins: My understanding is that there are more Votes at stake at the end of the day than that now under discussion. In any case, the Whip merely says that one should be present rather than instructing hon. Members how to vote. It is perhaps possible on Estimates of this kind to adopt a flexible attitude on the merits of the case. I hope that this is so.
I wish to make some remarks about the form of the Estimates. If we are to have sensible debates and if Select Committees are to be alerted to which Estimates are particularly important, the description of the Estimates is most important. I would not wish to stray out of order, but I believe that the comments of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee on Class XIII, Vote 22, as against Vote 23, gives cause for disquiet. The figure in the 1982 White Paper for that item was shown as £767,000. That was for a 50 per cent. discount. An Estimate was then

29
presented for the same amount of money but only apparently for a per cent. discount applying to those in public libraries and so forth. A revised Estimate then left the sum of money the same but with a 50 per cent. discount. Finally, there was a Supplementary Estimate stating that it was to maintain the 50 per cent. discount.
I am deeply concerned over the manner in which those Estimates were described. It is reasonable for the House to complain about an Estimate that mentioned a 40 per cent. discount, ignoring the fact that it had been 50 per cent. since 1924, with no note at all to say what was going on and lacking any subsequent history on the later amended Estimate and, indeed, the final Supplementary Estimate. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, who is to reply, can give us an assurance that the future description that appears on the Estimates will be more illuminating than that set of descriptions. That is something of the greatest importance, and particularly so as presumably the Treasury Ministers approve the description that appears on the Estimates.
That is not to say that this is not an onerous task to place on Treasury Ministers. They have to look at an enormous range of Estimates, but none the less in this case Class XIII, Vote 22 was clearly an Estimate to which a great deal of ministerial time was devoted, and therefore Ministers were in a good position to know precisely what an accurate description would be of what was going on. I fear that it was not presented in a way that enabled the House to form a clear view of it in the absence of the investigation that could be carried out by a Select Committee under the new proposals.
Class XIII, Vote 23 is related to the charges made for delivering Hansard and House of Commons papers to individual hon. Members. This service has deteriorated considerably in recent years. It used to be the case that the report of the previous day's debate invariably arrived on one's doorstep with the first post and before one resumed one's duties in the House. That is almost invariably not the case now, even in London, and we need to consider whether we are getting the service for which we are paying—or, rather, for which we are not paying. That is a particular aspect of the problem.
Another point is that the Supplementary Estimate is not based on hard facts. It appears to be a negotiated settlement between the Government and the Stationery Office. When dealing with taxpayers' money, that must give one cause for concern. The whole problem goes back, as has been pointed out, to 1976, which is a long time. I am not clear to what extent the Post Office has a claim at this late stage. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister could tell us whether this is something that we are doing out of the goodness of our hearts rather than because there is any legal obligation for the Government to meet the bill that the Post Office has at long last presented.
A further point is that we have been told that it is not only the £325,000 that is now being asked, following negotiations, but that there may be a further sum for value added tax. The House needs to know whether this is simply to be rolled up in this Estimate or whether some further Supplementary is to be presented. At all events, this raises a difficult question as to who has not been accounting to the Customs and Excise for the VAT that should have been charged and has not been charged. I know that there are severe penalties for not completing the VAT form in the correct way. It would be wrong if the
30
Government were not to fill up forms and meet the VAT requirements in the way that everybody else is obliged to do.
A point of considerable general principle needs to be clarified. Some of these services are said to be demand-determined—that is to say, it is impossible to estimate precisely what the cost will be because the demand for the particular service may vary. Generally speaking, that expression has been used in relation to social security benefits, pensions and so on. It is purely a cash figure. It has not been used in relation to something for which both a price and a quantity are involved. We seem to be in an odd position over the Estimate. We are told that it is cash-limited but at the same time that it is apparently something in which the sum involved is demand-determined. This is an important point of principle; one cannot have both those things going on at the same time.
Auditors have already been mentioned, and the Treasury Committee has not been provided with additional information, in particular the letters from the auditors that were sent following their audits each year. It is obvious from that that over the years the auditors have complained about the way in which the Post Office and the Stationery Office have dealt with their accounts, yet nothing has been done. In the last management letter, dated 1980, the auditors say that they hope they will be kept up with developments. This debate should do that.
However, it would seem that the auditors, while their management complains about the system, make no complaint about the fact that the money had not been demanded and paid. One understands that in the context of normal accounting procedures this is not said to be something that is material, given the overall size of the Post Office operation. None the less, if money were due and had not been paid, that was something on which the auditors should at least have commented. Even if the auditors did not qualify the accounts, they should have brought the matter to the attention of those concerned. This also makes a strong case for the Parliamentary Control of Expenditure (Reform) Bill, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), because if the Comptroller and Auditor General had been more actively involved, it seems likely that this point might have come up in the course of discussions on the accounts of the Stationery Office and the Post Office.
However, we are looking at the overall picture, which gives us considerable cause for concern and raises many points of principle. It suggests that the control that has been exercised by the Treasury in this context has not been adequate. In particular, the way in which the Estimate has been formulated has apparently been carried out without proper consultation with the Deliverer of the Vote, who is in the best position to know what the Estimate should be.
The issue raises important points that need to be answered by the Government. I hope that this will provide an opportunity for the Minister to reply, and that we shall have other opportunities on future occasions to look at the Estimates more precisely and with greater knowledge, provided by the Select Committee on Procedure, than has been the case in the past.
4.17 pm
Mr. Arthur Bottomley: I should not have intervened in the debate had it not been for the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich,

31
South (Mr. Garrett) that responsibility for the Estimates should be that of the House of Commons Commission. I have heard it said that if this Supplementary Estimate had been the responsibility of the Commission, the errors reported might not have occurred. That may be true, but it does not justify changing the whole system. The Commission is responsible for policy and assists in initiating demands for papers. That is a fact, and it cannot be ignored. For this reason, the Commission has considered whether it should accept responsibility. However, the Commission does not control the demands of Parliament any more than Her Majesty's Stationery Office does. It has no control over the combined activities of Members of Parliament, whether on questions, motions or amendments. The demands of Members of Parliament must be met. It is no good telling hon. Members that we do not have the money to pay for their demands. In many ways, we are in the same position as the Stationery Office.
Since the early 19th century, the Stationery Office has been responsible for this and, therefore, it has great expertise. It is by no means sure that if the Commission took over the responsibility, it would not have to go to the Stationery Office continually to use its expertise and to get its guidance. In some ways, this would generate more, not less, work.
Mr. English: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be too defensive. This matter began before the Commission was created and is simply a case of the old Civil Service Department, now the Management and Personnel Office, responsible for efficiency in government, resisting being charged the costs of what it received.
Mr. Bottomley: I am aware of that. I am suggesting that the House of Commons Commission should not accept the responsibility. However, that is not my final word, because the House of Commons Commission has asked the Officers of the House to look at the proposition and to give their views as to whether it would involve higher costs and probably less efficient service. When the Commission receives that guidance, it will give further consideration to the proposition. I have looked at it carefully and, in my view, it would not improve parliamentary service if we took away from Her Majesty's Stationery Office the responsibility for looking after affairs and for this Estimate.
4.20 pm
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: It is extremely rare for an hon. Member to be able to say sincerely that he agrees with all that has been said so far in a debate. Indeed, it might be rather ominous if anyone did so because that would probably mean that everyone was wrong.
Class VIII, Vote 23 involves a large sum of money. It seems a small sum relative to the other amounts set out in the Estimates. However, to anyone in the business world, £400,000 is a large sum of money, wherever it arises. We should not describe such a sum as peanuts. If it is peanuts, it is an awful lot of peanuts.
The whole flavour of the inquiry is that here was a rather lazy, hazy way of running a business. I can almost hear the clinking of cups and the civilised chat before people trotted off to perform far more important tasks involving decisions about who was to get promoted and
32
who was not. This sort of procedure is a disgrace. There is no getting away from it. It has been going on since 1969 with a series of civilised chats between perfectly nice people. It is quite disgraceful
We start in 1969. The CSD, or the Post Office, did not like the arrangement. So the talks rumbled on. No agreement was reached. Nothing was done. If anyone is not required to make a profit and his job is not at stake, it is always so much easier to let matters run on. It is so much more civilised to approach them in that way, even if it is so much more costly to the taxpayer.
It took about another three years before the Post Office said "Let us have another little go, shall we?" The Post Office wrote to the CSD expressing its views. At the end of 1973, after many more months had passed, a further working party was set up. The Civil Service seems to set up working parties for the same reason that the Government set up Royal Commissions: it avoids the necessity to make a decision.
Further strong representations were made, though not in the same year and not even the next year but in 1976. I do not know what is meant by "strong representations". I suspect that it refers more to slapped wrists than to writs.
We arrive at 1977, when trials and samples were made. Then another joint working party was set up, not in 1977, 1978 or 1979, but in 1980, and at long last a decision was taken.
As the Select Committee's report points out, it gives cause for grave concern. I usually find that if a business mistake is brought to my attention, especially a small one, and one lifts the stone of that small mistake, there is some larger mistake lurking beneath it.
The Post Office is meant to have on its staff 22 members of accountancy bodies, 14 graduates of accountancy bodies, 50 employees who are undertaking qualifications, and so on. Whoever is responsible for this error must realise that it is not a minor one. It is a major error. No one must be allowed to get away with the idea that £400,000 is a minor matter. One of the great problems when dealing with the affairs of big companies, Government Departments or huge organisations, such as the Post Office, is that an error of this magnitude represents only a very small sum of money as a percentage of the whole. However it is looked at, it is a lot of money.
The Post Office is supposed to have received the accountants' award for its accounts. That says a lot for the people who do the judging.
Mr. English: Was the accountants' award given by Touche Ross, the auditors concerned?
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I think that it was given by people who themselves had made mistakes in the past, on the basis of Buggins' turn for the award.
Mr. du Cann: I am in a position to help my hon. Friend. There is now an annual competition organised by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, and thoroughly meritorious it is. Accounts in the public sector are judged for their presentational style. There is no doubt that the Post Office deserved to win an award for its presentational style. However, my hon. Friend is saying that style is not everything.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I agree with my right hon. Friend. I have often found that the more glossy the cover, the more horrid the facts inside.

33
There is no doubt that £400,000 is a comparatively small sum by Government standards. If the House of Commons can show that under the new set-up we can spend one and a half hours of our time considering this issue, I hope that, above all, it will be a shot across the bows of all those who think that, because they are in a state enterprise or a Government Department, they can go on in a lazy, hazy way because there is no fear of the "push". Business efficiency is achieved when people, in the end, are answerable. If they have not a good answer, they go or are penalised. If Government Departments and these great corporations adopted the same attitude, there would be some unhappy people in the short term and some greatly 'more efficient organisations in the long term.
4.26 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I wish to lend support to the arguments advanced by my right hon. Friends the Members for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and the observations of Opposition Members on these Supplementary Estimates. I take up the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) because, in my view, accountability assumes that there shall be some form of demonstrable accountability.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has read the Select Committee's report carefully. I shall be interested to hear what measures he has taken to discipline the people involved in this continuing—it is not an odd or irregular occurrence—default of duty.
I draw my hon. Friend's attention to two parts of the Select Committee's report. The first occurred during questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing. He asked the financial planning officer of the Post Office who were the auditors. He was told that they were Touche Ross. My right hon. Friend's next question was:
"Have they offered any explanation as to how it was they did not discover what is now apparent?"
Mr. Wilde. representing the Post Office, replied:
"Under the original methods for calculating government department postal charges, Touche Ross had been very critical for many years of our methods of raising charges to government departments."
A little later, the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) asked Mr. Wilde:
"Have these observations of Touche Ross been incorporated in the auditor's management letter when they report to management on the audit or have they been strictly verbal observations only?"
Mr. Wilde replied, with candour:
"They have been in the management letters in previous years."
It is not as though one is ignorant. It is not as though one did not have warning that something was very unsatisfactory.
I also draw my hon. Friend's attention to the conclusion of the Select Committee's report:
"On the basis of what we have found in examining these two Supplementary Estimates, we feel bound to record our unease about the quality of financial control exercised by the Stationery Office. We note in this context that in two recent Sessions the Committee of Public Accounts, examining on a wider front, have drawn attention to problems with HMSO's management accounting system. The evidence on both Votes also leads us to question the effectiveness of the Treasury in monitoring HMSO's expenditure and performance and in presenting proper Estimates to the House."
Mr. Higgins: Does my hon. Friend agree that although the management letters draw attention over many years to the deficiency in the system, they do not draw attention to the fact that the money has not been collected?
Mr. Shepherd: One is always hesitant to criticise major accounting firms, but the information given by such firms is often inadequate for the proper supervision of companies.
I was speaking about the conclusion of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's report. It is a very damning statement. The Select Committee's observations bear out the anxieties of the Public Accounts Committee. I therefore press my hon. Friend the Minister on the following matters. What disciplinary steps have been taken? Have any officials been reprimanded? If so, has it represented merely a pause hi their careers? Has it interrupted their careers at all? Has the Minister demonstrated the urgency with which he treats what can only be called incompetence and casualness of the first order, and have the officials concerned been reduced in status or standing? If we raise these questions on the Floor of the House, it is important to demonstrate the accountability of our democratic system by taking action at the point where good examples can be set. If the Minister, who, after all, is responsible to this House, cannot carry out injunctions to ensure that his staff and the great bureaucracy down the line who fail in their duties are held accountable, he should suffer the fate that he should insist is meted out to his officials down the line.
4.31 pm
Mr. Charles R. Morris: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate, mindful that it is a parliamentary innovation. I am sure that the House as a whole appreciates the actions of the Liaison Committee and the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in identifying these two items for consideration.
The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) was right to preface the debate with the historical background giving hon. Members the authority to analyse financial estimates and bring the Executive to account for the disbursement of public funds. Right hon. and hon. Members of this House have a duty and an obligation to be vigilant in examining expenditure and in eliminating waste. On that basis, I shall consider the two Votes now before us..
Vote 22 refers to the anticipated shortfall of £393,000 to compensate Her Majesty's Stationery Office trading fund for the losses that it would otherwise have sustained through providing public libraries with copies of parliamentary debates and other publications at a discount of 50 per cent. I understand that Ministers wish to examine the options of continuing the discount at 50 per cent. or rethinking and lowering that discount to 40 per cent. However, one cannot justify in any form the manner in which the Estimates were presented on three occasions with precisely the same figure and with no reference to the exercise of options that Ministers were considering. This discount, which is now running at an annual sum of over £1 million, and which, as both sides acknowledge., is demand-related, should be seriously examined. Ministers should explain why, in questions on 8 February, if there was no conspiracy to mislead the House, there was in my view a conscious intention to conceal the fact that there

35
had been any concern as to whether the matter of the 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. discount on these publications should be re-examined. Ministers should account for that element of concealment.
I shall say a brief word about Vote 23. There are two elements in this additional expenditure—£245,000 for deliveries of Hansard to Members of the other place, and £137,000 for deliveries of Hansard to Members of this House.
Mr. English: Much less.
Mr. Morris: These items reveal that the people who are responsible for financial control in both Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Post Office entirely failed on two occasions to spot the resulting distortions in their financial accounts. No one expects infallibility of any institution, but for the same mistake to occur on two occasions projects a picture of muddled accountancy and financial incompetence of a rather unusual nature in the public services.
I hope that the Minister will comment on the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) that this expenditure should properly come under the House of Commons Commission. I noted the contribution of a distinguished member of the House of Commons Commission, my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley), who was not in favour of such expenditure coming under the House of Commons Commission. In my view, we are talking about a service that is provided for the House, and financially and properly it should come under the Commission. However, I noted my right hon. Friend's comment that Officers of the House are examining that matter.
I was encouraged to learn from the report that the Services Committee is looking critically at the justification for the continuance of this rather expensive service to ensure first-post delivery of the previous day's Hansard. Can we continue to justify that expensive service? All right hon. and hon. Members recognise that the delivery is not as efficient as it was. Communication in this House has improved tremendously, and one is bound to question whether Members of both Houses really need delivery of the previous day's Hansard before 9.30 in the morning. Certainly, it should be done in response to an individual application, if that can be justified, but I question whether the public at large would endorse that expensive provision, bearing in mind that facilities in this House are currently running at £6·5 million.
Mr. English: As it does not happen, and as it is always delivered before 9.30 on the subsequent day, why worry?
Mr. Morris: No doubt my hon. Friend's point will be noted by the Post Office authorities.
I endorse the contribution of the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), with one reservation. He said that if we vote against the Estimate the Post Office might be able to carry the burden—the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; perhaps it was my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). As I understand it, if the House rejects the Supplementary Estimate it will not be the Post Office which has to carry the financial burden but Her Majesty's Stationery Office trading fund, bearing in mind that there has been a
36
negotiated settlement of the Post Office's claim. In those circumstances I hope that the Minister of State will explain the consequences of a rejection of the Estimate.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Does the right hon. Gentleman's party, of which he is a disinguished representative, believe that disciplinary action should follow as a consequence of the reports of the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee?
Mr. Morris: Every senior civil servant is adequately paid for the responsibilities that they shoulder and will be subject to the action of their superiors.
4.41 pm
The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I am glad to be taking part in what is something of a historic occasion for the House of Commons. For the first time for many years the attention of the House is focused on the details of the Government's expenditure plans as embodied in the Estimates in substance as well as in form. In future, when the Order Paper says that the House is discussing Estimates, that will be exactly what we shall be doing. That has never happened in the 12 to 13 years that I have been in the House and I suspect that not a single hon. Member can remember when that happened.
When we discussed the new Standing Orders last July my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) described these changes as a major reassertion of parliamentary power in relation to the Executive. He and I recognise that time will tell whether that proves to be so or not but it is an important step in making the parliamentary procedures for expenditure control more effective. As a House of Commons man I welcome this step although I must confess that I had not expected to find myself on the receiving end of it as a Treasury Minister quite so quickly.
I should like to add my tribute to my right hon. Friend and the members of his Committee on whose work the new procedure is based. It represents a further step in the continuing development of the departmental Select Committees that were established in 1979. Their reports and the developing expertise that underlines them will be important both in selecting the topics for debates on Estimates days and in enhancing the quality of the debate on them. On this occasion the House is much indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and his Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee as well as to him in his position as Chairman of the Liaison Committee, and to the Chairman and members of the Foreign Affairs Committee for their reports. That is particularly so as those reports had to be produced at short notice because of the inevitable time constraints on the spring Supplementary Estimates. Both the Committee members and the witnesses who appeared before them at short notice are to be commended on what they have done.
In dealing with the specific issues that concern the Stationery Office I want to say a word about the background of its financial regime, which, the House will know, was turned into a trading fund three years ago on 1 April 1980. It now operates on a broadly commercial basis and has no monopoly in its market. Since April 1982 Government Departments have been free to buy supplies

37
elsewhere if they can strike better bargains by so doing. Her Majesty's Stationery Office has responded well to the challenge of operating commercially. Uneconomic operations have been progressively and resolutely discarded and resource costs have been rigidly controlled to the extent that the staff has been reduced from 6,000 to 4,500 in the past two years.
Her Majesty's Stationery Office trading fund has met its financial targets. In 1981–82, the last full year, on a turnover of £251 million it earned a 7·3 per cent. return on capital in current cost accounting terms. In 1982–83 it is on course for a better result. The House will wish to note those results and commend the management, work force and trade unions on their achievement.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Do the figures include the enormous increase in costs of all HMSO publications, in which area it has a monopoly? As a user, I should have thought that any fool could make a profit if he could put his prices up every other week.
Mr. Hayhoe: While that is an important area of HMSO's operations it is by no means a dominant one. HMSO is concerned with making supplies to Government Departments but the increase in costs is as a result of imposing upon it the duty to run itself commercially as a trading fund. The high prices that are charged for small publications are the result of Parliament saying that they must be published. No normal publishing house would produce them, because there is insufficient demand and it is uneconomic to hold them in stock for many years. I can assure my hon. Friend that if he considers the matter carefully he will find that in recent years HMSO has conducted itself in a broadly commercial way, although not entirely so because it remains a public service. Nevertheless, all concerned should be commended.
The House will appreciate that by far the greater part of HMSO operations are financed by the trading fund but the activities covered by this Supplementary Estimate are handled separately. Before the trading fund was established, they were provided by the Stationery Office to Parliament on what was called an allied services basis—they were free of charge to the House of Commons. While other Government Departments now have to pay the trading fund for such services from their Votes, Parliament has remained an exception to that rule. The Stationery Office retains responsibility for the Vote and reimburses the trading fund for the cost of the service to Parliament. The difficulty that is illustrated in the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee report is related to this Vote and to those arrangements.
The debate has been mainly concerned with Vote 23, the Supplementary Estimate with which we are dealing, but reference has been made to Vote 22, which also formed an important part of the Select Committee's report. Without going into the details of that aspect, looking back over what has happened I am sure that several things should have been done differently. An opportunity should have been taken, perhaps by a written question, to describe the changes that were being made. It was unfortunate that the recent Supplementary Esitmate did not give a full explanation, but I can assure the House that those lessons have now been well learnt and arrangements for meeting the full cost of the discount have been improved. The full extent of the subsidy, while it continues in its present form, will in future be shown on this Vote.
38
Vote 23 of the Supplementary Estimates covers two points. The largest sum Of money involved is £374,000 that results from payments to the Post Office for the early morning delivery of Hansard to Members of both Houses within the London postal area. The larger amount is a result of the payments that ought to have been made. Of the £374,000, £325,000 is the negotiated sum between the Post Office and HMSO. The VAT liability is £49,000, which becomes payable as soon as these charges are made. The background is set out clearly in the Committee's report.
Mr. Higgins: Should not the amount for value added tax have been accounted to the Customs and Excise a considerable time ago? If the bill had been properly presented and proper payment made, surely the VAT ought to have been paid at that time. It has not been paid only because the bill was not properly presented.
Mr. Hayhoe: My right hon. Friend is right. If the payments had been made, the VAT would have been paid. Since the payments were not made, the VAT was not paid. The invoices were not raised. Under the existing arrangements, records of the weights of material dispatched should have been notified by the Stationery Office to the Post Office, which would then have billed HMSO accordingly. This arrangement went wrong initially when a switch in printing arrangements was raade for the Lords Hansard in 1976. That error continued each year—it was not a discrete error—in that no notification was made of the weights of the material dispatched. When the change in printing arrangements was made in 1981 for the Commons Hansard, the record of the weights was not given. Neither the HMSO nor the Post Office discovered the error at the time. The errors came to light during the course of discussions arising from the changes to public posting methods in 1982, when the Post Office raised the question of the payments it should have received.
Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman is being over-fair to his Department, now known as the Management and Personnel Office, formerly the CSD.
Mr. Hayhoe: I shall deal with that in a moment.
Mr. English: This matter was first raised in 1969.
Mr. Hayhoe: The long delays in establishing public posting methods—those were the discussions that were referred to between the Post Office and the Civil Sevice Department—were concerned not primarily with the way in which payments were made for Hansard but with official paid envelopes being used throughout the Civil Service. Those discussions went on for a considerable time. Although it is linked with the matter the House is debating, it is a somewhat separate issue. The introduction of public posting methods is a subject that ought to be investigated. This state of affairs, as has been said on both sides of the House, continued for a long time. This Government brought it to a conclusion and brought in these methods. They are for the general convenience of all concerned, and improve the, value for money aspects of Government use of those postal services. I express my regret to the House, both as Treasury Minister and as the Minister responsible for the HMSO, for the error that occurred. I assure the House that the necessary corrective action has been taken to ensure that proper invoicing is carried out in future.
Mr. Richard Shepherd rose—
Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) asked whether any personnel have been subjected to disciplinary action. I presume that he is thinking of the Post Office and HMSO. I do not have that information available. I shall inquire into it and write to my hon. Friend, but I am not responsible for the Post Office.
Mr. Shepherd: Where does my hon. Friend's responsibility lie? In view of the serious reprimand which is expressed in the Treasury Committee's report, and in view of the observations of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) on behalf of the Opposition, could not my hon. Friend have expressed his position better, having been given some time to reflect on the lessons from this report, as to why disciplinary action has not been set in train? It undermines public confidence in the control of the House over expenditure.
Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend is drawing an unwarranted conclusion. I have not commented as to whether disciplinary action has been set in train. I do not have that information available. I wish to give my hon. Friend correct and adequate information, and that I will do.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing asked about the liability of HMSO to meet these charges, which had not been called for at the appropriate time by the Post Office. The Post Office did not ask for its bills to be paid, so was there a liability? The legal advice that was taken and available from the Treasury solicitor was that the Post Office claim was valid.
For the Stationery Office to be involved in the administrative and financial details of the delivery of Hansard is a curious legacy as it is the concern of the House authorities and the Post Office. A logical case can be made for the House authorities to hold full financial responsibility. I trust this matter will be examined by those principally involved. I noted the interventions by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley), who is a distinguished member of the House of Commons Commission. Hon. Members need to re-examine where the precise responsibility should lie.
Questions have been raised about the delays in the delivery of Hansard.
Mr. Higgins rose—
Mr. Hayhoe: I wish to continue because several points have been raised and I am under a time constraint. The Post Office and HMSO introduced new arrangements last summer to speed up the delivery of Hansard to hon. Members living in the London area. The Committee's proceedings have revealed that these are not working as they should in that some Members are not receiving their Hansard properly.
The agreement between HMSO and the Post Office is quite clear. Provided copies are ready for collection from the Hansard Press by 6.30 am they will be delivered to hon. Members in London numbered postal districts before 9.30 am. A check of the Hansard Press two weeks ago revealed that on 45 out of 46 occasions copies had been ready for collection at 6.30 am. Apart from statements made by hon. Members during the hearing of the evidence, neither the HMSO nor the Post Office had any knowledge that copies were not arriving promptly. The Post Office
40
has carried out an urgent review of vehicle scheduling. In addition, it is prepared to undertake special individual checks of deliveries to any hon. Member who notifies the Post Office of service failure. The chairman of the Post Office, Mr. Ron Dearing, has intervened to ensure that the delivery arrangements are closely monitored so as to give hon. Members the early morning service in London to which they are entitled.
The second aspect of the Treasury Committee's report referred to a shortfall of £40,000 in the appropriations in aid because of inaccurate estimates of the sales from the House of Commons Sales Office to members of the public. Receipts during the course of the year were well down on what was forecast when the original Estimate was prepared. I apologise for the error. Proper consultation with the staff of the House of Commons Sales Office did not take place. That has now been put right for the future. The informal consultations that took place with the Sales Office staff on the trends of actual receipts during the year will now be formalised and extended to seek information on longer-term trends for Estimate purposes. However, the House will recognise that it is difficult to forecast the extent of parliamentary business and public interest in it, and even the most informed estimate may prove somewhat unreliable. However, the latest advice of House officials is that the outturn for 1982–83 should be very close to the figure in the Supplementary Estimate.
In its conclusion, the Committee recorded its unease about the quality of financial control exercised by the Stationery Office. That issue was referred to in strong terms by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton. Undoubtedly, serious mistakes were made, but it is only fair to add that HMSO has made considerable progress in overcoming the inadequacies in its management accounting system, to which the Public Accounts Committee drew attention two years ago. It has been running as a trading fund for only three years. Pressures have been exerted throughout the whole organisation, and the trading fund's circumstances together with the comprehensive and modern planning and control mechanisms that are now in operation will ensure much greater accuracy.
The Committee also questioned the Treasury's scrutiny of the estimate. I accept that more care might have been devoted to the original scrutiny of Main Estimates. However, the figures did not appear unreasonable in the circumstances prevailing and, even with hindsight, there seems to be no clear basis on which they should have been queried by the Treasury. Therefore, I hope that the House will not reject this Supplementary Estimate.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: Can the hon. Gentleman comment on the absence of professionally qualified accountants at HMSO?
Mr. Hayhoe: The arrangements now in place will avoid such difficulty in future. I have tried to explain that when a change was made about the printing in 1976, an error was made that was then carried forward year after year. Given the explanations that I have offered, I hope that the House will approve the Supplementary Estimate. If it does not, the shortfall will have to be borne by the Stationery Office trading fund. Although I have acknowledged that HMSO has made mistakes, others made mistakes too, and it seems unfair that the cost penalty should be placed completely on the trading fund.

41
I hope that the House will also take account of the difficulties faced by HMSO as a result of the way in which its capital structure was determined, and will remember the sympathetic comments made by the PAC in its 30th report, which was published last November. Given all those factors, I hope that the House will agree to the Estimate. If the House does not approve the Estimate, I am advised that the automatic consequence is that £400,000 or so will have to come out of HMSO's trading fund. In all the circumstances, that is unreasonable. It would be a sharp discouragement to the trade unions, the work force and the management, who have been working well in the new, commercially orientated trading fund regime. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree the Estimate.
Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How on earth can a Crown corporation claim against the Crown? If the Post Office does not ask for the money, why should it expect the money to be paid by another Crown corporation?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The Minister has heard the hon. Gentleman's contribution, and I am sure that he will act accordingly.
The debate having continued for one and a half hours, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to the Resolution [8 March].
Question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (2)(c) of Standing Order No. 18A (Consideration of Estimates).

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
Class II, Vote 10, Overseas Aid
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

  Turks and Caicos Islands (Development)
  [Relevant document: Foreign Affairs Committee Second Report, Turks and Caicos Islands: Airport Development on Providenciales, House of Cotntnons Paper 112, Session 1982–83.]
  5.4 pm
  The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): I beg to move,
  That a further Supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1983 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Overseas Development Administration) on the official United Kingdom aid programme including pensions and allowances in respect of overseas Service, assistance to certain refugee students, grants in aid, certain subscriptions to international organisations and certain payments under the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship plan.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw). I remind the House that the debate will end at 6.34 pm.
  Mr. Raison: I should make it clear to the House that this debate has arisen from the decision of the Liaison Committee in its report of last Thursday, in which it recommended that the debate should be limited to the question of airport development on Providenciales in the Turks and Caicos Islands.
  With the permission of the House, I shall respond to the debate at its conclusion.
  5.6 pm
  Sir Anthony Kershaw: I beg to move,
  That Class II, Vote 10, be reduced by £500 in respect of Subhead C3(6) (Budgetary aid to Turks and Caicos).
  Other hon. Members have called attention to the significance of this debate and have expressed our general thanks to those responsible—the Government and the Committees of the House, in particular those of my right hon. Friends the Members for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).
  To some extent the House is resuming its ancient right to scruntinise expenditure. However, perhaps it is apposite to remark that it has not been all that easy to find subjects to debate. Contrary to olden times, the House usually urges the Government to spend more, not less. However, there are two items before us that involve less expenditure. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and I decided to table an amendment and we consulted those who know about such things. We received conflicting advice about whether it would be suitable. However, we tabled it to identify precisely, and if necessary to vote about, this subject. I know that the debate is limited in time, but if it were to come to a Division—I do not say that it will—we would have to vote against the whole Estimate. In general, we do not want to do that and want only to call attention to this item.
  I have one quibble with the procedure being followed today. The amendment seeks a token reduction of £500 in the spring Supplementary Estimate for overseas aid, merely because the total Supplementary Estimate sought

  43
  by the Government is itself only a token amount of £1,000. This token amount disguises increases in individual provisions in the Vote of more that £149 million, most of which is to be paid for by transfers from the very large unallocated portion of the overseas aid Vote.
  This way of presenting the Supplementary Estimates probably has considerable merit in the case of overseas aid, where detailed requirements for aid expenditure may not become clear until the financial year is well under way. But it has made our task more difficult in clearly identifying the reduction in the Estimates which we believe may be justified as a result of our inquiries. Our original wish was to put down an amendment which would seek to reduce subhead C3 of the vote by about £50,000, which would be close to the total sum sought for support for the budget of the Turks and Caicos Islands Government: this would have been preferable to the token sum that we are compelled to propose by the terms of the motion.
  Therefore, I urge the Government to find some means in future of presenting their expenditure requirements in such a form as to allow Members and Committees, if they wish, to propose real reductions and not merely token reductions; otherwise we shall find our proceedings under the new system retaining some of the artificiality of the old Supply procedure, which contributed to the collapse of that procedure.
  The hon. Member for Heeley, who presides over the Sub-Committee with such distinction, will be able to explain the matter to the House if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He has the detail of the report much more at his command than has anyone else. However, I shall permit myself some general observations on the report.
  It is known that the proposal to help the Turks and Caicos Islands involves the expenditure of about £5 million to put a holiday village into Providenciales, one of the islands in the group. The village is to be built by the Club Mediterranee.
  The Turks and Caicos Islands, with a population of 7,500, have—or had—two basic industries. One is salt, which has been rather superseded by other methods, and the other is fish. For some time, it has been received wisdom in Government circles that it would be very easy to overfish the resources there. I know that some reports are rather more optimistic, but I do not think that the fishing industry there can be pursued too far with advantage. If that is so, the only other resource that the Turks and Caicos Islands have—they share it with many other places in that part of the world—is sun, sea and sand. Therefore, one's mind obviously turns to tourism.
  Experience has shown that tourism must have certain characteristics before it is of real value to the place concerned. It must not place too great demands upon the infrastructure of the island or the locality. It must use, as far as is possible, local resources such as agriculture and food. It must not be too conspicuously different from local conditions and the level of life. When poor people see rich foreigners driving about in expensive cars, they do not relish what they see, and envy is aroused.
  Tourism must not be too big for the area in which it is to be developed. It must not overwhelm the area in size or volume of activity. It must provide employment for local people; otherwise there is hardly any reason for it
  44
  from their point of view. It must provide revenue for the Government 0f the country concerned. I am afraid that the scheme before the House failed on all those grounds.
  I was rather appalled when I saw the Sub-Committee's report. It showed that the financial estimates had in some cases been hundreds of per cent. out. Only one estimate was near the original one. Some information had been withheld. Expert information had not been made available to those who had to take decisions.
  In particular, the Club Mediterranee had undertaken by contract to be in operation by the end of 1982. So far, nothing whatever has been built and there is no sign of any activity. The new international airport is very nearly completed and the roads are there, but there is no sign of the Club Mediterranee. Therefore, the proposed development has been badly planned and badly executed, and the House ought to have its attention drawn to what is proposed.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. Frank Hooley: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Stroud, (Sir A. Kershaw) for the terms in which he has moved the amendment. I am glad that we have an opportunity, under the new procedure, to debate the issue, which is very important in general developmental terms, quite apart from the specific things that have gone wrong.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, the Turks and Caicos Islands are a small group of islands in the Caribbean, with a population of about 7,500 people. They already enjoy the benefit of two international airports. In 1980, the Overseas Development Administration came to the astonishing conclusion that a third airport was necessary. It proposed to put it on the tiny island of Providenciales, which has fewer than 1,000 people living there, and on which at that time—the position is probably the same today—there was no unemployment; in fact, according to the evidence to the Select Committee, there was a labour shortage.
  Why did the ODA come to the astonishing decision to attract a multinational company, Club Mediterranee, which said that it was ready to build a tourist centre—it called it a vacation village—that would house more tourists than the total adult population of the island on which it was to be built? What exactly was the origin of that peculiar decision? According to the evidence given to the Committee, it was
  "in response to an approach by private developers resident on Providenciales and a request by the Turks and Caicos Islands Government."
  It was in response to an approach by private developers that the Club Mediterranee came to that little island in the West Indies. The House is entitled to know a little more about who those private developers were and what their motives were. At any rate, that was the reason why the representative of the Club Mediterranee went to Providenciales in June 1979 to survey the ground for its vacation village.
  The club decided that it would build the vacation village on the following conditions: that an international airport be built from public funds; that an access road be built between the vacation village and the airport from public funds; that there be a supply of electricity and water for the village from public funds—although that was slightly modified later. The next requirement was that the club be granted exemption from all taxes on profits, gains

  45
  or turnover, property tax, capital levies or other capital taxes for 20 years. That was an astonishing proposition, even though we know that tax-free regimes abound in the Caribbean area.
  To be fair to the Turks and Caicos Government, who were partly involved in, but not solely responsible for, the negotiations, they pointed out to Club Mediterranee that the island already possessed two international airports. They suggested to the multinational company "Certainly, we would welcome your activities, but why not go where an airport already exists?" The club replied that it was not interested in that proposal, that the village must be built on Providenciales, that a third airport must be built, and that the club would not finance it. The club asked that it be financed out of public funds. I think that the club assumed at the time that the public funds might come from the European development fund, as a possible alternative to the British taxpayer financing it. The club had the option of going elsewhere; it refused it, and insisted upon going to that tiny island. It also insisted on an extraordinary expenditure of public funds to enable it to do so.
  Sir Neil Marten: For the record, it should be said that it was an extension to an existing airfield.
  Mr. Hooley: The existing airport was a very tiny facility, which could take only light aircraft. The club wanted an airport of international calibre, capable of taking large jets, carrying 200 or perhaps 300 tourists at a time. It cannot be contended that such an airport already existed. This was a major operation, at a cost of about £5 million, from public money.
  What is truly astonishing is not that the company made these demands—that is not surprising if it thought that it could get away with them—but that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office accepted them. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office undertook to build the airport and the access roads, to provide the water and electricity and to give the tax concessions that are built into the agreement that was eventually made, despite the fact that there was no proper tourist development policy for the islands, no proper development of alternatives such as fisheries, and no balanced development strategy for the islands. Yet the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was prepared to accept the proposition that £5 million of public money should be put into this tiny community for the benefit of a multinational company which wanted to develop tourism for its own benefit.
  In some ways a more disagreeable aspect of the matter was the internal faultiness of the procedures in the Ministry itself. Figures produced by independent consultants who had gone out to Providenciales to study the position on the ground and had produced careful calculations of the recurrent and capital costs of the scheme were never presented either to the Minister when the decision came to be made or to the committee within the Overseas Development Administration.
  I shall quote from the Select Committee report of July 1981, as the internal administration of the ODA is an important issue. It says:
  "Not only was the decision by the ODA to reduce the consultants' estimates of social infrastructure by over two-thirds not mentioned in the Project Committee submission: it was not known to senior FCO/ODA officials responsible for the project. It was not even clear to the Senior Economic Adviser when he first appeared before the Sub-Committee to give evidence … It was only when the Sub-Committee asked for a detailed breakdown of the economic and financial analysis of the project
  46
  that it became clear that the capital and recurrent costs which were actually used by ODA in the economic and financial appraisal were about one-third of the level of the consultants' estimates."
  In other words, someone within the ODA deliberately fiddled the figures to persuade the relevant committee and the Minister to embark on a project which could not give any real financial return. In case anyone says that I am exaggerating, I must say in all honesty that the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir N. Marten), who was Minister at the time, formally apologised to the Select Committee for the fact that misleading figures had been given. It says something when a senior official at the Department appeared before the Select Committee and gave the wrong set of figures without even knowing at the time that they were the wrong set of figures.
  The agreement was duly signed on 5 February 1980. The multinational company undertook that the vacation village should be operating not later than 31 December 1982. In fact, not a stone has been put on another stone, not a single sod has been turned—nothing whatever has been done by that multinational company to build the village to which it was by contract committed three years ago on 5 February 1980. By contrast, £5 million of British taxpayers' money has been committed to the airport and to other facilities. Thirteen million dollars worth of property speculation, arising from the existence of the airport, is now in progress on Providenciales. Wide open opportunities for a dangerous and profitable drug trade arise out of the existence of another international airport in those tiny islands. When the officials originally gave evidence to the Select Committee, they admitted the danger of the drug traffic but seemed to have discounted it in agreeing to this project.
  In addition, revenue commitments on the aid programme arise from the project. The greatest irony of all is that the Government intended to bring private enterprise into this exercise, particularly so that the budgetary deficit of the Turks and Caicos Islands should be reduced. In fact, that deficit has increased.
  In the short space of time that is available, I will not pursue the matter further except to ask the Minister some questions. Who is making the profits on this exercise? What steps are being taken by the Turks and Caicos Islands Government to tax those profits and to introduce some special windfall taxes on the property gains on the speculation that is taking place? Is there any evidence of corruption within the Turks and Caicos Islands Administration? Who made the original approaches? Who was in cahoots with the Club Mediterranee? Why has not the company raised a finger to meet its obligations under a formal legal agreement? What is happening about the control of drug trafficking, and how much will it cost the Turks and Caicos Islands Government to bring the problem, which the existence of the airport will aggravate, under control?
  What reason have we now to trust Club Mediterranee to fulfil any engagement it may make to make good its breach of agreement? What steps is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office taking to ensure that, in any future agreement involving aid money, there will be a sufficiently powerful sanction against any breach of that agreement if it is made with a multinational company? What is being done to tighten up the internal administration of the ODA to ensure that when projects are approved not only is the Minister told what the Foreign and

  47
  Commonwealth officials think the financial calculations are, but he is told in clear and unequivocal terms what any independent consultants have said about the nature and cost of such a project?
  Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler rose—
  Mr. Hooley: It is a short debate and I have virtually finished my speech.
  This is not an academic exercise. We know that the airport is virtually complete and that it cannot be dissolved or wished away, but I must remind the House that, in another group of islands 8,000 miles away, there is talk of building other airports and of expending huge sums of ODA money on certain facilities for a population that is tinier even than that of the Turks and Caicos Islands. Before we embark on such projects in that part of the world, much less get involved further in the Turks and Caicos, we need some clear and firm assurances from the Minister that he has proper control of what is going on with the British aid programme.
  5.28 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: If the position was as has been outlined by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and even by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw), I, too, would be highly critical of what has happened in the Turks and Caicos Islands, but the original report of the Select Committee is very misleading and its subsequent report, which I thought was the principal subject of our debate tonight, arises because of the failure of the Club Mediterranee to conclude and live up to the contract entered into between it and the Government. It is ironic that that second report should be the subject of criticism by the Select Committee because the issue was born of the Select Committee's great prejudice against tourist development as a means of developing overseas countries. It was and still is reluctant to support tourist development even in circumstances where islands such as the Turks and Caicos have only sun, sea and sand to offer as basic materials from which to produce development. It is ironic that the second report criticises the Government and the Club Mediterranee for not having produced the tourist development that it originally criticised.
  It is regrettable that Club Mediterranee has not built the tourist village with 650 beds. That would have been the start of tourist development in the Turks and Caicos Islands. The islands have wished to start development for the past 25 years, but could not find a developer willing to undertake the project. When Club Mediterranee proposed the development on Providenciales, the Government of the islands and the ODA grabbed the opportunity. The project had much greater appeal than simply the start of a tourist industry. Club Mediterranee offered the islanders the ability to market the islands through its framework of tourist promotion. Therefore, the islands did not need their own expensive tourist development and advertising campaign. The hotel beds would have been filled by Club Mediterranee, and the Government of the islands would not have had to be involved.
  It is a great problem to fill hotel beds in the initial years of a tourist development. It is a major problem obtaining
  48
  adequate air services to service the development. The building of an international airport on Providenciales, capable of accepting charter flights direct from the sources of tourism, meant that Club Mediterranee could fill the hotel bedrooms immediately and have a profitable and viable proposition.
  Club Mediterranee has developed similar projects in other places, notably in the Bahamas, which is close to the Turks and Caicos Islands, where it has two successful villages. One result of successful development is to attract other hotel developers and other tourism. There is evidence that that is already happening in the islands. The Minister told the Select Committee that a $13·5 million development was taking place on the islands because of the new international airport. There is much evidence to suggest that Club Mediterranee is a good pump primer for tourist development.
  We would have been right to support the ODA in bringing about tourist development in the islands because it would provide the means by which the islands could at least pay for their current expenditure. They are dependent on the United Kingdom Treasury to make good any shortfall on their current expenditure. The Government are asking for an increase in that figure to offset the effect of not having Club Mediterranee attracting tourists and actively filling hotel beds on Providenciales.
  The project is a vital development for the islands. The alternative of the fishing industry can be discounted because it has reached the end of its possible development. There would need to be a change to scale fishing, of which there is no experience in the islands and little prospect of finding an adequate market. The island used to depend on the salt industry, but that is now judged to be uneconomic. Agriculture is extremely difficult because the islands are short of water, and what they have is unpredictable. Agricultural production of a cash crop is difficult to promote.
  The ODA has some experience of promoting projects on the islands—for example, on Elenthera in the early 1950s with the development of pineapple growing. Although it appeared to be viable on the surface, the ODA discounted the number of rocks in the land, on which pineapples cannot grow. The result was a disastrously unviable pineapple production.
  I do not believe that there is an alternative to tourism for the islands. In addition, the social implications of the development of tourism by such a company as Club Mediterranee will be contained within the village, as will all the related activities. Therefore, there will be a limited impact on the community as a whole, which is a point in favour of a Club Mediterranee-type development.
  The hon. Member for Heeley suggested that the ODA had changed the figures disastrously and misled the Minister. He did not take into account—nor did he tell the House—that the estimates were reduced because the nature of the project changed from the time of the consultants' report and the time when the project was put to the Minister. The proposal to build a secondary school on Providenciales was eleminated because all secondary education takes place on other islands, usually on Grand Turk. A viable secondary school population was not likely to develop in Providenciales. The necessity for police and customs stations were equally reduced in scope. That is the principal explanation for the reduction in estimates.
  There are some internal procedures that the ODA agrees need tightening. If the House reads the original report it

  49
  will be satisfied that the ODA has now done so. If we refuse to develop the potential of islands that are dependent on the United Kingdom, despite the heavy expenditure per head, we are not fulfilling our duty. The islands are the neighbours of the Bahamas, which has been successfully developed, mainly through tourism and other related activities.
  If the islands are left undeveloped, like any vacuum they invite the intrusion of other powers. It will not have escaped the attention of the House that the islands are close to Cuba, which might wish to promote similar activity to that which occurred in the Falkland Islands between Argentina and ourselves. A large factor in that hostility was the fact that the Falkland Islands had not been developed. The attendant territories of the British Crown should be properly developed. They should have the opportunity of a viable economic existence.
  What has been happening with tourism in the Caribbean? Barbados has a significant tourist industry, which accounts for more than 50 per cent. of its gross national income, yet the number of tourists arriving in Barbados has fallen. There were 370,000 in 1979, 369,000 in 1980 and 352,000 in 1981. The Bahamas is not so well blessed with agricultural potential as Barbados, and its tourist development has been much greater and of longer duration. Even so, its tourist figures are dropping—from 1,130,000 in 1979 to 1,020,000 in 1981.
  The fall in tourist arrivals in the large and earlier developed areas in the Caribbean is, perhaps, the reason why Club Mediterranee did not proceed with the development on Providenciales. That is perfectly understandable. The Minister has given an undertaking that the Government will take action under clause 16 of the agreement to force Club Mediterranee to abide by the contract or to make compensation. It is not acceptable that Club Mediterranee has not renegotiated a definite undertaking to build the holiday village. It is right that that should be brought to the attention of the House. Similarly, it is right that the Minister's undertaking should be brought to its notice.
  It is the problem of attracting enough tourists to the holiday village in Providenciales to make it viable that lies behind the non-performance of Club Mediterranee. However, it is a fine development. It is the only development on the island that is capable of sustaining income to the Treasury. There is much evidence that the development financed by the ODA will prime the pump, provide an income for the island and provide a valuable source of employment for the other islands in the Turks and Caicos group.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it will help the House to know that the Front Bench spokesmen hope to catch my eye at 10 minutes past six.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this important matter. I speak as a member of the Select Committee on Overseas Development and the Sub-Committee of the Foreign Affairs Committee at the time of the first report in 1981. I have since left the Select Committee, but I have watched with great interest the work that has been done by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and his colleagues.
  50
  We should start by asking "What was the problem on the Turks and Caicos Islands that led the Government to contemplate such major public expenditure?" Having examined the issue and read the subsequent reports, it seems that there were two problems. It appears that the islands were in receipt of budgetary aid over a lengthy period. Secondly, there were high levels of unemployment in parts of the Turks and. Caicos group.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in reply to a question that I put to him when the Select Committee was sitting on 13 January 1981, said:
  "The level of budgetary aid, as opposed to capital or technical co-operation, has risen to an annual total of about £1 million a year in past years."
  In subsequent questioning by the hon. Member for Heeley, the Minister gave the figures for three representative years. He referred to £219,000 in 1970 and said that that aid, in the form of technical co-operation, was £29,000. Budgetary aid was £298,000. The figures were considerable over the 10 years between 1970 and 1980 and there were variations between the lowest figure of £298,000 and the peak of £1 million. It appears from the Select Committee's latest report that there was no budgetary aid in 1980–81 but there was £900,000 in 1981–82 and £1·2 million in 1982–83.
  The Government were concerned about the consequent outflow of public funds to support a relatively small group of islands, important though they are to Britain. They wished, understandably, to help the islands become self-sufficient. They concluded, as early as 1971, that there was general agreement that tourism was the right way forward. The House can probably accept that much.
  The hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) worried me when he talked about sun, sea and sand. All of us who know about tourist development in many developing countries know and worry about the fourth "s"—sex—which has brought grave social problems to many developing countries which have gone in for mass package tourism.
  Unemployment on Providenciales was only 3 per cent. It suffered from virtually no unemployment, whereas on other islands, such as Salt Cay and Middle Caicos, unemployment is as high as 81 per cent. It is 81 per cent. on Salt Cay and 68 per cent. on Middle Caicos. If the Government had concluded that tourism was the right way to help the island develop—part of the development was designed to reduce unemployment—why did they choose Providenciales for the development?
  Are the Government correct in saying that the only form of tourism that can establish a base for the Turks and Caicos Islands economy is that of mass package tourism, which will require a brand new airport of the sort that the British taxpayer is now being asked to finance?
  Those were the problems, and it seems that the Government have signally failed to arrive at the right solution over about 10 years. Having now committed themselves to the expenditure of a large sum of public money to develop an airport in the wrong place to resolve unemployment that does not exist on the island that they have chosen, I am concerned that, even if they are successful in concluding a contract with Club Med, they will distort the balance of the islands and create immense social problems.
  I am concerned that the Government will not resolve unemployment on the islands without causing major immigration to Providenciales, which would undoubtedly

  51
  upset the islanders. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Heeley at the lackadaisical manner in which the scheme has been brought forward. I share the concern of the House and that of the taxpayer that such a huge sum has been spent on so few with such little effect at this stage.
  I hope that, as a result of the debate, the ODA and the Foreign Office will examine carefully any plans for expenditure of such a size before they enter into agreements in future. I hope that the ODA has learnt a lesson. I hope also that in future the sparse aid funds that the Government make available will be utilised with considerable attention to the quality of projects and devoted to sound development plans which will not cause problems in the recipient countries. In that form they can make a major contribution to improving the economies of developing countries.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Robert Banks: Like others in the House tonight, I welcome this debate. I think that it is a great strength of the work of the Select Committee that we have this opportunity to air the report—in fact, there are two reports. But many times reports are compiled—and a great deal of work goes into them—and they are not read by very many people. I believe that these debates will be noted by a greater number of people than would otherwise be the case.
  There are two points that I specifically would like to refer to. In the first place, it is the actual way in which this project has been managed. At the outset the agreement was that the airport would be built and that at the same time Club Med would go ahead and develop its holiday village—one dependent on the other. Yet the airport has been built and yet not one single piece of work has been done towards the construction of the Club Med village. Therefore, one has to look at the way in which an agreement was drawn up whereby it was possible for the costly development of an airport to proceed step by step without recourse to any recrimination on the part of the Government towards Club Med for not going ahead with its part of the development. Nearly three years after the original agreement was signed, we are still waiting to see what the Club Mediterranee organisation will do. That teaches a lesson that I hope will be understood.
  My second point deals with the legal agreement. These matters are often left to lawyers to deal with. When something goes wrong, one reaches for the legal agreement, reads it and tries to understand it. The chances are that it is not understood and another set of lawyers has to be employed to interpret what the agreement set out originally to do. This is such a case.
  Appendix 1 deals with the first question relating to the rights of the Turks and Caicos Government under the agreement. The report considers that the legal position is complex. The legal complexity arose because the Government who drew up the agreement in conjunction with the Turks and Caicos Islands and Club Mediterranee reached a bad agreement. I believe that there is a lawyer sitting in an office somewhere who deserves the sack over this. He pitched us into this problem. The matter should be easily understood by consulting the document. It should not be necessary to go to counsel or other advisers to be
  52
  told what the agreement enables the Government to do. We hope that Club Mediterranee will decide to go ahead with the agreement by 31 March, which is its deadline.
  The airport exists and although there is no Club Mediterranee development as yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) has pointed out, other developments have taken place. Developments worth $13 million are going ahead. Why is it that, when other people have the confidence to build hotels and do other things, Club Mediterranee has not gone ahead? That is the point that must be brought home. It should have been clear some little while ago that Club Mediterranee never intended to go ahead with the development. We shall know that soon enough.
  I hope that the Committee's recommendations, which seek to ensure that Club Mediterranee does not benefit from selling the land for some other development if it decides not to go ahead with this project, will be accepted. It would be entirely wrong if the company benefited. We have been let down badly by the company. The construction of the airport has gone ahead and has produced some developments in the island. That may be the silver lining, because much of that development was not envisaged when the island originally negotiated for the airport. I believe that the development will benefit the island.
  One can only draw upon one's experience of having visited other places and having seen the effect of tourism there to judge what the effects will be. Altogether, I do not believe that the picture is as bad as some people paint. Each island must decide for itself. I cannot say whether these developments will be good or bad. It depends so much on the mentality and attitude of the people and what they want. It is a critical report. Many people should read it and learn its lessons.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: My remarks will be short and the excellent Hansard reporters will no doubt punctuate them properly.
  We are discussing a Supplementary Estimate of £1,000. The hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) have moved a reduction of £500. The most appropriate outcome might be for the Minister to accept the amendment in view of the sums involved and the criticisms that have been made.
  The hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) said that $13 million had already been spent and asked why the Turks and Caicos development could not go ahead. I asked the Minister that on 9 December 1982. He said that the money was probably being used on extensions to hotels, and other matters, but I do not find that answer acceptable. In the Committee's first report of 1 July 1981 we said that it had become evident that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had not carried out a proper survey of the benefits to the islands.
  I asked the responsible official about salt. It is clear that the islands could produce up to one million tonnes of salt, but the problem is transport. Until now a port has always been costed on the assumption that 70,000-tonne bulk carriers would be used. Why is it not costed for bulk carriers of 20,000 tonnes or less? The official said that the matter would be studied. I hope that the Minister can tell me that it has been studied and what the answer is.

  53
  I come now to the important subject of land speculation. My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley asked which firms were involved. The report makes it clear that the company involved is Grace Bay Ltd., which is a subsidiary of Provident Ltd.—an American firm. I believe that it acquired Crown land because the site of the village was Crown land until 1969. That subject is mentioned on page 31 of the Committee's last report. The value of any land can be increased by suggesting that it is to be developed. Whether it is is another matter.
  The Committee did not know about the report, commissioned by the Turks and Caicos Government through the ODA, of Mr. Percy Selwyn of the Institute of Development Studies, at the university of Sussex. That report was published in November 1981. Paragraph 2.18, on tourism, said:
  "It may, however, be suspected that some of the more grandiose projects which have been submitted—for large hotels, casinos and other facilities—are not genuine, and that the promoters are concerned more with land speculation than with the development of the tourist industry."
  That report was written long before we knew that Club Mediterranee was not going ahead with this scheme. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) said that it was a fine scheme. Alas, it is not a fine scheme, and it has not been built.
  The figures are serious because they and the changes to them were large. Appendix 2 to the Committee's first report, on page 113, made it clear that the consultant had said that the police buildings would have to cost $1,040,000. After consultations with the ODA, the figure was reduced to $100,000. The consultant said that the police revenue costs would be $385,000. The ODA reduced that figure to $50,000—one-seventh of the revenue costs. These figures were not given to the Minister. I believe that we are justified in asking why the figures were changed to that extent when it is known that the island has a drug problem which would be much bigger once the airport and the village were built. When we said that in future such changes should be reported, we were given a typical reply which would be worthy of "Yes, Minister." The Minister's reply in paragraph 13 accepts the principle that the changes should be set out clearly.
  Paragraph 14 states:
  "'before their Report is finally presented, ODA officials should not discuss with consultants the details of the consultants' findings, nor their consequences for ODA action, before their report is submitted to the ODA'."
  The ODA replied that that recommendation was unacceptable. It stated:
  "Discussions with consultants are an important and valuable part of the process of ensuring that projects are well designed and often result in the removal of misunderstandings and the heightening of the value of the Report without in any way prejudicing the independent judgment of consultants."
  I do not believe that that is true. The Government's attitude was an invitation to corruption. If consultants are asked to give figures, they are bound up with the reputation of the consultants, and it would be intolerable if, before the Minister saw the figures, ODA officials could discuss them with the consultants and change them without letting the Minister know.
  It is clear that the decision was political, not developmental. In Committee, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told me:
  "but in general it was a political decision to go ahead based on the over-riding political need to do something which actually worked and to provide jobs and income for these people."
  54
  In other words, if there was a bit of hanky-panky with the figures, it was done to fit the developmental aspect to the political situation. It is clear that a political decision was taken by the Financial Secretary, not by the ODA.
  The drug trade on the islands has been mentioned in colour supplement articles. How do the profits of the drug trade compare with the income of the Turks and Caicos Government? Is it not a fact that, being situated halfway between Colombia and the United States mainland, the islands are an ideal place for the transfer of drugs? Will not the drugs trade be a. serious problem?
  We must look at the future of our smaller dependencies, pending their internationalisation, which might be a possibility. Can the House stand by while dependencies of this size, and perhaps some territories that will become independent soon, are subjected to such risks? Can we look on while the Union Jack flies over islands facing such problems? I suggest that we cannot.
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office ought to look again at its administration of former colonial territories. We have had a problem in the south Atlantic and we face another in the Caribbean. We need to review what is left of our old Colonial Office, because it is clear that things have not worked out well in at least two groups of islands.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: I shall be brief, because a number of more important contributions are to be made. I pay tribute to those who produced the reports and to the members of the Committee that has enabled us to debate the reports.
  The significance of the debate lies not so much in the issue before us as in the influence that it may have over the administration of other matters. The fact that we can debate such issues and look at the detailed reports of Select Committees is of great significance. I did not serve on the Select Committee, but I have read its report. It is important that members of Select Committees should know that other hon. Members are interested in their work.
  If the facts that we are debating had been suggested for inclusion in the programme "Yes, Minister", the copy would have been rejected as being too implausible. It is remarkable that we should have built £5 million international airport for islands with fewer than 1,000 inhabitants and where there is no major tourist development.
  However, we place much reliance on the understanding that we have gained from my right hon. Friend the Minister that, if the contractual arrangements are not complied with by the end of this month, they will be legally enforceable.
  I join my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) in asking which lawyer was involved. If the legal agreement was neither intelligible nor enforceable, a head ought to roll. We look to Ministers not to gloss over such matters but to give the House the assurance that proper action will be taken.
  I did not know that there were such things as bed taxes. Reference was made to bringing sex to the islands. I hope that the House will not think that I am responding to that, but I was surprised to see that the British Government appear to have taken on themselves the role of negotiator, on behalf of Club Mediterranee, with the Turks and Caicos Government for a bed tax of 50 cents a night for the next five years and, in perpetuity thereafter, at 50 per cent. below the going rate elsewhere on the islands.

  55
  That was remarkable for two reasons. I have no idea how long Club Mediterranee customers spend in bed, but, however long it is, there is surely a strong case for them to pay the full rate that applies in the islands and elsewhere in the Caribbean. Secondly, a large part of the rationale for such subventions is to assist the Governments involved to obtain hard currency that they would not otherwise obtain. What right do the British Government have to start negotiating lower rates? If we are trying to reinforce the economies of those countries, that is surely a spurious line of negotiation.
  In any case, the arguments for capital investment in a holiday project would not seem to be determined by a current cost element such as a bed tax. I hope that my right hon. Friend will refer to that aspect.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate, and I hope that there will be other such opportunities to look at cases where there appears to be, if not maladministration, at least a suggestion that things could have been better managed.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Eric Deakins: Like the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells), I am a former member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I was present for its first investigation but not for the second. The House needs to be made aware of the peculiar relationship between the British Government and the colonial Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands. It is not clear who was responsible at any point in this long saga. We are told that some initiatives came from the Turks and Caicos Government and that some important negotiations were undertaken by the British Government on behalf of the Turks and Caicos Government.
  The Government of a dependent territory, such as the Turks and Caicos, consist of part-time politicians who, in their capacity as Ministers or members of the legislative and executive councils of that territory, are allowed to have business interests, provided that they do not conflict with their duties.
  It appears that some dubious business deals have taken place. We must ask what assurance we have that at least some members of the Turks and Caicos Government are not involved in the speculation and business ventures that have taken place as a result of decisions taken by the British and Turks and Caicos Governments. I suspect that we have no such assurances.
  I hope that the Minster will be circumspect in his reply. The debate is not the end of the matter. We await with interest the outcome of the legal case against Club Mediterranee, either for specific performance, which is unlikely, or for compensation. The basis of that compensation will make interesting international law.
  I do not know whether we shall be able to reclaim the whole cost of the airport, which would not have been built but for the agreement with Club Mediterranee, but, if we take legal action and there is no specific performance and the compensation is patently inadequate, there will be a case for a public inquiry into the whole affair, including what has been going on in the Turks and Caicos Islands from the time that Club Mediterranee first made its approach.
  The Minister is new to this matter. I am sure that, like his predecessor the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir N.
  56
  Marten)—who I know wants to speak in the debate if there is time—he will be careful in what he says. I hope that by the end of the debate we shall have given the Minister some guidance on how the House is likely to react if the suspicions of some hon. Members are not allayed by the final outcome of the affair.
  6.10 pm
  Sir Neil Marten: I realise that the Front Bench spokesmen want to reply at 6.10 pm. I want to make the point that every overseas development operation carries a greater or lesser degree of risk. The Select Committee could, by nit-picking, find out all sorts of things about almost any project—even whether the project had succeeded or failed. I hope that in his reply my right hon. Friend will tell us the exact position. If the contract is finally made with the contractors to put up the Club Mediterranee, I believe that it will be a great advantage to the Turks and Caicos Islands and to their Government. We want to enable such countries to stand on their own feet. The airport might well lead to much more development on the island of Providenciales, to the great benefit of the Turks and Caicos islanders. It might eventually enable them to stand on their own feet without any more aid.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. John Sever: We are grateful that the new procedures have enabled us to hold this debate. We are also grateful to the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) for tabling an amendment that has promoted an interesting and worthwhile debate.
  I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) to offer the Minister his apologies for his absence. As the Minister may know, my hon. Friend is abroad.
  The scheme that we are considering is at best ill-conceived and at worst scandalous. If we regard it in its worst light—and I think that is is justifiable to do so—we see that a proposition was put to the British Government and accepted by them which should by now have resulted in an airport and a tourist development. However, there is no tourist development. Hon. Gentlemen seem to have forgotten that there is an agreement that should have resulted in a substantial tourist development being provided by a multinational company on the island of Providenciales, but the development is not there.
  Many hon. Members have referred to the various problems and difficulties identified in the recent Select Committee report, which contains about a dozen conclusions. They present a picture of a Government Department that is not working efficiently and that has presided over and participated in a scheme which is, by any reasonable standard, dreadful. Comparing the airport complex with what might have been provided in other areas of our overseas development programme for the same amount of money, we who are concerned about overseas development are right to be worried about the way in which the Department is run. I accept that the present Minister of State has not been involved with the issue for long, but his duty is to respond to the many valid and reasoned questions put to him.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley referred to the two local international airports. I am surprised that we should be involved in a scheme to give £5 million of

  57
  British taxpayers' money to provide a third airport of international standards for a community of about 1,000 people. I wish that it had been so simple to find the money for the development of Birmingham's international airport. Instead, we had to argue for years with successive Governments the reasonable case for an international airport for a conurbation serving about 4 million people in the heart of a major industrial centre. If that scheme had gone through so simply, we should have rejoiced in the west midlands long ago.
  The proposed scheme involves taking thousands of happy tourists to the island. When they arrive there will be nothing for them to do, except perhaps become involved in the mysterious developments about which we have heard from shadowy developers who have acquired $13 million for development projects. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) said that the Club Med village was not yet established but that there were other developments. Later the hon. Gentleman said that development on the island would be confined to the village complex. Neither he nor the Minister can have it both ways. Either there is a major village complex to accommodate the tourists or other major developments are taking place at the same time, none of which we know much about.
  I hope that the overseas development agencies and the Foreign Office know something about the other developments, but in view of their record I would not put money on it. Perhaps the Minister can explain what other developments are taking place and whether they are promoted by the same people who promoted the ill-fated scheme that we are discussing. The House will be interested in any information about that.
  Hon. Members who usually argue about overseas development in a slightly different context believe that if the Government cannot find schemes that are more satisfactory and acceptable to the House they should have a thorough rethink about the whole of their development and aid programme.
  I do not know how many people could be provided for in other, more sensible and attractive schemes for the same amount of money being disbursed by the Department for the scheme in Providenciales, but moneys voted by the House to the Department should primarily be for the development of Third world countries, for the advance-ment of people who are disadvantaged in the extreme and for countries with starving populations and little or no local infrastructure with which to promote their own interests. Many inside and outside the House believe that it is scandalous that so much money should be spent on a scheme which is so ill-conceived and so badly managed by the Department.
  I hope that the Minister accepts that the House should have the fullest responses to the questions and conclusions in the Select Committee report. It contains a dozen or so conclusions, none of which reflect too well on the Department's work. At the simplest level we can argue that the Minister is obliged to provide the House, now or later, with the fullest responses to the Select Committee's observations.
  A great deal of work has been done by hon. Members serving on the Committee to bring to the attention of the House the shortcomings and failures of the Department. The scheme itself is now approaching some sort of crisis. As has already been made known, it appears that by 31 March, if a satisfactory solution is not found to the
  58
  problem, the Minister. presumably Club Med and presumably the Turks and Caicos Islands Government will have to start all over again to prepare a feasible and workable scheme. I am sure that the House would be reluctant to be told that this is likely. However, it appears that between now and 31 March the Minister has a great deal of work to do if he is to pull out of the fire a scheme that is already well burnt and likely to disappear.
  I wish to place on record what I am sure are the thanks of the House to hon. Members who have brought this matter to our attention. I welcome the advancement of what appear to be worthwhile new procedures for discussing Estimates and Supply. I hope that the measures which have resulted in our debates today will enable the House to quiz more closely and carefully on a number of issues that have caused disquiet over recent times. I am sure that few matters will cause more disquiet both here and outside the House than that now under discussion.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Raison: This has obviously been a critical debate. It is reasonable that it should have been held. I believe that there are answers to the points that have been made. I shall deploy as many of them as time permits. I should like the House to bear in mind some of the special considerations that apply to this project. First of all, it is in one of our dependent territories and, I might add, one of our least developed dependent territories. We have a moral duty, and indeed an obligation under the charter of the United Nations, to develop our remaining dependent territories, not only constitutionally but also economically. For these reasons, the needs of our dependent territories are a first charge on aid funds.
  It has long been agreed by those who have a detailed knowledge of conditions in the Turks and Caicos Islands that the only hope of developing a viable economy lies in the development of tourism. I know that this point has been argued. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw), I think I can claim, supported it, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells). I can assure the House that there is little scope, as I understand it, for improving the general standard of life in this dependent territory other than by investment in tourism and in the infrastructure that tourism requires.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: I suspect that I am the only hon. Member present 'who has been to the Turks and Caicos Islands in the last 20 months. The proposal that tourism is the only solution is not acceptable to much of the rest of Turks and Caicos outside Providenciales.
  Mr. Raison: All I can say is that the development of tourism, I should have thought, must be central. If there were other activities, I do not suppose that anyone would worry. It seems to me a reasonable decision to concentrate on the development of tourism.
  The grant of funds by Her Majesty's Government to improve the airport and roads on Providenciales is the direct result of a request made to us by the Turks and Caicos Islands Government. I hope that hon. Members would agree that such a request from a dependent territory, badly in need of development, should always be sympathetically considered by the Government of the day. Hon. Members will be aware that the grant was not approved until there had been a full feasibility study by independent and expert consultants. They recommended

  59
  that the project should proceed. I repeat that the islands need developing. It is hard to see a way of achieving that apart from tourism.
  As the House knows, at the end of February 1983 the work of the project was about 92 per cent. complete overall. I am talking, of course, of the Government's side. I cannot, on this occasion, comment at length on the merits of the project itself. There has already been a full and lengthy inquiry into all its aspects by the Foreign Affairs Committee, which published its first report in July 1981. That report was critical but the criticisms contained in it were robustly answered by the Government in their observations on the report, published as Command 8386. Last week, the Foreign Affairs Committee published the report of a second inquiry. Despite the debate that has taken place today, it is my understanding—I am answering here the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever)—that the Committee will also expect a detailed and considered response to its several criticisms as set out in the report. It is therefore the Government's intention to publish our response to it in a White Paper which will be issued in a few weeks' time.
  I should like to try to pick out some of the significant points made in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud stated that the project must provide employment for local people. I know that the evidence submitted by the ODA to the first inquiry of the Overseas Development Sub-Committee pointed out that the Club Med village would provide direct employment for 200, in addition to any islanders who might be selected to join the Club Med organisation itself. Consultants estimated that over five years total employment, direct and indirect, would amount to nearly 600. If further hotel development follows, a total of 1,300 to 1,600 jobs may be created over a 10-year period—that in an island group with a population of 7,500. The hon. Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) asked why there should be a third international airport. The other two airports are on Grand Turk, which is the capital, and South Caicos. Grand Turk and South Caicos are already fairly well endowed with hotels. The view is taken that Providenciales is the most attractive of all the islands and therefore the most likely to be in favour with tourists. It is not considered practical to transfer tourists to Providenciales from Grand Turk or South Caicos, a distance of over 50 miles.
  I wish to concentrate on what are perhaps the major points. The first with which I should like to deal is the allegation that the ODA failed to show sufficient determination in pressing Club Med to fulfil its side of the agreement to build the village. There was a period of nearly three years between the signing of the agreement and the date on which the village should have been opened. During this time, Club Med had to design the village, to negotiate with the contractors and then, finally, to construct. Given the estimated period for construction, it would not have been reasonable for either the Turks and Caicos Islands Government or Her Majesty's Government to intervene with Club Med and press for a start to be made on construction until the end of September 1981.
  As soon as this deadline had passed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir N. Marten) took immediate action and wrote to M. Trigano, the president of Club Med, on 5 October expressing his concern at the
  60
  delay. M. Trigano replied on 5 November confirming his intention to build the village, which he hoped would be open by the end of 1982 or by spring 1983 at the latest. That letter was acknowledged on 16 November with a request that we should be kept informed of progress. Between November and February 1982, Johnston Construction Ltd. was in weekly contact with Club Med but little progress was made.
  On 16 February 1982, ODA officials, in my right hon. Friend's absence, sent a telegram to M. Trigano again expressing concern, asking for swift completion of contract negotiations and seeking an early response. M. Trigano replied on 2 March stating that Club Med had always respected its commitments. He sought a meeting, which took place on 22 March. At this meeting, M. Trigano gave further reassurance that he expected to complete negotiations to build the village in a matter of a few weeks. When this did not happen, the French Government were asked to intervene but declined to do so.
  Last August, my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury warned M. Trigano on behalf of the Turks and Caicos Islands Government that the right to pursue legal remedy was reserved. This would seem to have caused Club Med to resume urgent negotiations, this time with two British contractors. It was not, of course, until 1 January this year that Club Med was in fact in breach of the agreement. As the House knows, I saw M. Trigano on 21 January and informed the House on 24 January that he had assured me that a binding contract would be signed by 31 March. I made it clear to him that unless a contract satisfactory to the Turks and Caicos Islands Government is signed by that date, the Turks and Caicos Islands Government will initiate legal proceedings.
  I have not had any communication with M. Trigano since that meeting, but hon. Members may be aware that on 28 February Club Med issued the following press release:
  "Club Med and Johnston Construction Limited of Redhill, Surrey, signed an agreement in Paris on Friday 28 February in connection with the building of a Club Med resort on the island of Providenciales in the Turks and Caicos group. The total investment involved amounts to US $23 million for a complex of 576 beds. Work is scheduled to commence in April 1983."
  A copy of this agreement has just been received from Club Med and it is being studied urgently. I understand that it expresses the intention of both sides to work together with a view to entering into a binding contract by 31 March. I hope that Club Med seriously intends to fulfil its agreement. If not, legal proceedings will be initiated.
  This brings me to the second point expressed today, that the agreement between Club Med and the Turks and Caicos Islands Government is ineffective. Several months ago, the opinion of a leading counsel in commercial matters was sought, and he advised as to the remedies for breach of the agreement by Club Med. He certainly did not say that the agreement was defective in any way so as not to secure adequate remedies against Club Med. The agreement is not ineffective. It specifically provides for any breach to be referable to arbitration. Any award against Club Med would be enforceable in law.
  Another point that has been made today concerns the possible increase in drug trafficking arising from the building of the airport. I am advised that this conclusion is based on the flimsiest evidence, if there is any evidence at all to support it. My Department does not consider that the improved airport on Providenciales will contribute to an increase in drug trafficking on the island. There appears

  61
  to be a misunderstanding of the nature of the problem in the island. The territory has been used for the covert refuelling of drugs-carrying aircraft in transit from south to north America. A fully manned and well-operated airport is more likely to be avoided by illegal flight operators than the previous substandard airstrip, and the development of Providenciales has also meant an increase in the number of police, customs and immigration officers on the island. I have no evidence either that there has been corruption in connection with the airport project.
  I am afraid that I cannot reply to all the questions that have been raised today, but I reiterate that we shall be publishing a White Paper in response to the Select Committee's recommendation. Although there may always be differing opinions about the merits of this project, I am convinced that it is a reasonable use of aid funds. It it is successful, as I very much hope it will be, and the village is built, the economy of the Turks and Caicos Islands will benefit.
  If, on the other hand, the village is not built, the House may be assured that, with the full support of Her Majesty's Government, the Turks and Caicos Islands Government will vigorously pursue the legal remedies open to them. I stand by what I told the House in January, and I am glad that at least the Select Committee endorsed that.
  Sir Anthony Kershaw: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (2) (c) of Standing Order No. 18A (Consideration of Estimates).

Ports (Reduction of Debt) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
6.33 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is needed to implement the Government's decision to write off part of the debts of the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company.
As I understand that a number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in this debate on matters relating to ports, it may be for the convenience of the House if I make a speech introducing the Bill and subsequently, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and with the leave of the House, seek to reply to the points raised in the debate.
The Bill was foreshadowed in the announcement about the future financial regime for these two ports, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made on 15 December last year in replying to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter).
Although this measure is short and straightforward, it needs to be seen in the context of the general strategy that we have been following to enable London and Liverpool to cope with the formidable—and exceptional—problems with which they have been faced. It may, therefore, be helpful if I first say something about the various steps that have been taken over the past two years or so before I go on to deal with the detailed provisions of the Bill.
The problems that the PLA and the MDHC have been facing have been a reflection of the fundamental changes
62
that have been taking place within the ports industry over the past 15 or 20 years. I am not sure that it is widely realised outside the industry just how dramatic those changes have been.
Until 20 years ago, nearly all general cargo had to be handled manually, whereas now as much as two-thirds travels either in containers or by roll-on/roll-off services. In this period, too, there has been massive development of oil traffic and of other bulk cargoes. Alongside these changes the direction of our trade has changed significantly. The proportion of our seaborne trade with other EC countries has doubled in 10 years, while there has been a tendency for deep-sea ships to make only a single United Kingdom call before going on to the continent.
In general terms, these changes have tended to swing the balance of our port trade from the west coast to the south and east. This has inevitably made life particularly difficult for many of our west coast ports, and I recognise the vigorous efforts that they have been, and are, making to adapt to the new circumstances, and in some cases even to win back traffic from the south and east. The two ports hardest hit by the changes I have described have, of course, been the two greatest general cargo ports—London and Liverpool. It is in these two ports that the problems of adjustment have been greatest and have necessitated assistance from the Government.
By the beginning of 19:31 both the PLA and the MDHC were effectively bankrupt. This stemmed from a number of factors, including changes in the pattern of trade and the rapid growth of container traffic, and was brought to a head by a dramatic fall in traffic in 1980, when both ports lost almost 40 per cent. of their general cargo business. Each of these port authorities therefore found itself with over 1,000 registered dock workers for whom there was no work and no prospect of there being any.
Urgent action was needed to avoid PLA and MDHC going bust, which would have had disastrous consequences. As an emergency measure we therefore took powers in the Ports (Financial Assistance) Act 1981 to provide funds for severances and to enable the two ports to stay in business meanwhile. The limit on such assistance of £160 million set in that Act was intended to be sufficient to meet the ports' needs in 1981–82, but we made it clear that longer-term support would depend on the preparation by PLA and MDHC of corporate plans showing how they proposed to return to viability.
Those plans were submitted to the Government in the autumn of 1981, and showed that further substantial manpower reductions, improvements in working practices and other rationalisation measures were needed but that if these could be achieved the two port authorities could become profitable again. The Transport (Finance) Act 1982 therefore raised the limit on assistance under the 1981 Act by £200 million to £360 million.
In bringing that legislation before the House, my right hon. Friend made it clear that he intended that the deficit grants which we had been making to both ports since the beginning of 1981 should cease at the end of 1982. However, he also said that, because of the exceptional circumstances I have described, the Government were prepared to continue meeting the cost of severances in London and Liverpool, and severance offers in April and May last year enabled the PLA and the MDHC to make the very large further reductions in manpower which were then necessary.

63
Over the past two years, considerable progress had been made in London and Liverpool to improve efficiency and reduce costs. So far the Government have provided about £210 million assistance, and more than half of this sum—about £113 million—has been to meet the cost of essential severances. Other badly needed rationalisations have also been made—for example, in the withdrawal by the PLA from cargo handling in the Royal group of docks, and by MDHC from cargo handling at Birkenhead; and major improvements in working practices have been negotiated.
The PLA and the MDHC have achieved much over the past two years to adjust to the enormous changes which have taken place in cargo handling techniques and patterns of trade and to bring their manpower numbers into line with the requirements of the traffic they now handle. Both bodies have argued that the interest burden which they now have to bear is not in line with the revenue which they can reasonably be expected to earn, and have asked for complete write-offs of their debts to the Government.
As my right hon. Friend made clear in his statement last December, such large write-offs could not be justified; but he said that the Government were prepared to agree to limited capital reconstructions in each case and would be seeking the necessary legislative authority. Hence this Bill.
In the case of the PLA the debt reduction involves writing off £26 million of debt to the Government relating to underused assets and providing the authority with £22 million of grant to enable it to repay the amount outstanding on a commercial loan, known as the Lazard loan, which is currently guaranteed by the Government under the Ports (Financial Assistance) Act 1981. I should explain that the Lazard loan was taken out by the PLA a few years ago to finance earlier losses. For the MDHC there will be a write-off of not more than £36 million of debt to the Government relating to underused assets; in this case the precise figure will be determined in the light of work which is currently being done by the Secretary of State's consultant accountants, Peat Marwick Mitchell and Co.
These debt reductions cannot be achieved using our existing powers to help the PLA and the MDHC. Clause 1(1) therefore enables my right hon. Friend, with the consent of the Treasury, to reduce the debts of the PLA and the MDHC to the Government by up to £26 million and £36 million respectively, while clause 1(2) provides for the payment of grant to enable the PLA to pay off commercial borrowing. The Bill also provides, in clause 1(3), for these debt reductions to count against the £360 million limit on assistance set in the Transport (Finance) Act 1982.
Perhaps I should say a little more about why the Bill prescribes upper limits on the amounts of debt involved, rather than the precise figures. I have already explained that in the case of the Mersey write-off the exact amount has yet to be determined in the light of work by our consultant accountants; but there is, however, one other factor which needs to be taken into account.
Until the write-offs provided for in the Bill can be achieved, the two port authorities will have to continue making payments of principal as they fall due from time to time; this will obviously affect the exact amount of debt remaining to be dealt with under the Bill.
64
Finally, let me say something about the Government's attitude on future financial assistance to the ports of London and Liverpool. For the time being we shall continue meeting the full cost of severances. This will include the 300 or so registered dock worker severances currently needed in each port. Although the reductions being sought by the PLA and the MDHC are substantially smaller than those made in each of the past two years, they are none the less just as necessary.
Both ports must continue to do all they can to reduce costs and improve competitiveness, and reductions in surplus manpower are, sadly but necessarily, a vital part of this. I very much hope that there will be a good response to the very generous special severance offer recently announced by the National Association of Port Employers, under which the maximum severance payment for dockers with 15 years' service or more will be raised to £22,500 for a limited period.
The financial consequences for the PLA and the MDHC will, of course, be serious if they are unable to achieve essential manpower reductions. But the current dispute in London over the claim by registered dock workers for parity with clerks could potentially be even more damaging. I understand that the registered dock workers' claim would represent a 30 per cent. increase in basic rates and add £3 million to the PLA's wages bill.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the special severance scheme, it was my understanding that the special offer of £22,000 had now been closed. Has a new offer been announced in the very recent past?
Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. A new offer of £22,500 will be available as from today.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Apparently an extra offer has been made available to registered dock workers. Will my hon. Friend explain, either now or in writing, the position of members of the excellent Port of London police authority, who have had their numbers reduced very seriously because of the reduction of work in the port?
Mr. Eyre: I regret that I cannot answer that in detail now, but I shall be glad to write to my hon. Friend explaining the position.
As I was saying, the registered dock workers' claim would represent a 30 per cent. increase in basic rates and add £3 million to the PLA's wages bill. I do not see how anyone can argue that such a huge increase is defensible or realistic when inflation is so low and when the PLA itself is, to quote its finance director,
"living on a razor's edge".
I very much hope that Opposition Members will be doing all they can to persuade the dockers involved that their current strike action is not in their own interests, not in the interests of their colleagues in the PLA, and not in the interests of the PLA.
The PLA has offered 3½ per cent. without strings to all its employees and to discuss with the unions the scope for productivity agreements for particular groups of workers.
In case there are any doubts about the Government's position, or those involved in the present dispute think that the PLA can turn to the Government for the money needed to meet their claim, let me repeat: operating subsidies came to an end last December, and there is no question of their being resumed. I hope that everyone involved will

65
bear that crucial factor in mind in the coming weeks and months as the PLA and the MDHC struggle to return to viability.
6.50 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: I say at once that we shall not vote against the Bill at the conclusion of the Second Reading debate tonight, because we are well aware that the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company are in serious financial difficulties and need this help.
However, as I am sure the Minister knows, there is considerable resentment, in many parts of the country. That resentment which is shared by both the work forces and managements in ports, concerns what appears to be the preferential treatment that is given to London and Liverpool. We accept, of course, that the Government are responding to the problems in those two ports because of the difficulties that exist there. Nevertheless, many of my hon. Friends who represent ports in other parts of the country will elaborate on their financial problems. If my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will tell us much about the problems of the Clyde Port Authority. The problems there exist in many other places.
Despite what the Government have done, I am sure that the Port of London Authority is not wholly satisfied with the Bill or with the results that may flow from it. It may have been a slip of the tongue, or perhaps the Minister's brief was not as full as it might have been, but I understand that the £26 million of Harbours Act loans is not simply a question of existing assets which are no longer earning revenue but that that £26 million was borrowed to pay interest on existing debts. When a company has got to the point of borrowing money to pay interest on its debts, it is in a very serious way. Clearly, the money is needed.
Even with this reconstruction—it is only a partial capital reconstruction—the Port of London Authority will not be financially viable in a true commercial sense. I understand that the PLA's balance sheet is not strong enough to allow it to borrow on the commercial markets, should the need arise. The Minister rightly said that, as from the end of December, the Government will not provide any further revenue deficit financing and that such Government finance as is available will only be for essential capital expenditure and the cost of severance. That means that the PLA, in particular, is in grave difficulty.
I want to ask the Minister a question about the extension of the special £22,000 severance scheme for registered dockers with over 15 years' service. Is it available to all ports, or is it primarily or solely for London and Merseyside? Of the number of registered dockers who are available for work at present throughout the country, many are in Liverpool and London. But there are many other ports where the excess of dock labour is much greater and where attempts are being made to solve some of the manpower difficulties. As long as the £22,000 is available for Merseyside and London, no one will leave until he gets that amount. So, even if the Government do not intend at present to have the special scheme for all ports, they will have to come round to it, as happened on the last occasion. When the £22,000 was initially proposed some months ago, it was supposed to be only for London and Liverpool, but it became the norm.
66
The Government seem to view the problems of ports solely in terms of the reduction of manpower, and they see severance not only as the only answer to the problem but the only problem facing the ports. In my opinion, many other factors should be taken into account.
Mr. Eyre: Perhaps it will help at this stage if I confirm that the scheme, including the increased payment of £22,500, is available to all registered dock workers in all the ports in the country.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for that statement, which I am sure will be welcomed throughout the United Kingdom.
The Minister tells us, not for the first time—it is the first time that he has said it, but his predecessors have said it often—that this is the last time that there will be handouts to London and Merseyside. In fact, it is about the fourth time that we have had a Bill to deal with these two ports, and I suspect that we shall have another. I marvel at the Minister's almost insatiable lust to produce legislation. Bills tumble out of the Department of Transport faster than Parliament can deal with them. There is a Transport Bill now before the House. At present it is in the other place, having been driven through this House on a guillotine motion. That Bill, too, contained a provision dealing with London and Liverpool. Clause 11 provided for the writing off of the £23.8 million loan to the National Dock Labour Board, which was used to finance special severance payments.
Perhaps I am a little too charitable in thinking that Ministers like preparing and debating Transport Bills. There is an alternative possibility: it may simply be incompetence in the Department. It is difficult to understand why clause 11 was in the Transport Bill. Severance payments, after all, are a matter for the Department of Employment. Yet, only four months ago, the contents of this Bill were left out. When we discussed the future of these two ports briefly in Standing Committee, the Secretary of State, with all the firmness at his command, said that he did not agree with the strategy for the ports outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). He said:
"this measure"—
that is, clause 11—
"is introduced because it is part of a larger scheme of things, and it is only part of the measures necessary to see our ports through the revolutionary conditions in the best possible way. It is a part that requires legislation, and that is why it is in the clause".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 January 1983; c. 1039.]
Apparently, however, even as late as January, the Minister did not know that he needed further legislation. It was part of a broader strategy. Yet, within a matter of days of finishing quite a lengthy Transport Bill Committee stage, this new measure was brought forward, although, as the Minister fairly said, the crisis in the ports of London and Liverpool has not arisen in the past few months.
I can see only one reason why the Government are proceeding in such a piecemeal fashion both with the ports of London and Liverpool and with ports generally. The Government have no long-term strategy for British ports, other than selling off the profitable assets that may be around, such as Associated British Ports, to which I shall return. It is equally clear that, the Government having dissolved the National Ports Council, there is no one and no body to take an overview of the ports industry. There is no one to look at the complex problems of the industry

67
as a whole, no one to comment or to give advice to Ministers from time to time to ensure that there is some balance in port traffic and that issues are discussed.
There has been a recent study on the ports, although I have not been able to obtain it from the Library, entitled "Port Choice and Routeing of UK Trade", published by Economic Consultants Ltd. at a price of £10. I am afraid that at that price not many people will rush to the shop to buy it. That report is based on a survey of the inland origins and destinations of United Kingdom international trade which was conducted by the Department of Transport together with the National Ports Council and with the help of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. What factors does the report suggest affect port choice?
The Department of Transport issued a helpful synopsis of the report in press notice No. 453. That says that the factors are the inland distance to the port; the cost of inland transport in relation to the value of the commodity; the availability of rail services; the pricing strategies of shipping lines; the preference in certain cases for a single United Kingdom port of call and the length of the sea crossing. The only surprising thing about those factors is that they are not surprising. One would expect such factors to influence people in the choice of port.
One of the major difficulties of the report—indeed, of many other reports—is the delay in analysing statistics. As I said, the report was based on a survey in 1978, and a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. Indeed, the other points of interest in the Department of Transport's press notice have already changed. Among the points of interest that the new report brings out is that in 1978 over half the traffic was handled by a local port—a port in the same region as the inland origin of destination. It tells us that unitised traffic—containerised traffic—is likely to travel much longer distances. For example, only 20 per cent. of container traffic travelled less than 100 kilometres while 70 per cent. of non-unitised traffic travelled less than 100 kilometres. It also pointed out that over 6 million tonnes-15 per cent. of the traffic generated in the north of England and in Scotland—was handled by ports in the south. Northern ports handled less than 2 million tones—7 per cent. of southern traffic. It also pointed out that 79 per cent. of United Kingdom trade carried inland went by road, 18 per cent. by rail, and 3 per cent. by inland waterway or by sea.
We know that since 1978 the trend towards containerisation has accelerated. We also know that the drift of cargo from the north and west of the United Kingdom to the south and east has accelerated. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness drew our attention to the statistics when we discussed the matter in Committee. He drew attention to the Department of Transport's helpful publication "Transport Statistics for Great Britain 1971–81". Table 5.2 shows that in 1971 the ports handled 2,157 units; in 1975, 2,830 units; in 1979, 3,687 units; and in 1981, 3,792 units. That must be thousands, not individual units. The number has continued to increase since 1981, because that is the modern, economic way to handle port traffic. We also see that this is a much higher proportion of total traffic than previously, so the trend has gone up. Those statistics, published at the end of last year, show that the west coast ports' share of non-fuel traffic has dropped from 46 per cent. in 1965 to only 28 per cent. in 1980. The share of non-fuel traffic in
68
the southern ports has risen from 7 per cent. to 17 per cent. and in the south-eastern ports from 25 per cent. to 28 per cent. Therefore, we see that there are already major events taking place in how ports are operating.
A major factor governing port choice is shipping lines' pricing strategy and the preference in some instances for a single United Kingdom port of call, and sometimes a single European port of call. We should not imagine that the preference for a single port of call is happening only in Britain; it is happening elsewhere. It has been put to me strongly that one reason for the shift in trafic is the operation of the grid pricing system and that that system has had a seriously distorting effect on trade patterns through northern and western ports. As I understand the grid pricing system, the customer benefits. The shipping company pays the difference between the cost of goods landed at a local port and the cost of goods landed at a further port to suit the shipping company. In other words, if a company in Aberdeen wanted to bring its goods to Glasgow, there is a price for shifting the goods from Glasgow to Aberdeen. However, if it suits a shipping company to land goods in Southampton, the customer will not have to pay any more for the transport of the goods. That is seriously affecting trade and, as I said, it has been brought strenuously to my attention. It is the shipping companies that are calling the tune, and that has been demonstrated by the figures that we have been given.
Faced with the problems in the ports and with the changing patterns of trade, we are entitled to expect a clear statement of policy from the Government. They have introduced a Bill which provides specific moneys for London and Liverpool, but that is not good enough when we know that many other ports need money. It is difficult to get the Department to make a clear statement of policy. Strangely enough, we have a clear statement of policy in page 18 of the prospectus for the sale of Associated British Ports. It comes in the form of a letter written by the Secretary of State to the chairman of Associated British Ports. We have not had an opportunity to debate that offer for sale, but we are entitled to do so because the company was set up by an order which could not be debated in the House. Therefore, we can only debate the issue after the event. That is the only way that we can see how the Government treat the ports that they intend to sell off to the private sector and how they deal with the public sector ports.
The sale of Associated British Ports was a good bargain in the market place. The initial share price set for Associated British Ports was 112p. When trading opened on the Stock Exchange, the shares were available for 137p, which is a considerable mark-up. On Friday the shares stood at 143p. I do not know what they stand at today. The lowest trading figure was 129p, the highest 147p. Why was such a premium put on the shares? The company has assets of just over £148 million. That company, in the six years to 30 December, invested nearly £60 million in the capital development of the ports.
Mr. Eric Cockeram: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How is the sale of the shares of Associated British Ports and the machinations of those shares on the stock market relevant to the Ports (Reduction of Debt) Bill, which refers to London and Liverpool, which are not part of Associated British Ports?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Comments can go fairly wide in a Second Reading debate.
Mr. Hughes: I understand the nervousness and embarrassment of the hon. Gentleman in not wishing this issue to he discussed. He knows perfectly well—he has been in the House longer than I have—how one group of ports, in direct competition with another group of ports, has been dealt with.
During the six years prior to 30 December 1982, more than £60 million from revenue, not from borrowing, was invested in capital development in the 19 ports. In 10 years this group of ports was able to invest £100 million without borrowing. Past profits, as can be seen from the prospectus, were very good. As if it was not enough that access was being made available to these expensive and good ports, an £81 million loan was written off before the company was put up for offer, thereby making the sale more attractive to prospective investors.
How much money did the Government seek to raise from the sale of shares in Associated British Ports? The Government are apparently concerned to harness the public purse, but in the Bill they are writing off £81 million of public money. Hon. Members may think that the maximum possible price would have been achieved for assets that are sold off. Some 19 million shares were being offered at 112p per share to raise £22 million. It is a pretty good bargain. Assets worth £148 million were sold off and a loan of £81 million was written off to raise £22 million. Not surprisingly, when the prospectus was available, 156,000 share applications were made, worth £700 million. The shares were 30 times oversubscribed. Even if hon. Members allow for the fact that when a good bargain is made available, duplicate or multiple offers are made—people who are aware that an issue may be oversubscribed put in several different bids in the hope that when the ballot occurs for the allocation of the shares they will get some—for the shares to be oversubscribed by 30 times is quite astonishing.
The Secretary of State for Transport, in his letter in the prospectus, makes clear that, although the Government will hold the majority of the shares, he will not interfere in any way with the decisions of the directors, except in the national interest, although the "national interest" has never been fully described. When the Secretary of State issues press notices, he ought to be careful to ensure that they are not misleading. I am the last person to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of deliberately misleading the country or the House, but he must have a care as to what is issued either in press notices or in written answers under his name.
The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) tabled a question asking the Secretary of State for Transport if he would make a statement about the sale of shares in Associated British Ports. The Minister said:
"The response from employees was very encouraging and a total of 8,115 employees, over 90 per cent. of those eligible, now have a total of 1,736,545 shares".
The answer concludes:
"I wish the group, with the support so substantially demonstrated by its employees, a successful future in the private sector".—[Official Report, 16 February 1983; Vol. 37, c. 177.]
That does not square with my information, which comes from an impeccable source. Approximately 8,000 of the 9,250 employees eligible applied for the 53 free shares worth £60. Of the 8,000 who took up the offer of the free shares, about 3,500 applied to buy shards. The prospectus for the employee shareholders stated that, having taken the free shares, they were entitled to bid for a limited number of shares, and for every share they
70
bought they were to get another free share, so they would get three shares for the price of one. Only 3,500 employees took up these shares, whereas the Secretary of State's answer suggests that 90 per cent. of those eligible actually bought them. That is the full implication of the written answer. The right hon. Gentleman ought carefully to examine how written answers are drafted and not overstress the importance of shares.
The employee shares are held in trust. Those who bought them cannot go to the stock market to sell them at 147p. They have to be held for a set time. The trustee operates on their behalf. What hon. Members do not know, and are entitled to ask—I hope the Minister will give an answer to the House on this subject—is how employee shareholders can get together to give instructions to their trustee on policy matters. The 3,500 applications for shares included the directors. Hon. Members do not know how many shares the directors bought. Perhaps the employees have a small shareholding. The employees' shareholding of equity is 2·5 per cent. of free shares and 1·5 per cent. of bought shares. Therefore, 4 per cent. of shares are in the hands of employees. That does not show a dominance of employee shareholding.
Throughout the debates on this subject hon. Members have resolutely asked successive Secretaries of State and Under-Secretaries, when dealing with the ports of London and Liverpool, to publish the corporate plans for those two ports. Every time we have asked, we have been refused the information on the ground that it would be commercially damaging to publish such corporate plans. As different legislation has passed through the House, we have tabled amendments asking successive Secretaries of State and Under-Secretaries not to pay out any money without an annual report from the Secretary of State on how he has used the money. After all, he can spend some of it without coming to Parliament. We have asked what the overall strategy is. However, time and again we have been refused that information.
It is self-evident that these two ports, as well as the other ports, suffer from the trading recession. The problems of revenue and profitability are exacerbated by the drop in the volume of trade available. However, even if the so-called great economic recovery arrives, we shall still need a national policy for the ports. For some time we have believed that we need a national ports authority to assume the ownership and control of the majority of United Kingdom ports.
The Government removed the only body that could give any advice or oversee the situation—the National Ports Council. At the first opportunity the Labour party intends to set up a national ports authority to deal with such issues. We are convinced that we can have a successful ports policy only by basing it on public ownership and that a central authority is needed urgently to consider the whole strategy.
Time and again we have warned the Government that the ports of London and Liverpool are staggering from one disaster to another and that they will always be returning for fresh financial assistance. Despite what the Under-Secretary of State has said, we are convinced from our examination of events that the Government cannot adopt a laissez-faire attitude towards the ports. There will probably have to be yet another Bill this Session to try to resolve the financial problems of those two ports. A proper strategy for them alone, if not for all our ports, is long overdue. I do not expect the Minister or the Government

71
to be able to respond, because they are prepared to stagger on. However we are not, and we shall take the earliest opportunity to put matters right.
7.22 pm
Mr. Malcolm Thornton: Before launching into my remarks, perhaps I could describe the remarks made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) as more of a voyage than a speech. Even as an experienced navigator, I would hesitate to follow the course that he has attempted to steer on Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman referred to Associated British Ports, and one of the features of ports such as Garston is that they are easily managed and containable. Garston is a small port, which has been sensitive to the market and remained competitive. It has been able to adjust itself to the changes in trade patterns and has won trade when many other ports have lost it. It is unfair to draw a comparison between a port such as that and the ports of Liverpool and London, whose problems are on a far different scale.
This debate takes place against an extremely depressing background. From 1955 onwards, and until I became a Member of Parliament, I was involved in the port of Liverpool and in the day-to-day operation of one of the ports under discussion. Therefore, I am well qualified to speak on some of the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North and on the reasons for the decline in trade.
There have been major shifts of emphasis in the way that our cargoes are carried. I remember seeing a headline that appeared some years ago in yd's Register of Shipping said "Containerisation, yes, but not too fast". Even then, in the early 1970s, it was recognised that the effects of too rapid a change would be quite dramatic, and would be detrimental to many of our ports. A market force was at work, and ports must recognise market forces or they will decline and possibly die. If the customer wants containerisation, containerisation and the facilities for dealing with containers must be supplied. Those facilities are expensive and require tremendous capital investment. If many of the existing facilities are maintained at the same time, although they are increasingly underused, the cost equation will start to look very sick.
Bulk cargoes also played their part. In the late 1950s the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company together with Shell embarked on the building of the Tranmere oil jetties. It was a huge investment for the new large crude carriers that were to bring oil into the Stanlow refinery. Despite that major investment, it was only a relatively short period before new technology, ideas and even bigger ships superseded Tranmere. Ships that once came into the river Mersey and paid dues to the port authority discharged their cargoes off the coast of Anglesey, at the single buoy mooring.
We also lost trade to other ports, particularly in Europe. The number of visits that ships were making has already been mentioned. Liverpool was once the great port for ships going to and coming from the Far East fully laden. The ships would discharge their cargoes at Liverpool as their first main port, would travel round the coast and the continent and would return to Liverpool to load fully before returning to the Far East. However, those ships disappeared almost overnight. When I say that, I mean it. Although it was more than a decade ago, it does not seem
72
long ago that one could see the River Mersey at any time of tide full of cargo ships waiting to berth. At every tide, the port radar station gave out the 15 or 16 ships that were anchored at the Mersey bar, awaiting berths. The port was busy and vibrant, but it seemed to disappear almost overnight. The ships disappeared as patterns of trade changed, but, unfortunately, all the infrastructure of the port that existed to support that level of traffic was still there and had to be paid for. Many of the jobs in the port that had been supported by the previous levels of trade could no longer be sustained.
We have now seen a world recession and a significant amount of the world's tonnage is tied up and is not carrying cargoes around the world. There are fewer ships and fewer cargoes are being carried, but the infrastructure and manpower have not been significantly reduced. Such factors have contributed to the problems of ports such as Liverpool. On Merseyside we all know that there has been a further serious consequence. I refer to the number of port-related jobs that have been lost. The port of Liverpool-Birkenhead used to sustain many thousands of jobs that were related directly to the port. They have all gone. Thus, decline almost feeds on itself and many parts of the port that were once prosperous, job-producing areas of Merseyside are now defunct and in almost total decline.
While it is good to see what has happened in the south docks, and that some use is being made of the derelict land, thanks to the Merseyside development corporation, nevertheless one can remember when those docks were full of ships, full of people employed in the shipping industry on Merseyside, bringing prosperity to the area. That is the background, and it is against that background—and where we shall be in 10 years' time—that we have to consider what the Bill means to us today.
Clearly, ports such as Liverpool and London which are facing problems must have some extra aid to enable them to get through a very difficult period. I have said on previous occasions that I do not support subsidies generally. I can understand many hon. Members on either side of the House saying that what is done for one should be done for another. Why is this support from the Government necessary?
The problems that many of the ports are facing—Liverpool is a case in point—are partly due to Government interference. The national dock labour scheme is a millstone around our ports and the problems arising from it should have been tackled long ago.
Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman describes the national dock labour scheme as a millstone around the ports of this country. Would he describe it as a millstone around the dockers?
Mr. Thornton: Yes, I would indeed. The hon. Gentleman has anticipated a point that I intended to make. Ports have been forced by an agreement, which many of them opposed at the time, to maintain unnecessary high levels of manpower, thus adding to their costs and thus reducing their competitiveness. It is an illustration of one of the problems facing industry generally. By preserving jobs artificially, we end up by destroying jobs. That is the reason why the scheme has not achieved much for the docker: any more than it has for the ports. It is nonsense to suggest that by feather bedding any industry against change, the people in the industry are protected. It simply makes the future that much less certain for them.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman must surely remember the days when dockers did not have such a scheme, when they had to line up, like cattle at a cattle market, to be picked out by the employer, and when they had no protection of any kind. The only protection that they had was their unity in the trade union movement. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that the dockers have not benefited as a result of the introduction of the decent scheme brought in through the National Dock Labour Board?
Mr. Thornton: The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to those dreadful days of the past. No one in his right mind would want to go back to those days. But is is nonsense to pretend that things have not moved significantly since then. The hon. Gentleman does himself no credit whatever when he tries to pretend that Conservative Members are suggesting that we should return to them.
Mr. Robert Hughes: The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that the Bill should not be before us today and that if the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company cannot survive without any help, it should go to the wall. Why does the hon. Gentleman not follow the logic of his argument and vote against the Bill?
Mr. Thornton: The logic of my argument is that if the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company—the old Mersey Docks and Harbour Board—had been a free agent, allowed to shed labour and to hire and fire as the demand existed, the Bill would not be necessary. Having to keep on the payroll an excessive number of people has been one of several contributory factors leading to the decline of the port.
Mr. Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Thornton: No. I have already given way more than once, and other hon. Members wish to speak.
It is not just the number of registered dock workers that is adding to the problems of the ports. A symposium was held in Manchester some years ago by the port of Rotterdam, which was involved in a heavy promotion, trying to win trade from United Kingdom ports. At that symposium, one of the major shippers from Liverpool asked the representatives of the port of Rotterdam whether they were subsidised. They said "No, we are not subsidised." He asked them "Who pays for the lights?" They said "The Government." He asked them "Who pays for conservation?" They said "The Government." He asked them "Who pays for pilotage?" They said "The Government." The next question was "And you say that you are not subsidised?" There was no answer.
It is most important to compare like with like. It is one thing to make the ports more competitive in terms of manpower—I welcome the Minister's statement today because it is at least a recognition that something has to be done in that respect—but it is quite another thing to leave our ports with a hand tied behind their backs when they are faced with competition of the sort that I have described. By all means let us have competition but let us make certain that it is fair competition.
I refer specifically to the port of Liverpool and its survival plan. I believe that, given the right climate—the Government are helping to create that climate—the survival plan will enable Liverpool to attract back some of the trade it has lost. Indeed, there have in recent weeks been examples of cases where trade has been won back. That can only be good.
74
I believe that the port of Liverpool is synonymous with the great seafaring tradition of Britain. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister has seen the marvellous poster, which is in Euston station among many other places, showing the new slim port of Liverpool. There is a very attractive girl on the poster—
Mr. Heffer: In a red shirt.
Mr. Thornton: Yes. She must be a Liverpool supporter. The port is determined to solve its own problems, because ports that compete will survive. In Liverpool we have the ingredients of a survival plan that will work. We have a stable work force—far more stable than people outside Merseyside give us credit for having. The dock labour force in Merseyside will work in cooperating with the management to ensure that the survival plan for Liverpool will succeed.
For those reasons I welcome the Minister's remarks, because I believe that the proposals will enable Liverpool to survive. But I ask him to bear in mind what I have said, because the problem in Liverpool is only one part of a much bigger problem facing the ports of Britain.
7.38 pm
Mr. Frank Field: Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton), I support the measure, particularly clause 1(1)(b), which allows the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company to write off debts up to £36 million, but, as would Oliver Twist if he were standing here today, I, too, ask for more.
In arguing my case for more help for Liverpool, I: refer to the Minister's speech. He talked of the dramatic change in trade patterns in London and Liverpool. The hon. Member for Garston has correctly painted a picture of the lively port of Liverpool and the dramatic change that has taken place, almost as if it were overnight.
The hon. Member for Garston referred to the amount of activity and life on the Mersey and the number of ships moving about. As he spoke, one could almost hear the noise of the ships communicating with one another. With this activity came jobs for Merseysiders not only in the port but in surrounding industries supporting the port—jobs which stretched through generations. Those jobs have disappeared. Therefore, in considering the Bill tonight, we are concerned not only with whether it will allow the port authorities of Liverpool and London to survive for a little longer but whether their debt is being structured—if I may use that rather "in" word—in a way that allows other industry to replace those jobs which have been lost in London and Merseyside, but particularly in Merseyside.
In Merseyside we have lost not just a main employer which provided jobs through generations but something which was almost inconceivable few decades ago. If, 10 years ago, we had asked Merseysiders whether they thought that their port would be facing the problems it faces today, most Merseysiders would have said no. One of the great institutions of Merseyside was its port, so not only institutional investors, but many ordinary people, invested in their ports through their work and through the local support that they gave to their port through their savings.
The Minister said that measures such as this are necessary so that the port can continue trading. He said that the port was almost bankrupt. That was the polite

75
language he used. Bankruptcy is not a new fact of life on Merseyside; it has happened before. More than a decade ago the dock company went bankrupt, and, as a result of the bankruptcy, its debt was restructured. Here lies one of the real problems facing Merseyside at present. People's savings in the port have been lost until the new redemption date. The port authority was told that if, for example, it was able to make a profit, or if it was able to sell its assets, naturally enough the sums that were realised thereby should go to pay those people who had lost their savings through investing in the port. We had, therefore, a restructuring of the debt which acts as a disincentive to success for our area.
I am linking this with a theme touched upon by the hon. Member for Garston, to which other hon. Members will no doubt refer—the role of the development corporation in our area. One of the major problems faced by the development corporation, particularly on the Wirral side of the river, has been a port authority unwilling to release to the development corporation its assets for development, for the reason that, if it does, the port authority will not get a penny. The sums which would be realised would go to those people to whom the port authority owes money. If the port authority hangs on to those assets, and it in the meantime receives a rent, even if it is only a meagre rent, it will be something to put in the balance sheet. Therefore, there is a disincentive which acts against rebuilding and against attracting new jobs into the area. It is in the interests of the port authority not to surrender land, because that will not help its balance sheet, but it is in the interests of the area that at least some of that land should be released.
At the beginning of my speech I said that I rose quite happily, as Oliver Twist would have risen, to say that one needs more. One needs help in writing off a debt of more than £36 million.
Mr. Thornton rose—
Mr. Field: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Garston in a moment. The Government are introducing small measures. This is the second one since I have been a member of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) expects that, if an election does not intervene, there will be another one before the year is out. The Government are introducing a series of small measures to try to halt the existing financial decline of these major ports, but they remain unwilling to take a long-term view of the needs of the area and to consider how to restructure and write off the larger parts of the debt.
Mr. Thornton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, with regard to retention of land by the dock company vis-a-vis the Merseyside development corporation's need for land on the Birkenhead side of the river, one of the ways forward would be a long-term commitment by the development corporation that, should that land become needed for development within a five-year period, it could go back to the dock company? At least during that period it would allow the development corporation to get on with developing and preparing the land. That would go some way to meet the need for using land, which is currently sterilised, on the offchance that it might be needed at some point in future.
Mr. Field: I am in favour of considering all schemes which might bring more jobs to our area. The development corporation is considering such plans. There are short-term plans for the use of the old western ship repair site while longer-term possibilities are being considered for the area. In many parts of the development area the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company is not prepared to surrender the freehold of the land, and without that surrender the development corporation believes that it will be difficult to attract considerable funds to the area. One can see the sense of the dock company doing that, given its responsibility to try to survive. Nevertheless, one can see how destructive that attitude is for the survival of the whole of that area.
Of course, I am in favour of any scheme for creating jobs in the short term, but I also wish to see the restructuring of the debts of the Mersey Docks and Harbour company in such a way that it will allow the development corporation to develop the Wirral side of the river, in the same way as it is trying to develop the Liverpool side. That is immensely important for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Garston. He rightly painted the picture of a massive collapse of jobs, not only in the port but in the surrounding area of Liverpool and Merseyside. On each of the short-term measures that the Government bring before us we must ask whether it is simply a patching-up exercise—another piece of Elastoplast being applied to the deep-seated problems of London and Liverpool—or whether the Government, even if they do so stage by stage, are bringing forward a series of measures which, when added together, hold out the prospect of a revival of long-term prosperity in our area.
Sadly, I do not believe that we shall get that from this measure, although we saw the difficulties of the hon. Member for Garston, who is against feather bedding but is in favour of the £36 million write-off of debt for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. How sensible he was to support that measure.
Before I complete my speech I should like to take the hon. Gentleman up on the effects of the dock labour scheme. When I intervened I was not trying to say that one cannot give people the right to a job for ever. For me, the dock labour scheme said to people who had only their labour to sell that they had property rights in the same way as those of us who own our homes and so on. In the days of primeval man, there was a struggle to establish rights to property. So in this century we have seen the attempt to extend what we mean by property rights to people who have only their labour to sell. That means that when there is a lack of demand for their labour, we need to buy those people out of their property rights. Hence the schemes which we have debated in the past, one of which the Minister has today announced in the House, to try to get people to surrender those property rights.
I do not argue that one can give jobs to people for ever and a day irrespective of what is going on in the rest of the country and the world. It was important to give the dockers a major enhancement of their status. But just as we gave them property rights, as in past centuries other people gained different sorts of property rights, so, too, we have a duty to stand by them and buy them out of those property rights as and when the need arises.
Neither Conservative nor Opposition Members are in favour of tearing up the old forms of property rights. So it does not behove anyone in the House to tear up the new

77
form of property rights—the right to jobs—in a way which we would condemn if we were considering the right to a home or the right to land.
I hope that I have explained that we made an important change in the dock scheme. It is all very well to say that it is a millstone round the necks of the dockers, but, if we do not give them new forms of property rights, how can there be a system of free market forces that would not give rise to the old position where employers could choose to whom they wished to give work that day while refusing others?
I am happy to support the measure, especially clause 1(1)(b), which will act as an important holding operation for the port of Liverpool. I hope that when the Minister replies he will deal with what I have described as the built-in incentive to fail. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company has every interest not to bring forward land for development, but it is in the interests of Merseyside that much of this land should be developed on a long-term basis. Until we untie that Gordian knot, as the hon. Member for Garston said, the vibration and life and jobs will not return to Merseyside.
7.51 pm
Mr. Eric Cockeram: I declare an interest as a past investor in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. Those who live in that area have invested savings in the company. However, I have none invested today.
I support the principles of the Bill for the proposed reduction of debt, but there is more to the matter than that. I wish to elaborate on some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and be a little more specific. There is considerably more to the reduction of debt in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company than is apparent in the Bill. It should be conditional on certain action being taken by the company. As has rightly been said, it is the owner of vast areas of stagnant land on both sides of the river. It has no foreseeable use for the land, which covers some 600 acres. It is derelict Victorian dockland and not only does it look derelict: it smells derelict. Stagnant docks and stagnant water quickly become polluted.
I appreciate that the company professes a desire to sell the land, but in reality the evidence to support that is thin. It has a vested interest in not selling. The reduction of debt should be made conditional upon the sale of land. The land lying waste at the south docks of Liverpool, Birkenhead and Wallasey is for sale. Some of the land is already leased to a host of different companies that are using either the whole or part of certain warehouses and paying rent. Some of those companies are anxious to buy, but the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company will not sell because it has a vested interest in continuing to enjoy the benefits of the lease.
The Merseyside development corporation is anxious to buy about 600 acres, but the company will not sell the land to that willing buyer. There are those who say that the company is trying to sell the land but cannot obtain a buyer because it is a depressed area in a period of world recession. That is not true. The development corporation is anxious to buy. It has been unable to reach agreement with the company and is having to resort to a compulsory purchase order. If there was a desire to sell, there would be no need to resort to that. The haggling continues and
78
outside professional advice has been sought by both sides. That is good for the fees of the professional advisers, but it is not good for Merseyside.
Industrial development in the land is being delayed. Industrialists who seek to take advantage of the many opportunities and advantages introduced by the Government for investment in that area are not willing to sink their capital until they own the buildings. That is perfectly understandable—who wants to invest money in a building that has only a short lease? The enigma is that the company has a vested interest in procrastination and leasing.
The headquarters of the company at the pier head is an asset. I do not know how much it is worth, but it must surely be a seven-figure sum. The company has made no attempt to sell that building. It is a splendid building with marbled halls, mosaic floors, leaded windows and many other grand features. But it is an illusion of grandeur to say that the company still needs such a headquarters building. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton), in his capable speech, extolled the virtues of Garston docks. One of the features that led to its success was that it was a small, compact, organisation with on-the spot management. It was, therefore, more efficient. That is in direct contrast to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, whose head office is eight miles from the chief base of its operation at Seaforth.
Clearly, the new slimmed-down management of the company should be adjacent to the action. Does anyone know of a factory with the office running it being eight miles away? The factory may have its office across the road or on an adjacent site, but never eight miles away. It is purely historic for the headquarters of the company to be based at the pier head. The asset could be sold and the company could operate from a more modest and compact setting at Seaforth.
Although I am in favour of the Bill—as are hon. Members on both sides of the House—it is wrong to refer to the reduction of debt as feather bedding. Reduction of debt is a feature of private enterprise capitalism and always has been. It is the writing off of unrealistic debts that have no chance of being repaid. They are constantly written off in the private sector, but we do not call that feather bedding. This reduction of debt is not feather-bedding either—it is a necessary reorganisation of capital.
Subject to the condition of selling land, I support the principles of the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will follow up that point and slim down still further the company's assets to give it a more compact setting at Seaforth. The writing down of debt is necessary for the future prosperity of the company. It will have my good will for the future if it takes the steps that I have mentioned.
8 pm
Mr. Arthur Palmer: There have been several Bills of this sort to give financial assistance to the London and Merseyside docks and I have never been opposed to those Bills as a Bristol Member. Indeed, such action by the Government was inescapable. The ports' structure and organisation 'would have collapsed without Government intervention. Whenever we have discussed these Bills I have spoken up on behalf of the port of Bristol and I make no apology for doing so again.
The Minister talked about the adverse winds of trade. I have no doubt that those winds have blown strongly on

79
the Thames and the Mersey—no port ever escapes them. The same adverse conditions and the same strong winds have prevailed on the Severn and on the Bristol Avon.
Bristol's difficulties are well known to Government Departments and to those who take an interest in these matters. The port's debt accumulates steadily but the city council cannot escape from it, it being a municipally owned port. The port's finances can hardly be separated from normal local government finances. Half the city's rate revenue will soon be called upon to keep the port in existence.
If relief were sought by the port ceasing to trade, the city would remain responsible for all the outstanding debt. Without special Government action there is no fundamental escape for Bristol. The cessation of trade would have a catastrophic effect on dock employees and workers and for large and small businesses throughout the city that turn on the port's activity.
It cannot be said that Bristol has not attempted to help itself. Every economy has been made within its reach and every attempt has been made to attract new business. Long drawn-out discussions are still taking place between the local authority and the Department of the Environment on adjustments that might be made to the rate support grant or to grant-related expenditure. Bristol has brought in expert accountancy and financial advice—in this instance, the well-known firm of Coopers and Lybrand. The last meeting was on 26 January and some of the Bristol Members on both sites of the House were present. It is hoped that RSG adjustments and other measures may help the city's finances over a period, but this will be without an effect on the port's direct trading position.
The Government's attitude towards Bristol—it has been expressed so often in the past, especially by the Departments of Transport and Industry, that I know it almost by heart—is threefold. First, they say that help had to be given to London and Merseyside because they were special cases. The Minister adopted that argument and almost expressed Conservative pride about the help that has been given. The Government argued that the ports' finances would have collapsed without Government intervention. It is always said by Ministers that it does not really matter what happens at Bristol because Bristol always has its ratepayers to meet the debt.
Secondly, it is said that Bristol made its own hard bed in the 1970s when it decided to proceed with the new west dock, which is now known officially as the Royal Portbury dock, which was opened by the Queen about two or three years ago. It is observed by Ministers that Bristol, having made its bed, must lie upon it.
The west dock was debated in the House shortly before the 1970 general election. Labour Ministers, especially Mr. Richard Marsh, as he was then—I believe that the same attitude was adopted by Mrs. Castle when she was responsible for transport—resisted the proposal to build a great new modern dock in the west. Indeed, it is one of the finest in Europe; it has everything except ships. Labour Ministers resisted the proposal but leaders of the then Conservative Opposition positively encouraged Bristol to go ahead.
In a previous debate I named eminent Conservative spokesmen, both right hon. and hon. Members—they were not all right hon. Members at that time—who encouraged Bristol to build the dock. There was an attempt
80
during the 1970 election to make it a big election issue. One of the local newspapers produced a picture of the west dock, as it was then called, with Bristol Labour Members being hanged from the cranes over it because they were not showing enough enthusiasm for the port extension. No doubt that was good party fun at the time, but now Ministers are saying "It is Bristol's fault and it should not have placed itself in this difficulty." The truth is that the dock was a fine example of municipal enterprise but Bristol has had to suffer for it ever since.
I do not wear a white sheet because like all Bristol Members, both Conservative and Labour—I think that there were five Labour Bristol Members at that time—I wanted the dock. Bristol as a whole wanted it; but it was encouraged by national leaders of the Conservative party even if Labour Ministers tried to dissuade us from going ahead.
Thirdly, it is said that it is the Government's general policy to treat ports as commercial bodies free to compete without Government intervention. If that is so, I do not understand why they have introduced the Bill. Surely it gives the lie to the Government free enterprise doctrine, if it be one.
Ports cannot move about. They are subject to adverse outside forces. One cannot talk about competition between ports in the way that one talks about competition between grocers' shops. That argument is irrational. Also, there are other factors that must be taken into account in addition to adverse trading conditions. I have a long document from the British Ports Association which deals with the European regional development fund and the maximum grants available from the EC to assist ports. They vary enormously from over £1 million in Workington to much less for other ports. The different grants vary, no doubt, according to the judgment of those who administer the European regional development fund. Bristol does not appear because it is not a development area and does not have special development area status. The Government want assistance from the EC to be confined to those ports within special development areas. Whichever way one turns, it seems that the die is always loaded against Bristol. It is nonsense to talk about free competition when the ground rules cannot possibly be the same.
I have made my point about Bristol in the past and I shall continue to do so. I support the Bill and approve of the help that is to be given to London and Merseyside. If the arguments are sound for those two ports, they are equally sound for the port of Bristol. It is unfair that normal local government amenities, repairs and renovations should be weakened to support a port which renders service not just to Bristol, but to the whole country.
The port of Bristol is situated at the junction of the M4 and the M5 motorways. Were trading conditions now as they were 12 years ago, Bristol would be doing very well. I believe that the new dock, Royal Portbury, will do well in the future. That is why the Government should intervene to give some special and direct help to the port of Bristol.
8.13 pm
Mr. Keith Wickenden: I have a substantial interest to declare. I am chairman of the port of Felixstowe. The port is owned by the European Ferries group of companies. It owns also Larne harbour in Northern Ireland, Harwich Navy yard and Cairrnyan in Scotland. I agreed with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) when he said that the House would

81
have reservations about the proposal to write off these sums to the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. I share those reservations, but, I suspect, for different reasons. The hon. Gentleman, other Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends, I suspect, disapprove of the writing off of these sums unless similar sums are made available to ports in their constituencies. I disapprove of the writing off of these sums because I do not believe that any such sums should be written off to any port; they should all compete equally.
The port of Felixstowe, which is the largest independent port, the largest container port and the only port which has grown during the past four years—I shall give what I see as the reasons for that later—has no loans of any sort from Government sources. When it was acquired by the European Ferries group in 1976, it had a small amount of Government loan bearing interest of up to 16 per cent. All those loans were repaid immediately after the takeover. Since that time, the company has funded a major expansion programme of no less than £30 million during a period of recession. It has been funded entirely from private sources. The works to which those loans have been attributed have not been sufficient to cope with the demand in traffic and the port is now considering a further expansion of a similar amount.
It is a surprising story when ports worldwide are going through a difficult period. It is perhaps worth examining why that is. I shall give a few figures to show how the growth has taken place during the past four years. In the year ended 31 December 1978, the port of Felixstowe handled 180,000 containers. In the year ended 31 December 1982, it handled 460,000 containers—an increase of 250 per cent. The total non-oil tonnage passing through the port increased from 4·5 million tonnes in 1978 to 6–5 million tonnes in 1982—an increase of 50 per cent. Perhaps most importantly of all, during the same period the work force increased by 25 per cent. There are lessons to be learnt from that. I should not deny for one moment that Felixstowe has been fortunately placed geographically. It has been able to take advantage of the growth in our trade with Europe, which now accounts for 64 per cent. of our world trade. Nevertheless, major shipping lines such as United States Lines Operations Inc, Sea Containers, OOCL and Evergreen Line bring their containers into Felixstowe, passing the ports of Liverpool, Bristol, Southampton and London, and two thirds of the traffic of one of those operators returns to the north-west.
There are several reasons for that. Shipping companies, because of the size of container ships and bulk carriers, are now heavy investors in capital. They cannot afford to have their ships tied up even two hours longer than necessary. A ship costing £20 million to £30 million is a valuable asset. It must work to achieve a return. The port of Felixstowe handles its containers with up to 300 per cent. greater productivity than other container ports. There is no such thing as an out-of-date container port. All container ports by definition are modern. There are several reasons for this success. One is a highly intelligent work force, which co-operates fully in large investment programmes and new equipment and has never resisted such matters. Another reason is that the port has a management—I speak about others and not about myself—which is open to the work force at all times. That is very important in the ports industry.
82
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram) said that the head office of the port of Liverpool was eight miles from the scene of operations. If that is true, it is an appalling state of affairs.
Mr. Heffer: It was the centre at one time.
Mr. Wickenden: That may be so, but one cannot go on operating from the same office for ever. At one time, Felixstowe's head office overlooked the dock basin. It does not do so now, because that would not be an appropriate location for it. The office has been moved.
Mr. Palmer: Felixstowe is often talked about in Bristol. The hon. Gentleman argues that Felixstowe's relative prosperity has been based on its own efforts and that there has been no outside assistance. In that case, how does the hon. Gentleman account for the article in Lloyd's List on 1 February this year under the heading:
"Port seeks EEC funds to expand"?
The article says:
"This month the Transport Committee of the European Parliament will consider a suggested £30 million extension of Felixstowe port and decide whether it warrants a contribution from EEC funds. This and £4·9 million worth of Harwich improvements may be put on a priority list for possible grants of around 25 per cent. Mr. Amedee Turner, Member of the European Parliament for Suffolk and Harwich, said he would be supporting these projects very strongly. He pointed out that help from Community funds for the area was already substantial."
How does that square with what the hon. Gentleman has been telling us?
Mr. Wickenden: I do not know. No application has been made by the port of Felixstowe to the EC, whatever Lloyd's List may have said. The administrators of the EC regional development fund sometimes offer grants without being asked, but no application has been made by the port of Felixstowe and no application will be made. We have completed surveys of our plans and I suspect that they have been considered by the EC, but the suggestions that the EC will make any grants available, or that they would be accepted if offered, are far from the truth. We expect to raise the funds for any development from normal private sources.
Mr. Palmer: In that case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will write to Lloyd's List to explain the situation.
Mr. Wickenden: I shall be delighted to do so. Indeed, no application could yet have been made, because no plans have been finalised and we do not know how much the development will cost.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) intervened in the speech or my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow to refer to the old method under which dock workers were employed. We in the port of Felixstowe are fortunate because we have never operated under the old casualisation system. It was an appalling system and I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Walton said about it. The system degraded men, and a civilised community should never have countenanced it.
I am proud to say that we never had that system in Felixstowe. My distinguished predecessor, the late Gordon Parker, set his face against it when he started the port operations in Felixstowe. His prime insistence, even though he could hardly afford it in his early days, was that every man should have a guaranteed weekly wage. 'We have followed that tenet faithfully ever since. Because we

83
never had the old system, we do not have the history of bitterness which understandably exists in the areas that operated that system.
Past management in the docks industry has been inept, to put it at its kindest. It is no wonder that many sectors of the work force in many ports still bear the scars of those days. We have good labour relations at Felixstowe. That is why the port has been so successful. That lesson needs to be learnt elsewhere.
For example, Felixstowe handles twice as much non-oil traffic as Southampton, with one third the number of dockers. Southampton is a modern, well-managed container port, but it is living in the past and failing to compete. It may be claimed that we in Felixstowe are working our men too hard. If that were true, one would expect us to have a history of industrial disputes. We do not have such a history and our men earn, on average, twice as much as those in Southampton. I cannot give comparable figures for the Port of London Authority or Merseyside, but I suspect that they would be even more striking.
When the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North opened for the Opposition, he referred to the grid system of shipping and to a report which has given four criteria on the basis of which shipowners are said to pick a port. Those criteria are the inland distance from the markets to the port, the cost of transporting goods on the land side, the pricing strategy of shipping companies and the length of the sea crossings involved. Those matters are all important, but the most important criterion is the efficiency and, above all, the reliability of the port. If a shipowner can be certain that his ship will be turned round efficiently and relatively cheaply he will use one port rather than another, even though those four other factors may be against it—as they are in many instances in the case of Felixstowe.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the flotation of Associated British Ports—formerly the British Transport Docks Board. He raised one or two interesting and somewhat contentious issues. He said that the premium that became payable in the days following the flotation was far too high. He referred to an issue price of 112p and a market price of between 140p and 150p. By most standards, that is a modestly successful issue, but not a tremendously successful one. It may be wise to compare it with the case of a company called Superdrug which came to the market a few days later. That company was very much smaller than Associated British Ports but it attracted twice the amount of subscription money and went to three times the premium.
The hon. Gentleman said that an over-subscription of 30 times was astonishing. It was not really astonishing. My company applied for a million shares. We got 28,000 and we should have been horrified if we had got more than 50,000. I suspect that many other institutions in the City of London applied for many times the number of shares that they wished to acquire.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the need for a corporate plan. I do not believe in corporate plans and my company has never had one. Such plans take months to prepare, are usually out of date by the time that they are prepared, and are totally inflexible. The only corporate plan that is any use is the one in the minds of those whose duty it is to administer the business. The word
84
"administer" may not be appropriate because I am also thinking of the work force which is just as important as management in devising plans in industry. To reduce such plans to writing is to produce a sterile document which is often meaningless.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) referred to the way in which the European regional development fund was allocated. I do not know how that fund is allocated among ports on the United Kingdom mainland, but I know how it is allocated in relation to Northern Ireland, and the method is astonishing.
Some years ago the European regional development fund allocated about £2 million to Northern Ireland ports. It was not asked to do that. It gave the job of deciding how that money should be divided to the Department of Commerce in Ulster. It is interesting that the Department of Commerce decided that the right way to allocate funds was on the basis of the debt structure of the companies involved. As a result the port of Belfast took almost all the money available. The port of Larne—I declare my interest, because my company owns it—over many years has been extremely prudent and ploughed back all its profits into reserves and reinvestment. It has no debts and consequently received no part of the grant. I do not object to that, because I do not approve of regional development funds. I think that they create unemployment. That is a different matter, which I shall not go into today because it would be far too contentious.
I have said why I believe that ports should stand on their own feet like any other business. They must do so because ports, like any other business, compete in an international market. If one does that, one must compete with the best in that market. We shall solve the problems of ports and industry and of the closely associated unemployment problem only when we learn that we cannot succeed unless we produce goods and services which people in other countries want to buy. We can give all the grants that we want, we can provide all the regional training schemes, but if people will not buy our goods and services, we shall never permanently solve the problems.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I appreciate the time spent by the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) on the achievements of Felixstowe, but he is now discussing matters about which he must be frank with the House. Does the hon. Gentleman support the Bill or not? Does he support the aid to London and Merseyside or not?
Mr. Wickenden: I do not. If the Opposition forced a vote against the Second Reading, I should be in a difficulty. However, since I have such a direct and substantial financial interest, it would be improper for me to vote, if it came to a vote. If I had to choose, I should vote against the Bill simply because it offends every principle I hold.
I hoped that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) would be called to speak before me, because I understand that he intends to discuss ship repair yards in the port of London. The hon. Gentleman is more competent than Ito deal with that subject, but he has asked me to observe whether there would be a requirement for an efficient ship repair yard within the port of London. My answer is, "Yes, there most certainly would be." My company, which owns 25 ships—repaired in a number of places, but mainly in Newcastle, Clydeside and in the northern ports of Europe—would welcome an efficient and

85
competitive ship repair yard within the port of London, provided of course that it was efficient and competitive. I am sad to say that in ship repairing and shipbuilding too often we are not competitive.
I do not wish to score a point, but I have looked at competitive tenders for work on my company's fleet. The tender from Britain is £12½ million. The lowest tender, from Holland, is £7½ million. One might consider subsidies and unfair competition, but one does not need to go as far as that. The answer lies in the time estimated to do the job. In the British yards it would take 320 days and in the Amsterdam yards 140 days. I do not know the reason. Perhaps it is lack of investment, bad working practices or rotten management. I do not know. What I do know, however, is that once again a valuable order will be lost to Britain which need not have been lost. If, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, there is the prospect of creating an efficient and competitive ship repairing yard, my company will certainly welcome it, as I believe will every other shipping company based in Britain.
8.36 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar: I shall be brief, because I am, to some extent, an interloper, as I do not come from either Merseyside or London.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Yes.
Mr. Dewar: I hope that I am not rubbing salt into any wounds —
Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend is.
Mr. Dewar: I should like to say a few words about the general principles lying behind the Bill. They are of general importance. It is right that hon. Members should consider them even if they have no local or constituency interest to declare. I do not under-estimate the problems that have afflicted the ports that will benefit the reduction of debt that the Government are empowered to make by this legislation.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) when he said that he thought that there might be some representatives from other areas who would express anxiety about the manner in which the crisis was being isolated by the Government and how the ports of London and Liverpool were being examined as one specific case that required help and was distanced from the general problems of the ports industry.
I recall the proceedings on the Transport (Finance) Bill that dealt with London and Liverpool. Before this debate I took the trouble to read some of the speeches made on that Bill. The Minister, referring to the two ports concerned—I think it is arguable—said on 24 November 1981 that
"there was an immediate crisis of unique size and scale in these two ports and that in no other port was it the case that the only way of tackling those problems was by means of Government funding."—[Official Report, 24 November 1981; Vol. 13, c. 767.]
In other words, the suggestion was that London and Liverpool had problems that were not seen in other ports and that they had therefore to be treated on a special basis. We should also be grateful for the Minister saying that he thought it was
"unthinkable that the ports of London and Liverpool should simply have been left to go to the wall."—[Official Report, 24 November 1981; Vol. 13, c. 766.]
I suppose that all Labour Members—I stress Labour Members—would take that view. I do not doubt the
86
sincerity of the speech by the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden). His remarks make clear that there would be a strong move for saying that ports that cannot make a go it should be left, in the Minister's phrase,
"to go to the wall".
In the same debate the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), whose remarks may be recalled by London Members, said that
"everybody knows that the Port of London is dead, and the problem is that we have to pay the corpse millions of pounds of taxpayers' money because it will not go away. It is high time that the Government settled the Port of London problem, grasped the nettle and accepted that the port is finished."—[Official Report, 24 November 1981; Vol. 13. c. 814.]
That is tough talking. It underlines the wisdom of saying that we, at least, on the Labour Benches are grateful for the fact that the Minister sees that a rescue operation is necessary. I do not wish to labour the point but this kind of rescue operation is getting unpleasantly near for a large number of other ports. The fact that a package has been put together for Liverpool and London consumption leads to certain strains. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North described certain irritations in other parts of the country. We have also heard about Bristol.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to problems on the Clyde, one of the great traditional ports of this country. It is a major port and the only significant port on the west coast of Scotland. It has seen its trade and viability undermined over the years, partly by geography, partly by the general economic recession that has attacked everyone, and partly, almost, by the accident of economic happenings.
A dramatic example of this is a bit of bad news that comes from much good news. The North sea oil industry has greatly affected the Clyde Port Authority and its finances. Finnart, the great terminal that was built by BP in 1977–78, took in 12 million tonnes of oil. In 1981 it landed not one tonne. Although there has been a modest recovery since then, the significant revenue that came from that development we shall not see again for a long time.
As a Scot, I would be rather ungracious if I were churlish about the discovery of oil in the North sea, but it has had unexpected and unfortunate side effects in my port. I can give a number of other examples. For example, the granary was one of the great revenue earners for the Clyde Port Authority. This year, the whisky industry is buying more and more of its grain from the domestic market. This has rather sinister overtones for the financial stability of the Clyde Port Authority.
We all know about the general shipping problems, and I do not wish to weary the House with too many statistics. However, in 1976 there were about 10 companies and 13 services plying regularly out of the Clyde. Now we have a spanking new container terminal, but there is only one company using it, Hapag-Lloyd. We had, among others, Manchester Liners. We lost Sea Trains when it went to the wall, and the result has been a complete undermining of the revenue that had come to the port authority from the container terminal. It is horrible to think that 10 years or so ago there were over 2,000 shipping movements on the Clyde, but last year there were only 112. We have seen a collapse from about 1·6 million tonnes of general cargo to under 500,000 tonnes.
The problem is that there is little in the immediate future that gives us cause for hope or optimism. One of the great issues, rightly, of Scottish politics at the moment is

87
the future of the Ravenscraig steel strip mill. People rightly point out that this has an influence not only on the steel workers in Lanarkshire but on the jobs of people in many other parts of the country. For example, the ore from Ravencraig comes in at Hunterston, and provides revenue of about £1·5 million for the Clyde Port Authority. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport will not know this, and I do not criticise him for that, but Ministers in the Scottish Office will know that if Ravenscraig goes to the wall—and there are still worrying question marks as Mr. MacGregor runs amok across the steel industry—one of the inevitable casualties will be the Clyde Port Authority because it cannot stand the loss of that income that it enjoys at the moment.
The employment results of the picture that I am painting have been devastating in the docks industry. Two years ago there were more than 550 registered dock workers on the Clyde, but at the moment there are only 130. The Clyde Port Authority, for reasons that I can understand but deeply regret, is looking for a further reduction of 40, which will reduce the number to only 90, an extraordinarily low figure given the position that the port once held in the economic life of Scotland.
If we are talking about the unique crisis in London and Liverpool, we should remember that, despite good housekeeping, a great deal of flexibility and the remarkable co-operation of employees in what is happening to their jobs and prospects, the Clyde Port Authority is making substantial losses. In 1979 there was a surplus of £2·5 million. In 1981 there was a loss of £870,000. Because of the efforts that have been made, that figure will probably be reduced to £400,000, but we have not yet seen the final figures. However, there will be a substantial loss. There are many storm signals on the horizon for the port and for the Clyde generally.
The problem worries every one of us. I can remember, and I am not yet of pension age, when one looked around the Clyde and it was self-evidently a busy port. There is almost an eerie feeling now, crossing the bridges in the centre of Glasgow, because suddenly one thinks that those days are back again. If one looks down the Clyde, the quays are lined with ships, but they are ships that are laid up and parked, riding out, possibly unsuccessfully, the appalling recession, particularly in the bulk tanker and bulk carrier trade. There is almost nothing happening in shipping movements. The irritation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North referred is shared not just because we are worried by the Government saying "Here is a rescue package for two ports. For the rest, the devil must take the hindmost." Apart from the general economic implications of that policy, there are also real worries and tensions for individuals who are caught up in the situation. I do not want to embarrass an individual constituent by mentioning his name, but one of my constituents, who I know extremely well and who has been helpful and supportive to me as a constituency Member of Parliament, has just been made redundant by the Clyde port authority after 23 years' service. He is a clerk, not a registered dock worker, and that is one of the problems. The result is that near to the age of 50 his job prospects in the present economic climate of the west of Scotland must be very doubtful. I do not want to depress him by putting it more strongly. I think that he is realistic about it.
88
The relevance of the scheme is that if that man had been made redundant in exactly the same job in Merseyside, for example, because of the rescue package which has been put together he would have been treated as a registered dock worker for severance terms and would have got the £22,500 which is on offer at the moment. He will not get that because he is on the Clyde and is treated as not being in the official scheme as a registered dock worker. As I understand it, though my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will correct me if I am wrong, there is a considerable differential in Glasgow which would not exist if it was in Merseyside. I have been told that by a number of people who are engaged in the docks industry.
Even supposing, for the sake of argument, that that rumour cannot be substantiated, the very fact that the rumour is rife and that we have this kind of tension and difficulty underlines the problems of taking a port scheme of the kind that we are discussing and looking at it in isolation.
In the Second Reading debate on the Transport (Finance) Bill, the Minister told the House:
"The Clyde has reserves. It is not faced with a threat to cease trading."—[Official Report, 24 November 1981; Vol. 13, c. 838.]
Technically, that is probably true. I am not suggesting that the Clyde Port Authority will go bankrupt in three months or even in two years. But we have seen its trade and its level of activity quietly subsiding and running down to the point where it is in an extremely dangerous state of health.
We see a great city and port being left a mere shadow so insubstantial as almost to have no reality left.
It would be unthinkable, to quote the words used about London and Liverpool, if at some future date the Clyde no longer operated as a port and we had no major port facilities on the west coast of Scotland. I put it down as a marker. It is very important that we bear in mind, while not being unsympathetic to London and Liverpool and while welcoming what has been done to help them, that this is not the end of the story. Other ports whose localities are equally significant have an equally important part to play in our economic regeneration and recovery. We must not leave them unaided and unmourned if the hard times continue and intensify, as some of us fear they will.
8.49 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Those of us in other parts of the country will understand the dilemmas of our Scottish friends, particularly as the further north and west one goes, the further one goes from the world terminals of the north-west European seaboard.
I commend parts of the speech of the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden). His views on the ideas of workpeople would obtain the wholehearted appreciation of Labour Members. I agree with him about corporate plans; they can be paper monstrosities. Those that were produced to satisfy the whims of Whitehall or the mandates of the Ministers by the Port of London Authority were particularly pie in the sky. I have played my part in criticising what I thought were not very helpful documents.
When we vote money we have a right to scrutinise. Tonight I want to consider some aspects, and one in particular, of the activities of the Port of London Authority. I find myself in a curiously anomalous position. Normally Labour Members approve public enterprise,

89
public bodies and the public servants who serve those bodies, and are somewhat critical of some aspects of private enterprise. Here I find myself in exactly the opposite position, championing two private enterprise firms in my constituency—one in particular, which I shall mention in a moment—and strongly criticising the Port of London Authority, which is wholly accountable to the Minister. If what I say proves logical, coherent and correct, I hope that the Minister will respond with alacrity, if not now, certainly in Committee, because it is his Government who champion private enterprise and who see quangos as animals to be cut down and put in place. The PLA should not be cut down; it should be run properly and well.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, this is the fourth time round the course. In May 1980, we had the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Bill, in March 1981 we had the Ports (Financial Assistance) Bill, and last year we had the Transport (Finance) Bill, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). On each occasion, I said that we should be round again and calling for Select Committees. It has been clear from Ministers' speeches and the terms of the Bill that the Government have not got to the root of the problem in London. Previous Ministers have refused a public inquiry. They have even refused an amendment in the Port of London (Finance) Bill for the PLA to consult local authorities about some of its activities.
The Government have said that the PLA needs to cut its manpower to achieve viability. Indeed, the long title of the 1981 Bill had that assumption built in—facile and foolish as we said that it was. There are many other factors for success. We have said in all these debates that one can cut manpower as much as one wants, even to the point of extinction, but that there will still be a capital debt. We said that three years ago, and here we are—capital debt going down.
It was said in a letter to my hon. Friend that the reduction in PLA interest this year will be £6 million, which will just bring it into the black in this first year on its own, 1983. So it is only by means of this Bill that the PLA will go into profit of perhaps £2 million. The Government have now done exactly what we said had to happen—instituted some form of capital reconstruction.
However, there is still the question of continental competition, the Touche Ross factor—which I shall not explain, because informed people know what it is—and the possible effect of the grid. I do not know whether the grid operates on an international basis as well as a national basis, but I suspect that it does. If it does, it will bring the extinction of certain British ports even nearer than otherwise would be the case.
The final factor is the quality of management. Even if all these factors were controlled and put into place, would the management be up to it? I am not sure that I can say yes in the case of the PLA.
I do not suggest that the royal docks should remain open to handle general cargo. The days of the royal docks, Liverpool and Glasgow as ports as we used to know them, have gone. However, there are some important aspects of the way in which the authority has dealt with the problem of the royal docks. The royal docks cover an area of about 500 acres. They are as big as Hyde park and Kensington gardens put together and are filled with buildings, workshops, warehouses, welfare centres, three dry docks
90
and an 800 ft lock, taking ships drawing up to 40 ft if necessary. They are being let by the PLA to small firms on short leases—all sorts of people doing all sorts of work. At least 680 people work in the royal docks, but their activities have nothing to do with the water. They are not allowed to use the water. The PLA restricts them from using the water even though it takes their money for the rental of the workshops, offices and yards where they store containers and so on.
Ten firms would like to use the water, but they cannot. There has long been a suspicion in east London that the PLA has deliberately run down the royal docks and that the structure of charging has discouraged their use. It has been difficult to pin down any evidence of that, but I wish to draw to the attention of the House some evidence that I have from one firm that got in touch with me some years ago. That firm had to move out of the Millwall docks and could not get accommodation in the royal docks even though the warehouses were there ready to let. I persuaded the PLA to give that firm accommodation. It is a successful firm run by a Mr. Ralph Hilton whose activities would gladden the Prime Minister's heart. It was given warehousing on the south side of the George V dock as a groupage undertaking. When he took me round, Mr. Hilton explained that the company was able to provide the customer with a combination of services that could not be obtained elsewhere and 1: shall not disbelieve him. So successful was the firm that it found itself short of space. More than that, it wisely decided that it would be a good idea to use the dock. The company was on the south side of the George V dock—the last dock to be built in London other than the Tilbury extension.
The company applied to the PLA and negotiations continued for over a year. The PLA would not allow the company to bring a lighter, a coaster, or a ship of any sort into that dock. I got in touch with the PLA, which was supposed to be interested in keeping the dock going. This was long before it was decided to take out general cargo. When I asked why, I was told that there was some labour problem. It tried to fob me off with an explanation that it was something to do with the unions. Indeed, in a previous debate on this topic I was sufficiently ill-advised to say that there was some problem with labour. However, when I went to the unions, they said that they would like to see registered men with Mr. Hilton. In the end, after a year's negotiations, the PLA offered Mr. Hilton an agreement. I want to read some of the terms of that agreement because they show the way that this public authority goes about its business.
The contract is prefaced by the words:
"These terms will be supplemented by such other terms and conditions as the PLA's Solicitor may require".
Any business man signing such a contract would need to be very careful indeed. I hope that the hon. Member for Dorking will confirm that. It is an open invitation for conditions to be changed in any way whatever. That is not a good way to go about business. The agreement also says:
"The licence will be granted for a period of 6 months and will be subject to termination at any time by either party giving to the other one month's notice in writing."
Is it likely that a person would contract for lighters, for ships, and make an arrangement with a shipping company when the PLA is able to give a month's notice? That is what it did to Hilton Amalgamated Transport Ltd.
Condition 5 states:

91
"The Company's activities will be restricted to import and export cargo which is either new or returned traffic that has left the Thames for at least a minimum period of 3 months".
That is for a groupage depot. How can a contractor know what are in boxes that are going inside boxes in his yard? That was in a letter from the PLA dated 20 August 1981. It was quite determined not to let ships into the royal docks to reach a flourishing and expanding business.
Hon. Members know that east London has the river as a centrepiece and that that part of our city is being rebuilt. The Government have created the London Docklands Development Corporation for that purpose. It is not a very good agency for doing that, but it is a statutory body. The London borough of Newham contains half the area of docklands and the GLC has a strategic planning function. These docks recently had many uses. There were two scrap iron depots exporting large quantities of scrap iron, although the PLA said that they did not come up to forecast. An application is pending for an airport that might take up some of the quay space. It has yet to be determined whether that is compatible with dock uses. A possibility exists for recreation. If the PLA had been more co-operative, recreational facilities for young people in those docks could have been created long ago.
I shall not burden the Minister with a summary of a paper that I have written on this topic called "The Royal Group of Docks Study". It contains appendages to a report produced by the royal docks study group for the London Docklands Development Corporation. I am not in favour of all the report's contents, but the report was produced for further discussion to examine how the future use of the docklands area would benefit London and especially east London. Just before that report was published last October the PLA announced that it was closing water access to the dock. It said that it was losing up to £0·5 million a year.
The PLA had, at the suggestion of one of its tenants, taken ships to lay up in the docks, as was happening in Glasgow. Nine or 10 medium-sized ships were providing an income for those docks. The PLA had taken money from a British shipowner for charges to 31 March this year. It wrote quit notices to all the owners. The attitude was not "turn down", but "turn out". I do not know of a port authority these days that can afford to do that with any shipowners. The position was worse than that. Half of the ships were owned by Greeks. The Greek mercantile marine is twice the size of the British mercantile marine. The British mercantile marine, especially general cargo vessels, is being decimated. It is in a serious condition. The Greeks are twice as important as the British in world shipping. As most Greek ships are chartered in London, most Greek shipowners either have agents or their own offices in London. I see that the hon. Member for Dorking agrees with me. The Port of London Authority has been telling Greek shipowners to take their laid-up ships out of the docks at three months' notice. Those ships were put there on the expectation that the would stay there until the recession ends. They have come from all over Europe. One ship came from Alexandria to be put into that dock.
The PLA told one of the biggest shipowners in this country to get out too. As a result of that inept move a meeting was held in the House in November 1982 between myself as the constituency Member of Parliament, representatives of the shipowners, the London borough of Newham and a ship repair firm.
92
I am sorry to say that the exchanges were heated and one senior member of the PLA management spoke to those important people, including marine superintendents, as though he were in the 19th century. That is not good enough. Fortunately, however, an agreement was patched up and those ships will stay there, but only until 31 December 1983. However, although it would be advantageous to lay up ships in the royal docks and although there is plenty of room, I cannot see many shipowners using them, because they may be turned out on 31 December 1983. Therefore, the PLA may be losing some revenue on that account.
What about the scrap iron exports? Those companies were told to get out by 31 March 1983. Nevertheless, last year a ship left the dock with 20,000 tonnes of scrap iron on board. I saw another ship this morning with 16,000 tonnes. The PLA cannot be losing money over that. Indeed, the claim to be losing £500,000 was never substantiated. We asked the PLA officials at the meeting in the House on 19 November to substantiate it, and they could not. Nevertheless, a public statement had been made to that effect. Of course, we knew how much income was being obtained and we had some idea of the out-of-pocket expense of pumping water into the dock and manning the lock, as distinct from the expenses of the dock as a whole, which would continue whether or not there was water access. That great public authority was unable to substantiate its claim.
The history of ship repair is even worse. In the past two or three years the history of ship repair on the Thames has been very sad. On 21 December 1979 the House devoted a whole hour to an Adjournment debate of mine on this topic. I shall not weary the House with its contents. However, ship repair is based on the system of plunder, and has been for 1,000 years. That is understandable: it is human nature. Apart from when there is a recession, a shipowner wants his ship quickly so that it can carry its cargo. Therefore, he is prepared to pay what it will pay him to pay and not what the job costs. Ship repair on the Thames, with its great tradition of cargo ships, has certainly been carried out on that basis. Certain practices were built up on both sides that were not particularly wholesome.
However, for all practical purposes the ship repair industry on the Thames disappeared for nearly a year, until the PLA woke up and at last enabled one firm to go into Tilbury docks. The PLA also allowed another firm into the royal docks. I refer to Thames Ship Repair Services, a new firm formed by an ex-marine superintendent of one of the large shipping lines, Mr. Cochran, who knew his job and had been through it from top to bottom. In modern British industry, that is an important principle. A few people in the City should learn that, unless someone has been through an industry from top to bottom, he will not necessarily know much about the job. However, this chap recruited men whom he claimed could—I do not say that it is true—through their experience, bring new insights and a new method of working to ship repair in Britain.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment, setting out some of the ways in which that firm satisfied the Government's requirements. It was a small business that wished to start up. It would employ men in an area of high unemployment. It had some guarantee or other from the Department of Trade and was doing all the things that Ministers tell us time and again firms should do. So Mr. Cochran went to the PLA in March last year and said

93
"Please may I use the dry dock? I should like to tender for some ship repairs, particularly Sealink and European Ferries. I believe I can do a better job than the people on the continent." I am not saying that he could, but he believed that he could. After what I have said already, the House will not be surprised to learn that the PLA kept him waiting for nearly a year before a contract was offered.
The PLA's first excuse was that there had been some problem with the unions—some involvement with labour. Mr. Cochran tried to sort out the problem and it took three months. He came to me in September last year complaining about the lackadaisical approach of the PLA, because he was wishing to put in some tenders. I got in touch with the PLA and tried to find out what was going on, but in October the PLA announced the closure of the dock, so that the dry dock was then not available.
After a year I suggested to the PLA that it might like to reconsider giving Mr. Cochran the dry dock. The PLA agreed and sent him a draft contract, which I have here. It put up the lock fees by 700 per cent. for the sort of vessel that he would need. The union difficulty had disappeared but instead the PLA wished to charge him £25,000 a year for two men to be standing by between 7 am and 3 pm. The work on the crane and on the dry dock was not to be done by PLA men but by Mr. Cochran's men, but there was an agreement with PLA engineers—understandably with the unions' agreement—that the maintenance was to be done by PLA men, so two had to be standing by, and £25,000 was the charge for a year. There was also £500 a day for each ship over 200ft in length. I am not sure whether that was the market price, but the point is that if he had not used the dock no one would have used it, and £500 a day, even for the PLA, is not to be sniffed at.
Even if the terms had been better, the coup de grace—I remind the House that in ship repair a quick turn-round is needed—is in the words:
"Serving a Requirement Notice not less than 2 weeks before a vessel is due to leave or enter the Royal Docks."
Two hours might be reasonable, or perhaps even two days, but certainly not two weeks. How could a ship repair firm go to one of the firms of the hon. Member for Dorking and say "We are sorry but we cannot guarantee to get a ship in without two weeks' notice"? It is ludicrous in the extreme. Either the PLA does not know the ship repair industry, which it is its duty to know, or that draft agreement was meant to be impossible—and impossible it was.
Mr. Ian Cochran, having battled with the PLA for a year, has this very day moved his workshops and his men—admittedly not many at the moment—to the royal docks at Chatham, where he has a much larger workshop and more dry docks, hired from the Property Services Agency. Good luck to him. What annoys me is that my constituency, with a long history of ship repair, of apprenticeships and of employment, has lost that work. The three dry docks in the area could become a good industrial centre, but the chances of revivifying them have gone, not because there is not a man willing to take them on or because he did not want to stay but because the PLA has made it impossible for him to do so.
The chief executive of the London borough of Newham wrote to the chief executive of the PLA on 28 December, before the decision was made. He said:
"Our fear indeed is that your Authority's attitude, if it has been correctly reported, might well indicate a general intention on your part to restrict water access to the Royals which are still capable of making a valuable contribution to employment in the
94
area in spite of the discontinuance of your own cargo operations. I should be glad to have an assurance that you will take whatever action is necessary to enable Thames Ship Repair Services to carry out activities in accordance with the agreement they signed with you last April, including the use of the dry dock, and that pending longer term decisions on the future of the Royal Docks as a whole, you will do nothing which would interfere with or restrict job generating activities within the area."
The PLA has the cheek and audacity to say that it is not closing options. It has said, "Oh no, we can open up the docks and the gates if there is a need to do so."
The Minister has a special responsibility in this respect. As a Member of Parliament, I have dealt with the PLA for nine years. I knew of its activities both as a London Member of Parliament and as a member of the public for some years before that. I wish that I could say something good about the PLA but I find it difficult to do so and I have yet to find someone to counter my view.
I think that the Minister should put the following questions to the PLA. Does it wish to close the options or did it decide unilaterally to cut off water access'? Why, having been in discussion with the borough of Newham and the London Docklands Development Corporation to produce a report about its future, did it pre-empt that future itself? Can it provide detailed figures to sustain its claim that it had would have saved up to £500,000 last October if it has closed the dock? Why did the PLA refuse an offer from the GLC to guarantee the loss? To what GLC proposal did it take exception? I omitted to mention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the GLC offered to guarantee any losses that the PLA might make.
Why did not the PLA permit Hilton Amalgamated Transport Ltd. to develop waterborne traffic? Why did it make impossible conditions? Why did it say that union problems held up this arrangement and those of Thames Ship Repair Services when none, as it has emerged, existed? Why, after an initial helpful response to Thames Ship Repair Services in March 1982, did it make it impossible for the company to operate in any other dock? Why is it discouraging all water uses of the royal docks and deliberately foregoing revenue by turning out scrap dealers? Will it now extend the deadline for lay-up booths from 31 December 1983, and, if not, why not?
I have been impelled to speak plainly and with force about the PLA. As I said, I have watched the authority for some time. Unfortunately, I have met no one who has a good word to say for it. Until now, it has been difficult to bring to public attention a matter so specific as to demonstrate the widespread criticism and lack of public confidence in this important public body in east London. Tonight I have presented a case which I believe to be accurate and, if anything, an underestimation. Of course the royal docks can never be what they were 20 or even 10 years ago—sea trade and industry have moved on—but they can be an asset to east London, possibly for groupage activity, and for bulk terminals, particularly as firms want water access today because of increasing transport costs. Unless there is an indication of willingness on the pact of the PLA, who will apply and take an interest?
The PLA has scrapped negotiations with the London borough of Newham, the London Docklands Development Corporation and the GLC, and has snapped its fingers at them by taking its unilateral decision. It has snapped its fingers at the people of Newham and the dockland areas. It has deliberately and wantonly stopped the continuation of a skill that has been traditional on the Thames for hundreds of years. It has prevented the provision of the

95
facilities that are required and the employment that could be gained. I call that civic vandalism, because vandalism is damage for which there is no apparent reason.
Will the Minister ask the PLA those questions? There is a responsibility on him and on everyone else to ensure that we obtain answers from that body. The Minister has the responsibility—we all have some trusteeship. The PLA should persuade us that it is a fit body to run the port of London—let it try that, if it can.
9.20 pm
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: I am replying to the debate on behalf of the Opposition because we felt that someone from Merseyside should put in his oar from the Front Bench. We have not done that for some time. That is not to be critical of my colleagues who have previously argued the case. It is a slight refresher to the scene.
It has been an interesting debate, and a number of important points have been made. The Under-Secretary of State pointed out that the proposals for £22,500 severance pay for those with more than 18 years' service would apply to all registered dock workers, irrespective of whether they were in the port of Liverpool or the port of London. That is an important statement. One of the great arguments has been that the payments agreed for Liverpool and London had led to difficulties in other ports that had surplus labour. Clearly the statement should help to relieve that problem.
Apart from that national declaration by the Government, we see no signs of any co-ordinated, cohesive policy on ports. The hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) summed up well the basic policies of the Conservative party—that ports should be prepared to compete with each other. That is the only philosophy of the Government. It does not matter what happens to some ports in various parts of the country, provided the principle of competition is there. If they are geographically in a difficult position, that is too bad. If they have to go to the wall, so be it. That is the Government's basic attitude. The Opposition do not accept it. It is deplorable. It is not what we expect from a Government trying to come to grips with the real problems in the ports.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton) referred to the years that he worked in the port of Liverpool. Although he is a Conservative Member and I am a Labour Member, we have that in common. I worked there for many years, not as a docker, but as a maintenance worker, for the port authority and for ship repairing firms and other firms along the line of the docks. I view the docks as someone who has earned his living in them. When I return to Liverpool, my home town, and see the docks, I realise that only 19 years ago, when I entered the House, the docks were thriving from the Dingle to Seaforth and along the stretch on the other side of the river. There is now mile after mile of empty docks. There is no movement of shipping. It is a sad scene. I do not think that anyone can understand the emotions of those who have been much involved in the work of the docks.
The dock workers were not a bunch of layabouts. They were not trying to put one over on the employers. They worked extremely hard. I used to see the old dockers stacking steel railway lines on a ship. I realised that if something went wrong and the line broke, the result would
96
be a tremendous whip-back and they would be dead in seconds if the line hit them. That is only one example of the sort of accident that could happen to dock workers.
We must understand why the problem arose at the ports of London, Glasgow, Bristol and on Merseyside. We must understand why the recession has hit these ports in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) observed that some ports were doing much better than others. There is nothing magical about this. For example, the dock workers in Felixstowe do not form a more intelligent work force than workers in other ports. I do not believe that all the Felixstowe workers have an IQ that is 600 per cent. higher than that of any of the workers in Southampton, Liverpool, Glasgow or London. Felixstowe happens to be the port that is in the best postion for European Community trade.
Mr. Wickenden rose—
Mr. Heffer: I shall develop one or two arguments before I give way to the hon. Member for Dorking. I usually give way readily, but I should prefer not to do so at this moment.
An interesting article in the January issue of Management Today stated:
"All the large conventional ports of the developed world had serious problems in managing this transition"—
the transition from the old type of docking to containerisation and modern technological developments—
"but nowhere have they been worse than in Liverpool. The Merseyside troubles have been exacerbated both by the decline in the economic hinterland of the industrial North and by the shift in trade away from the Commonwealth towards the EEC."
The article continued:
"Liverpool does now have a large container terminal—1,100 metres of quay, five Panamax gantries and 48 hectares of land. Built by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company to service deep-sea trade at a cost of some £50 million, it was officially opened in 1973 as part of the Royal Seaforth Dock complex, which also includes a grain terminal, timber berths and a meat berth, plus provision for substantial expansion in the unlikely event that the need should ever arise. However, the deep-sea sector has shown little movement because of the increasing orientation of trade in the 1970s towards Europe."
I can give another example about Liverpool in an article in The Times of Friday 21 January:
"Although London has been in the headlines more, Liverpool has probably been the worst sufferer from the revolution in Britain's port industry.
It has been hit cumulatively by the container revolution, which has virtually emptied the Victorian dock systems of the cargo liners that filled them 20 years ago; by the shift to big ships that has deprived the port of much of the oil trade for which substantial new investment was provided in the early post-war years; by the decline in Britain's old-established heavy industries for which Liverpool was the natural outlet; and by the shift in trading patterns from the wider world to Europe and the accompanying shift of port traffic from Britain's west to east coast."
That does not apply solely to Liverpool—the point I was making earlier. It applies to Bristol, Glasgow, and all the west coast ports, including the south Wales ports. That is the reason. It is not the magic of Felixstowe. I do not deny that the hon. Member for Dorking may have the best management in the world in Felixstowe. He may have a highly intelligent labour force, but I do not believe that they are more intelligent than elsewhere. I accept that, from the word go, they accepted the principle of receiving a weekly wage, not the old system employed in the

97
traditional large ports before the National Dock Labour Board scheme, when skilled workers were treated like cattle.
Mr. Wickenden: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech. If geographical position is the only reason for the switch in trade, why has Tilbury not done better? It is the best situated port in Britain for trade with Europe.
Mr. Heffer: Tilbury has done much better lately and is improving. The hon. Gentleman reminds me that I had some other figures from the Department of Transport—British Ports Association Port Statistics 1980. The figures are two years old. In 1970 the volume of trade through Liverpool was 29,314,000 tonnes. In 1980 it had reduced to 12,968,000 tonnes—a reduction of 52·4 per cent. The figures for the port of Manchester had declined by 31·3 per cent. and Clyde by 62 per cent. Felixstowe had increased by 58·3 per cent., Ipswich by 33·4 per cent. and Harwich by 24·6 per cent. London had reduced by 30·2 per cent., which was not as much as Liverpool, Manchester or the Clyde. That makes my point.
Once containerisation had been introduced, container ports had to be near the river estuary, not inland. Liverpool, Manchester and London suffered considerably because their ports tended to be inland. Therefore, container handling facilities had to be built on the point of the estuary. Tilbury is on the estuary and is now beginning to regain its work.
Mr. John Prescott: Is my hon. Friend aware that trade is being transferred from the Clyde to Felixstowe because shippers are prepared to offer the same price to take goods to Felixstowe as to the Clyde? That is due to the cross-subsidisation of the conference lines, which affects traffic flows.
Mr. Heffer: I am grateful for that information, and I am sure that there is much more such information which would underline the point.
It is important to examine the situation on Merseyside. A document distributed by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company in January this year stated:
"The Company has been hit due to: (i) the deterioration in South America trade because of the Falklands Islands war."
Many of us pointed out that Liverpool could be hit hard as a result of the Falklands war. The document goes on:
"(ii) the imposition of import controls by the Nigerian, Mexican and Brazilian Governments. (iii) a deterioration in Chinese traffic. (iv) the continued depressed state of the U.K. economy having an overall effect on imports and exports."
I assure the House that those who run the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company are not rip-roaring revolutionaries or, as far as I know, even members of the Labour party, though perhaps a member of the board appointed from the trade union movement may be a member of my party. Who is responsible for the depressed state of the United Kingdom economy? It is undoubtedly the Government, who are not prepared to introduce policies that would put our people back to work and, in the process, help to put some of our ports back into effective operation.
However, we on Merseyside must be even more concerned about what is happening in the Common Market. I have taken a delegation of dockers' representatives to see the Minister and we have been given some fairly good assurances, but, if the Government were silly enough to agree to the development of Falmouth as
98
a container port, that might finish the port of Liverpool for all time. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), shaking her head, but I am not sure that: that represents a commitment on behalf of the Government.
If Labour's policy of withdrawing from the Common Market is implemented after the general election, we shall be able to begin the process of rebuilding our trade on a world scale. The hon. Member for Dorking said that we had to be competitive because we were competing with international trade. That is not correct. We are not competing with international trade. Trade is increasingly being moved to the Common Market. If we get back to competing for international trade, I am sure that. although Merseyside, Glasgow, Bristol and other ports which were built up on international trade can never be the same as they used to be, their future will be much brighter than their recent past has been.
I do not know whether 'we can finish this debate by 10 o'clock, but the Minister will be pleased if we can. I shall therefore conclude my speech by saying what the Labour party will do when it gets back to office. This Government's policies of encouraging port to compete against port and allowing the ports on the west coast to run down must be stopped. Our ports need national planning. We need a national ports authority that will clearly take over and publicly own all the ports and make certain that we get development, where it is genuinely required, on the basis of this country turning towards world trade. That is the basic policy that the Labour party intends to follow when it gets back into office. That is the only hope for the ports and the workers in the industry. We can develop ship repair facilities, for instance, only on the basis of publicly owned ports with a clear commitment to ensure that there are proper ship repair facilities in the ports where ship repairing is required.
In Birkenhead the development board is considering whether the old western docks should be used for a new ship repairing yard or for housing. I hope that the docks will be used for a new ship repairing yard to employ ship repair workers again. It is a shame that in London, which had a huge ship repair force, in Merseyside and elsewhere that section of the industry has been allowed to run down.
Mr. Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is probably space to do the ship repairs in Cammell Laird and to have the housing on the western docks site?
Mr. Heffer: I do not know whether there is or not, but we must ensure that employment is created. The best way to do that is to have a plan rather than the present hit or miss approach.
We shall not vote against the Bill, because it will be useful to workers in the ports of Liverpool and London, but we are not satisfied with the Government's approach to the problems of the ports. The Labour party is looking forward to the time when it can carry out its plans.
9.43 pm
Mr. Eyre: In the early part of his speech, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) gave in greater detail the case which I had summarised about the shift in port business from the west coast to the east and south coasts. I agree with a number of the points that he made in that part of his speech, but the hon. Gentleman must not blindly refuse to understand the adverse effect on

99
our economy of the deepest recession in world trade since the 1920s. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the arrangements which I announced for the increased severance pay scheme that will apply to all registered dock workers, in whatever port they work.
The debate has ranged wider than the subject of the Bill and I welcome that. Many questions have been asked. I might have to write to some hon. Members in reply although I shall refer to as many as possible in the limited time available. I shall make a general statement about the Government's policy in relation to the Port of London Authority, to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company in particular and to the industry in general. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) talked of resentment in other ports because of the help being given to the PLA and MDHC. Other ports have experienced difficulties. I noted what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garcadden (Mr. Dewar) said about the Clyde port authority.
I understand the difficulties and I sympathise, but no ports experience problems and difficulties of the magnitude of those that brought London and Liverpool to the brink of bankruptcy two years ago. The financial help which the Government provided for the MDHC and PLA is aimed at enabling them to cope with their problems—primarily with their large manpower surpluses—and to return to profitability as quickly as possible. As I said earlier, we stopped paying grants to PLA and MDHC to cover operating losses last December. We have no intention of resuming those subsidies. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) will welcome the emphasis placed on that announcement.
The hon. Member for Walton referred to Falmouth. He and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) brought a deputation to see me on that matter. No application from Falmouth Container Terminal Ltd. is before the Government at present. It is up to the company to present a fresh application, with additional evidence of traffic and finances, if it wishes. I explained that that was the position when the deputation came to see me. Any such application will be considered in the light of the evidence and other relevant considerations, including the effects of the development on Falmouth and other United Kingdom ports.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North referred to the financial situation of the PLA. Since that is so important to the Bill, I shall respond to what he said. Even after the substantial capital relief proposed in the Bill, the PLA' s debts will remain high in relation to net fixed assets. The alternative is to write off even more public money than the £48 million proposed. We cannot see the justification for that. It is up to the PLA to work itself into a position which will allow borrowing on the commercial market.
The PLA is improving its balance sheet, but the Government have made it clear that they will continue to provide new loan finance where it makes financial sense —where it will not create a longer term millstone for the PLA. The Government recognise that a £5 million overdraft and a zero cash balance at the start of 1983 necessitate careful money management by the PLA. Nevertheless, on the basis of the plans put to Ministers it should be possible for it to operate successfully within the limit. The Government cannot and should not do
100
everything. We have given the PLA a sound basis on which to achieve viability. It is for the management and work force to make the most of the opportunity.
The hon. Member for Walton asked a new question about employee shareholding in Associated British Ports. There has been other reference to employee shareholding schemes. It is true that the shares issued under the special scheme involving free shares are held by trustees. As required by the Finance Act 1978, as amended, those shares will be held by the trustees for an initial period of two years. During that time they may not be sold except in the case of death, the attainment of statutory pensionable age by the beneficiary or cessation of employment by reason of redundancy or disability. For the following five years, after the two-year period, the trustees will retain such shares unless the employee concerned wishes to sell or otherwise dispose of them. They will then be transferred to the employee concerned. While the shares are held in trust, the respective employees will be the beneficial owners and they will be entitled to receive dividends and—the main question I was asked—they will be able to direct the exercise of voting rights in those shares.
I should like now to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer). I understand and appreciate Bristol's difficulties. I do not think that its position, however, is comparable to that of either the PLA or the MDHC. Most of Bristol's debt relates to the Royal Portbury dock, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. The Government have always made it clear that financial responsibility for this project lies solely with the Bristol city council. More important, the Government's policy remains that ports should stand on their own feet and that assistance is being given to the ports of London and Liverpool only because of the exceptional scale and nature of the problem that they face and because, without it, both ports would have gone out of business. In both cases, the Government were the only possible source of help. That is not the case with Bristol.
Mr. Palmer: What the hon. Gentleman is telling the ratepayers of Bristol is that they must just go on paying and paying for ever.
Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman described the port as a municipal enterprise. It is true that that was its concept. Hon. Members representing Bristol, together with representatives of Bristol city council, put recently to my noble Friend Lord Bellwin proposals for different treatment of the city's expenditure on docks in the calculation of its grant-related expenditure. My noble Friend undertook to have these ideas examined in the grants working group in relation to the 1984–85 rate support grant settlement but he could not promise Bristol that the outcome of this examination would necessarily be to its satisfaction. I am glad to pay tribute to the way in which the port of Bristol refuses to accept that there is nothing that it can do. Thanks to energetic management, its conventional cargo traffic in the current trading year has held up very well compared with the previous year, in spite of the recession. It is winning some new business and hopes to take advantage of the new special severance terms for registered dock workers which are on offer from today to help bring its labour force more closely in line with its requirements.
I would have liked to make a number of points about Merseyside. There has been mention of the possibility of

101
Liverpool city council sending a deputation to be joined by hon. Members. The request relates to a number of matters affecting a number of Government Departments. I have been in touch with ministerial colleagues. I shall shortly be inviting the council to come to discuss this range of matters with me. I look forward to seeing the hon. Member for Walton and possibly the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on that occasion.
Mr. Field: Before the Minister concludes his comments on Merseyside, will he answer the question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram)? Is the £36 million coming without strings, or are the Government using this substantial sum of money to change what can only be described as the stubborn attitude of the dock company towards bringing forward land for development?
Mr. Eyre: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me to go on, I was just coming to the point that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram) raised. The hon. Member for Birkenhead and my hon. Friend suggested that the MDHC had an incentive to hang on to its surplus land. The Government accept that surplus land should be put to good use, and we have set up the Merseyside Development Corporation to regenerate large parts of Merseyside suffering from dereliction. Much of the MDHC surplus land holdings has already been transferred to the development corporation. The 400 acres of former MDHC land now owned by the development corporation include virtually all the company's former holdings in the south docks area of Liverpool and substantial areas on the Birkenhead side of the river.
Mr. Cockeram: Will my hon. Friend answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and myself—if the MDHC was a willing seller, why is it procrastinating and causing the somewhat lengthy procedures of compulsory purchase orders to be undertaken? It is that which is causing stagnation of the land year after year.
Mr. Eyre: I was seeking to explain to my hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for Birkenhead what I understood to be the position regarding the major holdings of land on the Liverpool and Birkenhead sides of the river. Perhaps my hon. Friend is referring to smaller and move specific areas of land. As I understand it, there has been a transfer of large areas of the land to which I am referring, and therefore I assume that my hon. Friend must be referring to other and smaller pieces of land. If my hon. Friend will let me make inquiries about this, I shall write to him and to the hon. Member for Birkenhead in detail on this point so that they will be able to consider the matter and make any representations in detail that they wish to make.
My hon. Friend raised another point, about the headquarters of the MDHC. I understand that the consultant accountants studied the cost of the headquarters, considered the cost of the transfer to other premises and, with the company, decided against it, but that nevertheless there has been a change. I am told that part of the commodious premises to which my hon. Friend referred has been let. I hope that my hon. Friend will find encouraging the adjustments that I am told that the MDHC is making in the conduct of its business.
Mr. Field: I look forward to receiving the Under-Secretary's letter, as I am sure does the hon. Member for
102
Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram). However, will the Under-Secretary answer my straightforward question? Does the £36 million come with or without strings? Are the Government using substantial sums of money to change the attitudes of the port authorities?
Mr. Eyre: I made it clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the House in my opening speech that the Government had been requiring both the MDHC and the PLA to take proper measures to achieve viability.
Mr. Field rose—
Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman is preventing me from referring to the points made by his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I should like to refer to many of the points made by the hon. Member about the land in or near Newham. However, he has a misunderstanding about the land in the royal docks. It would be better if, again, I wrote to the hon. Gentleman, and I would be pleased to take up his points and explain the misunderstanding.
This is a useful and straightforward Bill, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).
Mr. Speaker: Money resolution—
Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is the Bill exempted business?
Mr. Speaker: It would have been if we had passed the Ten o'clock business motion.

PORTS (REDUCTION OF DEBT) [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for reducing the indebtedness of the port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the release of those bodies from their liability to repay money lent to them under section 11 of the Harbours Act 1964 and section 1 of the Ports (Financial Assistance) Act 1981 up to a maximum of £26 million in the case of the Port of London Authority and £36 million in the case of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company;

(b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums not exceeding £22 million for enabling the Port of London Authority to repay a loan or loans guaranteed under section 1 of the said Act of 1981.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg]

Mr. Spearing: It is just not good enough.
It being Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed by paragraph (2)(c) of Standing Order No !8A (Consideration of Estimates) to put at that hour.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1982–83, Class XIII, Vote 23
Question,
That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £414,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1983 for expenditure by Her Majesty's Stationery Office on the reimbursement of the trading fund in

103
respect of stationery and printing supplied to the Houses of Parliament and to United Kingdom Members of the European Assembly.
put and agreed to.

Class II, Vote 10
Question,
That a further Supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1983 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Overseas Development Administration) on the official United Kingdom aid programme including pensions and allowances in respect of overseas Service, assistance to certain refugee students, grants in aid, certain subscriptions to international organisations and certain payments under the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship plan.
put and agreed to.
It being after Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed by paragraphs (7) and (11) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) to put at that hour.

ESTIMATES, 1983–84 (NAVY), VOTE A
Question,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1984 a number not exceeding 75,000 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service.
put and agreed to.

ESTIMATES, 1983–84 (ARMY), VOTE A
Question,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1984 a number not exceeding 185,000 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 134,500, for the Individual Reserves, a number not exceeding 86,000 for the Territorial Army and a number not exceeding 12,600 for the Ulster Defence Regiment.
put and agreed to.

ESTIMATES, 1983–84 (AIR), VOTE A
Question,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1984 a number not exceeding 94,750 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 12,675 for the Royal Air Force Reserve and a number not exceeding 1,120 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.
put and agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1982–83
Question,
That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £1,586,495,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1983 for expenditure on Defence and Civil Services, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 185, 186 and 219.
put and agreed to.

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1981–82
Question,
That a sum not exceeding £68,277,715·78 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil and Defence Services for the year ended 31st March 1982, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 184.
put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Leon Brittan, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. Jock Bruce-Gardyne, Mr. Barney Hayhoe and Mr. John Wakeham.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2)
Mr. Jock Bruce-Gardyne accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1982 and 1983; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

MENTAL HEALTH (AMDT) (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]
Order for Second Reading read.
Ordered,
That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee. —[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

MENTAL HEALTH (AMDT) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified.
Resolved
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to amend the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960 it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to any such Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

War Criminals
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
10.3 pm
Mr. David Winnick: Some people may find it strange that, 38 years after the last war, the matter of Nazi war criminals should be raised in the House tonight. But the time which has elapsed can make no difference to the need to ensure that those who committed the most terrible crimes against humanity should be brought to justice.
Earlier this year, I received an answer to a parliamentary question informing me that war-time and post-war agreements which provided for the arrest and bringing to judgment of Nazi war criminals remained in force.
I decided to apply for this Adjournment debate after reading in the press that Walter Rauff, one of the most notorious of war-time SS officers, was living in Chile and, apparently, under his own name. I said
"one of the most notorious war-time SS officers".
I should have added "and killers". The Daily Telegraph correspondent, in the issue of that newspaper on 10 February, reported this case. Mr. Tony Allen-Mills wrote that Rauff, whom he described as one of the most notorious Nazi mass murderers known to be still alive, had become the focus of the continuing hunt for war criminals since Barbie was extradited from Bolivia.
This criminal, Rauff, who has been in Chile for many years, apparently lives in considerable comfort, and, according to Mr. Allen-Mills, Rauff's address is even in the telephone book. So there is no dispute that Rauff lives in Chile. He makes no secret of the fact, and he lives under his own name.
Why should we in this country be concerned, as I believe we should, about this Nazi criminal? Why have I taken this opportunity to apply for an Adjournment debate to deal with Mr. Walter Rauff? What crimes did he commit?
As I said, Rauff was a top SS officer, very close to Himmler and Heydrich. He is held responsible for the mass murders of hundreds of thousands of people. Again, there seems to be no doubt about his guilt. His particular speciality in mass murders was the mobile extermination trucks. Civilians, including young children, were locked into the vehicle, and exhaust gases were pumped into it, with the prisoners inside.
In a plea to the Chileans to extradite him, the noted hunter of Nazi war criminals, Simon Wiesenthal, stated that, between 1941 and 1942 alone, approximately 250,000 people were murdered by the method that I have just described, and that they were murdered in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, the Ukraine and Yugoslavia. That is the type of person, criminal, and mass murderer, who today lives in Chile under his own name, and where apparently the western powers have shown little interest in bringing him to justice. During Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem, Rauff's name and crimes were mentioned.
What am I doing tonight? I am asking the Government to put pressure on the Chileans for Rauff to be extradited, and to request the United States authorities to do the same.
I received a reply from one of the Foreign Office Ministers—not the Under-Secretary of State who is to reply to this debate. In the letter that I received last week,
106
I was told that the arguments against an official British initiative were compelling. I confess that I did not find the reasons compelling. Nor did I find compelling the arguments that were advanced in that letter—no doubt, drafted in the normal way by Foreign Office officials. It seems that the West Germans have had the responsibility since 1955 for bringing war criminals to justice. I accept that that is the legal position. I realised that when I wrote my letter to the Foreign Secretary in the first place. I was told in the letter that Britain has had no formal legal grounds for making representations to the Chileans. However, the Minister recognised that that did not necessarily prevent the Government from making representations. Of course it does not. However, the Minister concluded that it was doubtful whether there would be any point in pressing the Chilean authorities to extradite Rauff to West Germany.
It seemed to me, when I read that letter, that the Government were washing their hands of the whole matter. The letter referred to our broader interests. I am not sure what those broader interests with Chile are, but I should have thought that no interest was more important in this matter than that this country should do its utmost to see that that criminal in Chile is brought to justice. If Rauff were in Cuba, would I receive the same sort of reply? Would the Government be as non-committal as they are about Rauff being in Chile?
As for Britain's responsibilities and the legal grounds, I remind the Minister of the case of Mr. Shcharansky. I have no quarrel with the fact that the Government made representations to the Soviet authorities; they were right to do so. But on what basis did they do so? Presumably because of public opinion and deep concern in Britain about the way in which Mr. Shcharansky has been treated. If the Government made representations about the case of Mr. Shcharansky, how much more important it is that we, the first country with France to declare war against Germany because of Nazi aggression against Poland, who bore the brunt of responsibility before the United States and the Soviet Union entered the war and who made so much sacrifice to eliminate Nazism from Europe, should not shrug off our responsibilities in the way that was done in the reply to my letter. That response is rather like saying that it is unfortunate that the man has got away scot-free, but that so much time has elapsed that there are no legal grounds for taking action. I have no intention of accepting that as an argument.
I mean no disrespect to the Minister. He has his brief. He is not in the Cabinet and must do his duty as any Under-Secretary would. However. if the Minister's reply today is the same as the reply that I have already received—as I assume it will be—I do not have the slightest intention of letting the matter go. With my right hon. and hon. Friends, I shall continue the campaign, and I shall certainly take the matter outside the House in trying to arouse public opinion about Rauff's war crimes.
The allied Governments pledged that those who committed such terrible crimes, such atrocities, on behalf of the Third Reich would be brought to justice. That clear pledge was made during the war years, and it was their right to make such a pledge. It would make a mockery of those pledges if Britain and the United States simply allowed Rauff to go scot-free and not to make the effort necessary to bring him to justice.
A few weeks ago some hon. Members, including myself, were worried that Barbie would not be extradited

107
from Bolivia. There was some justified pessimism, but I am, of course, pleased that Barbie has been extradited. There must be no false sentiment about him. At long last he is in French custody and will shortly be tried in the same way as other war criminals have been tried—indeed, as Eichmann was tried 20 years ago in Israel. That is the right and proper course. Justice will take the course that one expects in a country, such as France, that is ruled by law. With Barbie in French custody, it is now necessary that Rauff should be extradited to one of the European countries—be it West Germany, Yugoslavia, Poland, or whatever country can try him—so that he can face justice according to the pledge that was made during the war years.
Three weeks ago the Prime Minister made a highly publicised speech in which she tried to draw an analogy between events in the 1930s and now. She was obviously on the offensive against the peace movement. As is to be expected, I disagreed with the Prime Minister's remarks. My view, and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, was that she made a false analogy. Sadly, she refused to face the fact that she represented a party that was responsible for much appeasement of the Nazi dictators during the 1930s. Whatever the arguments of the Labour party over defence then, its worst critics could not say other than that from the very beginning we had warned of the dangers of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco. There was no fellow-travelling by us with the Fascist dictators. Some people may say that that is all in the past.
If the Prime Minister is concerned about the crimes of the Nazis, and leaving aside the Labour view that the Prime Minister was making a false analogy, a real Nazi by the name of Walter Rauff is alive and lives in Chile. He committed the most monstrous crimes against humanity. What will the Prime Minister do to ensure that that criminal is brought to justice?
I accept that the United States of America has more influence with the Chilean junta than Britain. I should like the Government to apply pressure on the United States so that it can apply as much pressure as possible on Chile —the ally that it is responsible for arming—for Rauff to be extradited.
If the pressure and representation for which I am asking occurred from Britain and the United States of America, there is little doubt in my mind that, as with Eichmann and Barbie, Rauff would be extradited to face justice. The sooner that that criminal faces justice, the better, and the more Britain and other powers will have honoured the pledge they gave in the war years—that the victims of Nazism would not be forgotten, and that their tormentors, torturers, persecutors and mass murderers would be brought to justice once Hitlerism was defeated.
10.17 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for raising this subject and enabling me to set out the Government's position on the important issue he has raised in this debate. I assure him that I do not believe that, after 40 years, these matters should be quietly forgotten. Nor is that the view of Her Majesty's Government. The
108
subject of this Adjournment debate is not about one individual but the general queston of the discovery and prosecution of war criminals.
In the light of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this subject, I trust that he will agree with me that it would be appropriate for me to confine my remarks this evening to war crimes committed in the European theatre. I do not intend to comment on the position regarding war crimes in the Far East, although British personnel suffered worse and more severely through war crimes committed by the Japanese than by those in Germany. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman's interest for the purposes of this debate regards the European position. The hon. Gentleman made it clear in his comments that he is well informed about the discussions that took place in Whitehall between the wartime allies regarding the discovery and prosecution of major war criminals. He will be aware that these eventually led to the trial of 24 major war criminals before a quadripartite international military tribunal at Nuremberg. Of the criminals arraigned at Nuremberg, only one, Martin Bormann, is not definitely accounted for. He is presumed to be dead, although there has been no conclusive evidence of that fact.
In 1945 Nazi war crimes were found to have been committed in all parts of Germany, in all the countries that had fallen under German rule and also on the high seas. The horror reached its greatest extent in territories under German control in the east. However, the extent of Nazi crimes was vast enough in the British zone. The military authorities at the time found themselves overwhelmed with evidence. They lacked neither the power nor indeed the will to proceed. The record shows that they did so diligently. It is not surprising that they fell some way short of completing what was probably an impossible task.
The evidence of the period from 1943, the time of the Moscow agreement, until 1945 suggests that many failed to foresee the enormity of mass murder for which the evidence confronted our troops as they entered Germany in the spring of 1945.
Many doubted that the Germans would divert vital scarce resources, notably of transport, military personnel and slave labour, to pursue the policy of extermination even after the tide of war had obviously turned against them. I am thinking particularly of the massive deportation to Poland of Jews from countries as far afield as Hungary and France.
It is useful to recall the circumstances in which the awful evidence of Nazi crimes was exposed as the allied armies entered Germany in the closing stages of the war. The central fact, which is highly relevant to this debate, about the discovery and prosecution of war criminals is that there was absolute confusion in Germany in the closing stages of the war. The cities were in ruins, transport was at a standstill and there were tens of thousands of displaced persons, deserters, refugees and others moving hither and thither, living where they could. There were no services, no government, and there was a threat of starvation and disease. In short, there was chaos.
It is thus not surprising that discovering and prosecuting war criminals in the British zone of occupation by the Judge Advocate General —but also in other zones—produced results which, in retrospect, seem very incomplete and which undoubtedly were very incomplete. The commanders on the spot frequently had to decide whether to allocate resources to bringing some order out of chaos and, in particular, to preventing epidemics, which

109
could so easily have spread to their own troops, or to give top priority to the discovery and prosecution of war criminals. One can understand those who decided that it was more urgent to save the living than to exact vengeance for the dead at that time.
Our authorities also faced the considerable problem of extracting from mountains of captured records evidence that would stand up in court as proof of the guilt of particular individuals in respect of particular crimes. The hon. Gentleman will he well aware that many cases had to be dropped because of the absence of sufficient conclusive evidence that would satisfy a court of law. However, I have not yet dealt with the case of war criminals whose names, misdeeds and locations were discovered, and who were for various reasons protected or even employed by any one of the four occupying powers.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the case of Klaus Barbie, and he is an example of exactly that phenomenon. In a good many cases those concerned might feel today that they got their priorities wrong. It was a matter for their judgment at the time, and it it a matter for their consciences today. As the hon. Gentleman knows, with the exception of the major criminals arraigned at Nuremberg, responsibility for the discovery and prosecution of war criminals was soon transferred to the German authorities. The transfer was well under way by 1950 and was complete when the allied occupation of western Germany ended in 1955.
From his remarks, it seems that the hon. Gentleman may have doubts about the desirability of that transfer to the German authorities. He may believe that the British Government at least should have continued to play a more active role to keep the Germans up to the mark. I can understand his point of view. There were cases in the early years of the federal republic when civil servants, and others with records that invited investigation, were restored to senior posts. But, against that, I do not doubt that the basic decision to transfer responsibility for the prosecution of alleged war criminals to the federal German authorities was the correct one.
After the war the objectives of western allies were, or at least quickly became, rehabilitation and reconstruction, leading to the return of Germany to the family of democratic nations. By every standard that policy has turned out to be an unqualified success. One of its most important ingredients in the early years was that the Germans should themselves face up to the enormity of the crimes committed by their leaders and in their name. It must not be forgotten that a great many victims of the Nazis were Germans. I am not simply thinking of German Jews, although they were clearly one of the most important categories. The camp system, established immediately after the Nazis came to power in 1933, was horribly efficient by 1939. In some of the most notorious, such as the Buchenwald forced labour camp, the vast majority of the victims—even at the end of the war—were Germans.
Well before 1939, German Communists, Social Democrats, Jews, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, religious leaders, academics, artists, gipsies and others had all met the same death, which the Nazis were later to mete out in so many other countries beyond the frontiers of Germany. In the last nine months of the war, following the attempt on Hitler's life in July 1944, several hundred more Germans were rounded up and executed. Thus the German authorities, established in what became the Federal Republic of Germany, did not lack either
110
motivation or interest in discovering and prosecuting Nazi criminals. As is well known, and as the hon. Gentleman said, a number of the most notorious Nazis escaped from Europe to the Middle East and South America. The hon. Gentleman argued eloquently that the precepts of justice, honour and good international relations require the wartime allies in general, and the United Kingdom in particular, to keep up the pressure on the authorities in countries such as Bolivia, the Argentine, Chile and Paraguay to extradite known Nazi criminals.
As my noble Friend Lord Belstead, the Minister of State, said in the letter to the hon. Gentleman to which he has referred,
"the arguments against an official British initiative are compelling".
I shall explain that statement, using in particular the case of Walter Rauff to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I in no way dissent from the hon. Gentleman's description of that gentleman and the allegations of war crimes levelled against him.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the prospects for a successful British initiative, bearing in mind that there have already been three German requests to the Chilean authorities for his extradition. The hon. Gentleman talked about pressure on the Chilean junta. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not have a complimentary opinion of the present Chilean authorities but I hope he will bear in mind that at least one of the representations made by the Federal German authorities to the Chilean Government for the extradition of Walter Rauff was to the late President Allende, and that it had as little success as the other representations.
Mr. Winnick: I knew that the Minister would make that point. Would he accept that if Chile had remained a democracy there would have been greater opportunities for pressure to be mounted? Obviously at that time the case of Rauff was not so well known in the West. Certainly it was not raised in Britain or the United States. It is interesting to note that, since the change of Government in Bolivia, Barbie was extradited.
Mr. Rifkind: That is reasonable as a general proposition. As a general proposition, a democratic regime is more likely to understand, to be sympathetic to and to respond to the desire of the Federal Republic of Germany to extradite war criminals than a military junta would be, but that is by no means a guarantee, as my reference to the late President Allende shows. Even a head of state of Chile, with clearly Left-wing views, and an elected president rather than a dictator, was not prepared to respond to representations from the Federal German Government. That factor has to be taken into account.
More important than the prospects of success or failure is the point that, after handing over responsibility in the matter to the Federal German Republic 30 years ago, it is not for us now to resume that responsibility. We are not in the same position as the French in the case of Barbie, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Barbie was convicted by a French court in absentia before the occupation of Germany came to an end. The Germans themselves have welcomed—and, I do not doubt, discreetly supported—the French efforts, now successful, to secure the extradition of Barbie from Bolivia.
As my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary have made clear in replies to questions from the hon. Member, there is British

111
legal machinery available to deal with any cases that may arise where prosecution by the British authorities would be appropriate, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence nor I are aware of any outstanding case that could fall within our jurisdiction under any treaty to which we are party. I believe that it is right for us, none the less, to stand ready to help others with the resources of our experience and our archives, if indeed our help should be sought.
Clearly, the primary responsibility for representations to the Chilean authorities in the case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred must rest with the Federal German Republic. If they believed that any assistance that we could give them might assist them in the objects that they are pursuing, obviously we would give very careful consideration to any requests for assistance that the Federal German Republic might make to us. That is the least we could do, and clearly our own record in matters of this kind would show that we would respond as sympathetically as possible to requests of that kind.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that, where there is not a direct British legal responsibility, the primary
112
responsibility in a matter of this kind must rest with the Federal German Government. It is for them to decide what is the most realistic way to seek to make progress. For me to say that does not imply any lack of interest on our part, nor any lack of agreement with the basic argument that the hon. Gentleman has made as to the desirability of war criminals who have committed the most horrendous crimes being brought to justice, before a court of law, which can judge their guilt and pass sentence if they are convicted. There is no disagreement between us on that, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept, in regard to the making of representations in the case to which he has referred, that it is only sensible and appropriate for the Federal German Government—a democratic Government who believe in the rule of law, and who are as concerned as the hon. Gentleman to see war criminals brought to justice—to take the lead in a case of this kind. As I have said, our view and our actions will obviously take into account any requests received from them. That, I believe—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it—is the proper course to take, and a proper response for Her Majesty's Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  17-year-olds
  17-year-olds
  Maintained Schools
  Maintained Schools
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  RRS Bransfield
  RRS Bransfield
  Seafarers (Training)
  Seafarers (Training)
  Engineering and Marine Engineering Students
  Engineering and Marine Engineering Students
  Human Embryos (Experiments)
  Human Embryos (Experiments)
  Ulster Museum (Transfers)
  Ulster Museum (Transfers)
  Higher Education (Parental Contributions)
  Higher Education (Parental Contributions)
  Local Education Authorities (Grants)
  Local Education Authorities (Grants)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Prosecution Policy
  Prosecution Policy
  Court of Protection (Fees)
  Court of Protection (Fees)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Privy Council
  Privy Council
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners (Correspondence)
  Prisoners (Correspondence)
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Welsh Language Forms
  Welsh Language Forms
  Taxis
  Taxis
  Crimes (Detection Rate)
  Crimes (Detection Rate)
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office
  European Parliament (Electoral Boundaries)
  European Parliament (Electoral Boundaries)
  Metropolitan Police (Firearms)
  Metropolitan Police (Firearms)
  Blood (Sales)
  Blood (Sales)
  Immigration Service Computer
  Immigration Service Computer
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  European Social and Regional Development Funds
  European Social and Regional Development Funds
  Welsh Language Forms
  Welsh Language Forms
  Job Losses
  Job Losses
  Paternity Leave
  Paternity Leave
  Maternity Leave and Pay
  Maternity Leave and Pay
  Employment Act 1980
  Employment Act 1980
  Self-employed
  Self-employed
INDUSTRY
  High Technology Companies
  High Technology Companies
  Assisted Areas
  Assisted Areas
  Telephone Waiting Lists
  Telephone Waiting Lists
  Manufacturing Output
  Manufacturing Output
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  Small Firms
  Small Firms
  Engineering (Northern Region)
  Engineering (Northern Region)
  Unemployment (Manchester)
  Unemployment (Manchester)
  Manufacturing Investment
  Manufacturing Investment
  Industrial Design
  Industrial Design
  Industrial Research and Development
  Industrial Research and Development
  Rural Telephone Services
  Rural Telephone Services
  BL (Corporate Plan)
  BL (Corporate Plan)
  Chatham Dockyard
  Chatham Dockyard
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
PRIME MINISTER
  Marx Centenary Celebrations (Government Contributions)
  Marx Centenary Celebrations (Government Contributions)
  Service Contracts
  Service Contracts
  Defence Capability (Special Steels)
  Defence Capability (Special Steels)
  Williamsburg Summit Meeting
  Williamsburg Summit Meeting
  Independent Television (Government Advertisements)
  Independent Television (Government Advertisements)
  Falkland Islands (Wool)
  Falkland Islands (Wool)
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  Falkland Islands (Food Purchases)
  Falkland Islands (Food Purchases)
  Argentine Cargo Aircraft
  Argentine Cargo Aircraft
  Blohm and Voss Submarines (Commercial Contracts)
  Blohm and Voss Submarines (Commercial Contracts)
  Armaments Industry
  Armaments Industry
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid Programmes (Review)
  Aid Programmes (Review)
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Falkland Islands (Teachers)
  Falkland Islands (Teachers)
  Falkland Islands (Civil Reconstruction)
  Falkland Islands (Civil Reconstruction)
  South Atlantic (Fishing)
  South Atlantic (Fishing)
  India (Laparoscopes)
  India (Laparoscopes)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Woodland (Public Access)
  Woodland (Public Access)
  Forestry (Sales)
  Forestry (Sales)
  Bacon Factories
  Bacon Factories
  Pig Industry (Deficiency Payments)
  Pig Industry (Deficiency Payments)
  Farm Holdings
  Farm Holdings
  Surplus Agricultural Production
  Surplus Agricultural Production
  Food Imports
  Food Imports
  Mediterranean Agricultural Products
  Mediterranean Agricultural Products
  Community Budget (Agriculture)
  Community Budget (Agriculture)
  Commodity Prices
  Commodity Prices
  Veal Crates
  Veal Crates
  Common Agricultural Policy (Price Discussions)
  Common Agricultural Policy (Price Discussions)
  Fruit and Vegetables (Prices)
  Fruit and Vegetables (Prices)
  Food and Wine Exports (Soviet Union)
  Food and Wine Exports (Soviet Union)
SCOTLAND
  Urban Aid (Strathclyde)
  Urban Aid (Strathclyde)
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  National Library of Scotland
  National Library of Scotland
  Hamilton College of Education
  Hamilton College of Education
  Balvaird Castle
  Balvaird Castle
  Departmental Grants
  Departmental Grants
ENERGY
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Reactors
  Power Lines (Devon)
  Power Lines (Devon)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Special Constabulary)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Special Constabulary)
  Oil Stocks
  Oil Stocks
  Uranium Oxide
  Uranium Oxide
  Nuclear Generation (Costs)
  Nuclear Generation (Costs)
TRANSPORT
  Pedestrian Crossing (Ealing)
  Pedestrian Crossing (Ealing)
  European Community (Vehicle Lighting)
  European Community (Vehicle Lighting)
  Lead in Petrol
  Lead in Petrol
  Sizewell Inquiry (Costs)
  Sizewell Inquiry (Costs)
  A406 (Public Inquiries)
  A406 (Public Inquiries)
  Motor Cyclists (Visors)
  Motor Cyclists (Visors)
  Dim-dip Lighting Devices
  Dim-dip Lighting Devices
  Crash Helmets
  Crash Helmets
  Hereford and Worcester (Bus Services)
  Hereford and Worcester (Bus Services)
  Road Track Costs
  Road Track Costs
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nazi War Criminals
  Nazi War Criminals
  South West Africa People's Organisation
  South West Africa People's Organisation
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  United States of America (Ministerial Visit)
  United States of America (Ministerial Visit)
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Argentina (European Citizens)
  Argentina (European Citizens)
  Hong Kong (Students)
  Hong Kong (Students)
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Falkland Islands (Banking)
  Falkland Islands (Banking)
  Falklands Islands (Private Capital)
  Falklands Islands (Private Capital)
  Diego Garcia
  Diego Garcia
  Falkland Islands (United Nations)
  Falkland Islands (United Nations)
  Dr. Jack Prager
  Dr. Jack Prager
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
WALES
  Livestock (Transport)
  Livestock (Transport)
  Coal Miners (Employment Statistics)
  Coal Miners (Employment Statistics)
ENVIRONMENT
  Water Industry (Dispute)
  Water Industry (Dispute)
  Homes Insulation
  Homes Insulation
  Temple Bar
  Temple Bar
  Rural Development Areas
  Rural Development Areas
  Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield
  Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield
  Aluminium
  Aluminium
  Noise (Departmental Booklet)
  Noise (Departmental Booklet)
  Anti-litter Legislation
  Anti-litter Legislation
  Merseyside (Visit)
  Merseyside (Visit)
  Water (Nitrate Level)
  Water (Nitrate Level)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Tadworth Court Children's Hospital
  Tadworth Court Children's Hospital
  Alcohol Abuse
  Alcohol Abuse
  Benefits (Cost)
  Benefits (Cost)
  National Health Insurance Charges
  National Health Insurance Charges
  Detoxification Evaluation Project
  Detoxification Evaluation Project
  St. Mary's Hospital, Stannington (Patients)
  St. Mary's Hospital, Stannington (Patients)
  Genetic Screening
  Genetic Screening
  Occupational Health Services
  Occupational Health Services
  NHS Workers (Illness)
  NHS Workers (Illness)
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Kidney Machines
  Kidney Machines
  Mathew Trust
  Mathew Trust
  Drugs (Reporting Procedures)
  Drugs (Reporting Procedures)
  Maternity Grant and Allowance
  Maternity Grant and Allowance
  Nuclear War
  Nuclear War
  National Health Service (Drug Costs)
  National Health Service (Drug Costs)
  Care in the Community
  Care in the Community
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Benefits
  Benefits
  War Widows (Pensions)
  War Widows (Pensions)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Blackburn
  Blackburn
  Leicester
  Leicester
  National Heart and Chest Hospitals (Report)
  National Heart and Chest Hospitals (Report)
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Dental Care
  Dental Care
  Union Recognition (Criteria)
  Union Recognition (Criteria)
  Dental Hygienists
  Dental Hygienists
  Blood Supplies
  Blood Supplies
  Dental Students
  Dental Students
  Children (Dental Treatment)
  Children (Dental Treatment)
  Dental Therapists
  Dental Therapists
  Drugs (Safety)
  Drugs (Safety)
  Widowed Mothers' Allowance
  Widowed Mothers' Allowance
CIVIL SERVICE
  European Commission (Staff)
  European Commission (Staff)
  Sex Equality
  Sex Equality
  Nursery Council
  Nursery Council
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Black Economy
  Black Economy
  Linotype-Paul
  Linotype-Paul
  Competitiveness
  Competitiveness
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Manufacturers' Input Prices
  Manufacturers' Input Prices
  Productivity
  Productivity
  Beer
  Beer
  Mr. Alan Waters
  Mr. Alan Waters
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults
  Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults
  Seafarers (Taxation)
  Seafarers (Taxation)
  Free Ports
  Free Ports
  Retail Prices Index
  Retail Prices Index
NORTHERN IRELAND
  M1/M2 Link Road
  M1/M2 Link Road
  Hon. Member for Antrim, South (Speech)
  Hon. Member for Antrim, South (Speech)
  Psychogeriatrics
  Psychogeriatrics
TRADE
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Shipping Industry
  Shipping Industry
  Ship British Campaign
  Ship British Campaign
  Merchant Navy Welfare Board
  Merchant Navy Welfare Board
  Airways
  Airways
  Cork Committee Report
  Cork Committee Report
  British Airlines (United States)
  British Airlines (United States)
  British Trading Interests (United States)
  British Trading Interests (United States)
  Video Tape Recorders
  Video Tape Recorders
DEFENCE
  Meteorological Service
  Meteorological Service
  Equipment (Improvements)
  Equipment (Improvements)
  Procurement
  Procurement
  Falkland Islands (Hangars)
  Falkland Islands (Hangars)
  Port Stanley Airport
  Port Stanley Airport
  Type 23 Frigate
  Type 23 Frigate
  British and Research Company
  British and Research Company
  Sealink Ferry St. Edmund
  Sealink Ferry St. Edmund
  Ship Cabling
  Ship Cabling
  Marine Joseph Paterson
  Marine Joseph Paterson
  Diego Garcia
  Diego Garcia
  Argentine Dead (Burial)
  Argentine Dead (Burial)
  RFA Sir Galahad
  RFA Sir Galahad
  Squadron Leader Iverson
  Squadron Leader Iverson
  Jobs (Glasgow)
  Jobs (Glasgow)
  Lakenheath and Upper Heyford
  Lakenheath and Upper Heyford

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

The Falklands: Land Distribution
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what consideration is being given to a response to the Falkland islanders' claim for a more just distribution of land on the islands.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Falkland Islands Government are currently assessing the demand for land ownership in relation to the amount being offered for sale on the open market. First indications are that this demand is relatively small.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that time is passing? It would appear that the Government are giving thought to certain considerations and have made promises that they will look at this matter, but they seem to be taking a very long time to arrive at a decision. This is causing some concern not merely in the Legislative Council of the Falklands Islands, but particularly among the young who wish to carve out a career for themselves; the only way in which they can do that is for half the land which is now owned by the Falkland Islands Company to be shared among them.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in the autumn the Falkland Islands Government sent a questionnaire to 300 workers in the agricultural sector asking whether and where they would like to buy land on the islands. By the closing date—28th February—only 59 islanders had replied, all expressing interest in acquiring land. Currently two schemes are in being. One, which is being offered by a private landlord, is at Douglas Station; secondly, the Falkland Islands Company is currently offering for sale 50-acre plots of land bordering the road from Port Stanley to Darwin. The Falkland Islands Government themselves are considering the purchase of a three-farm estate in West Falkland owned by Packe Brothers. So this matter is not exactly being swept under the carpet and action is taking place on this front.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the general support for the Shackleton proposals, particularly in respect of agricultural and farming land? Is he aware of the strong concern that there should be better prospects of land tenure and ownership? Having regard also to the fact that 43 per cent. of the land is owned by the Falkland Islands Company, will he facilitate—through the Falkland Islands Development Agency and other means—the speeding up of the prospects not only for local people
470
but also in order to attract more people to the islands?—because they are sorely needed, not only for work but also for the production and development of the future.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, naturally, I take the point that the noble Lord has just made. With all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, it is one thing to put a concrete idea in a report, but it is quite another subsequently to discover whether, in fact, the islanders want it. However, on the possibility of immigrants, I shall certainly take that point and refer it to my right honourable friend.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Lord means by saying that it is one thing to put something in a report. I had not intended to intervene, but as I always tend to be traduced by whoever the Government are on the subject of the Falklands—I see the eye of the Leader on me; I am breaking the rules—will the noble Lord not agree that if 59 people say they are interested it is possible to consider that it is relatively large and not relatively small?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, relative to what?—is probably the response to that. In a recent television programme in this country the suggestion was made that 60 per cent. of the islanders want to buy land. But the results of the questionnaire do not currently bear this out. So, again, I ask the noble Lord, relative to what?
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, although I have not been to the Falkland Islands, will my noble friend agree that 50 acres is likely to be quite useless to anyone?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, again, relative to what? I agree that 50 acres for the production of sheep would be totally useless; but 50 acres for horticulture, for pigs or chickens, might be extremely valuable.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, when we talk of percentages of population ought one not to make it clear whether one is referring to men, women and children, or to households?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, the noble Earl is perfectly correct on that. I understand that the 59 refers to households and the "Panorama" figure of 60 per cent. refers to islanders.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that anyone who wishes to farm in the Falkland Islands deserves all the help he can get?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think that anybody who wants to farm anywhere deserves all the help he can get.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that what this is primarily relative to—and I shall try to make him understand this—is the future of the young Falkland islanders? As Sir Rex Hunt has said, there is a disturbing exodus of young Falkland islanders because they cannot get land. Sir Rex Hunt has said the Legislative Council is willing to take land into public ownership by means of compulsory purchase to

471
encourage the young people to stay there. Only last month the Foreign Secretary—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord Molloy: Is the noble Lord aware—I hope that that is not superfluous—that only last month the Foreign Secretary stated in a broadcast on the BBC that this proposal was having the active consideration of the Government? That was repeated only a few weeks ago by Mr. Cranley Onslow in the other place. Can the noble Lord say that these proposals emanating from the legislative chamber for them to be assisted will be made the reality?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I sought to make clear in my original supplementary answers to the noble Lord, this question is being actively pursued both by the Falkland Islands Council themselves and by my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Minister of State with special responsibility for that part of the world. The fact that there are three farm schemes on the go at the moment, while it is too early yet to see whether there will be any call for any more, I think speaks for itself.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, will the Minister not only heed the views of the media—the television and the radio—but also accept that he can be substantially helped and encouraged in this matter by some of us who have been in the Falklands in recent weeks, and who on matters of farming and agriculture have been closely in touch with the grass roots, if I may put it that way? Will he realise the urgency of this matter?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I am fully aware of recent parliamentary delegations to the Falkland Islands, and I have a feeling that the noble Lord himself was a member of one of them. I readily admit that they have much more immediate grass-roots experience (to use the noble Lord's expression) than I have, and most certainly I would be willing to take advice.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government want to see people emigrating from this country to the Falklands, because if so I can give him a few names?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, emigration and immigration are part of the general Government policy, and we want to keep it that way.

Parental Choice of Schools
2.45 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many local education authorities have given full effect to
472
the provisions of the 1980 Act providing for greater parental choice.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the school admission provisions of the Education Act 1980 apply to all local education authorities in respect of admissions in September 1982 and subsequently. While some complaints alleging that the Act was not being operated properly have been received by the Government, none has so far been found to be substantiated.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that encouraging reply, which does not altogether confirm what one hears in other quarters, can we be assured that if there is evidence of local authorities not wishing to implement these provisions the Government will reconsider the matter?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I can only repeat that none of these allegations has in fact been substantiated. Obviously, in the first year of any new plan there are teething troubles, and I hope that these will be sorted out in future years.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House how the continuing wave of closures of rural primary schools contributes to parental choice? Will he undertake that the Government in future will pursue a more imaginative policy in this respect?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think it is fair to say that every single possible closure is treated on its merits. Some schools obviously will have to be closed because of falling numbers and some may well stay open.
Baroness David: My Lords, if they are closed, how much choice are the parents going to have about where the children go? I have in my hand a document from a parent from a primary school in Cambridgeshire saying that if the school is closed the children are automatically going to be bussed four and a half miles, and that parents do not like it. How much parental choice is there there?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think it is a fairly obvious point that in any rural area there is going to be a lot less choice than in an urban area. Obviously I do not know the details, but most local education authorities probably agree that if there is a place in the school and if the parents are prepared to take their children there, then they will make parental choice available; but they are not very often prepared to transport the children to schools beyond the one that is the nearest.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that parental choice is being negatived in many cases by local authorities changing the catchment areas, so that where a family has two children in one school and then there is a change of catchment area, the younger child cannot go to the school with his brothers in that particular area?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has any details of individual cases I shall be interested to hear them if he will write to me.

473
In fact, the whole idea of the 1980 Act was to provide more parental choice, and the parents have a procedure which they can go through to appeal against any local authorities sending children to a school that the parents do not like.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, would it not be true to say that here we are worrying about parental choice, when there is not pupil choice? Are there not lots of young people who cannot get into the schools or the universities which they wish to get into?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, if there were to be pupil choice I do not know whether you would have toddlers of two or three saying that they did not like to go to their particular playgroup. Presumably when the parents do go they talk to their children and, I should imagine, try to ascertain which school they would rather go to. It would be difficult to bring in legislation where you had the pupil choosing the school rather than the parents.

Overseas Volunteers: Social Security Benefits
2.50 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the arrangements for social security benefits for volunteers returning from service in developing countries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): Yes, my Lords. Although some volunteers do not pay Class 1 employed earners' contributions while they are abroad and so cannot get unemployment benefit when they return to this country, any volunteer suffering financial hardship is able to claim supplementary benefit.
Lord Oram: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a recent survey shows that British volunteers are at a disadvantage in respect of social security benefits by comparison with most other countries? Can the noble Lord confirm that if volunteers pay employee-only contributions for a year, that will now be recognised as a qualification for drawing unemployment and sickness benefit? But even if that is so, as I hope, does it not still leave some half of volunteers unable to qualify because, in the developing countries, they are earning less than the minimum earnings limit?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as for the European position, to which the noble Lord referred in the first part of that supplementary, social security schemes vary greatly from one country to another, and what is appropriate or right in one country may not necessarily be so in another. As for the question of the lower earnings limit, it is the case that some volunteers overseas earn less than £29·50 a week, which means that they are not eligible to make Class 1 contributions, and that being so, they are not entitled
474
to unemployment benefit when they return. But of course that is the position with volunteers working in this country as well, and it would be difficult to create a special class of volunteer who served overseas and who had preferential treatment compared with those in precisely similar circumstances working in this country.
As for the point about employee-only contributions, the Class 1 arrangement is that contributions are made both by employee and employer, but as a matter of procedure we have agreed that where it is not possible to insist on employer contributions—for example, the employer may be an overseas organisation from whom it would be difficult to collect the money—then we shall accept employee-only payments.
Lord Caradon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that recent arrangements have been made between Voluntary Service Overseas and the United Nations volunteers by which they will work closely together in recruitment and in other ways? Would he therefore agree that it is important that this disadvantage, as it can be, should not be extended to international volunteers from any other volunteers? Indeed, would he not agree that it is undesirable that this dosadvantage should apply to any of them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I imagine that the arrangements to which the noble Lord refers would comply with the three principal conditions relating to Class 1 contributions, and thus people working under those schemes would be eligible for unemployment benefit when they return to this country. Perhaps I could write to the noble Lord with the principal details so that he can clarify that matter in his mind.
Lord Oram: My Lords, does it not arise from the Answer which the Minister gave me that our volunteers are disadvantaged if they give good service for a very worthy cause and then come back and have to apply for supplementary benefit? Should not their benefit be better structured, and will the Minister look into the matter with some sympathy?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly would not wish to have a closed mind on this matter and would be very willing to listen to any representation the noble Lord would like to make to me. But the three priincipal conditions to which I referred are well known and understood, and it would be difficult to create a class of volunteer who received preferential treatment compared, for example, with volunteers working in very similar circumstances in this country.

Road and Motorway Construction
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many miles of new road and motorway were constructed in the last year for which figures are available.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in the year ending 31st March 1982, 127 miles of trunk roads and motorways were completed in the United Kingdom. Of these 127 miles, 94 are trunk roads and 33 are motorways. Comparable figures for local authority roads, which are not the Government's responsibility, are not held centrally.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is satisfied with progress in 1982–83, and what can he tell me about by-pass construction?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, progress so far in 1982–83 is satisfactory. In England, a combination of fine weather, very low tender prices and the ability of some contractors to redeploy resources to road construction have enabled us to achieve far more than anticipated; 26 contracts are expected to be completed or open to traffic, 15 of them ahead of schedule, and that will add a further 21 miles of motorway and 62 miles of trunk roads to the national network. To answer the second part of my noble friend's supplementary, regarding by-passes, 234 of these are on trunk roads and 135 have been or are being by-passed. There are plans in preparation for a further 84 and, of the remaining 15, eight have relief roads other than by-passes planned or already in construction.
Lord Derwent: This Question deals with new construction, my Lords. Can my noble friend say in what century the repairs to the M1 are likely to be completed?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, work on the M1 is now under way and it is expected to be completed in the early autumn of this year.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, although the Minister says, probably rightly, that he is satisfied with the progress made, may I ask him to tell the House about the number of schemes and miles of roads which have not been made in recent years, including by-passes and so on? Has he worked out the consequences of that in terms of delays, accidents and other effects to offset the aspect which he would claim was creditable, that of saving public money?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I regret that I am not able to tell the noble Lord the number of roads and projects that have not been completed. I can tell him, however, that the accident rate on trunk roads and motorways involving both passenger cars and commercial vehicles is reducing each year.
Lord Plant: Referring to maintenance, my Lords, may I ask when the Government expect the M25 ringing London might be completed?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the M25 orbital route is on target and completion date for the whole is scheduled for 1986; 51 miles are completed and a further 24 miles are expected to be opened this year, which means that by the end of the year over half the total length will have been completed. The remaining contracts should be let about this time next year.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: Bearing in mind the major importance of road transport in this country, my Lords, does the Minister not think it rather a pity that Governments of both parties have disregarded the Department of Transport's advice on road building programmes and have always used them as the first Aunt Sally in any cuts?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I could not agree with that, my Lords. For example, £620 million is the estimated figure for new construction and maintenance for the current period, 1982–83. That is 11 per cent. up on the previous year, which was 16 per cent. up on the year previous to that.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1983
2.58 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that this House approves the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1983. I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House that the debate should also take note of the Review of the Operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976.
The need to prevent terrorism is a serious and sad one which places a grave duty on Parliament to which this House returns from year to year. In the course of the last of those years, one Member of your Lordships' House in particular has turned his hand to this work with considerable distinction and success, and it is with pleasure that I express to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe our appreciation of his review of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. My own admiration of his work in this delicate area is shared by Her Majesty's Government, and I trust that I speak for your Lordships' House as a whole.
At the renewal debate in another place last year my right honourable friend the Home Secretary stated that there would be a review of the 1976 Act, and announced the decision to appoint my noble friend to undertake it. I believe that we all looked to my noble friend to consider whether the Act achieved the right balance between the safety of the public and the rights of the individual, and in my view the report achieves exactly that balance which was sought.
My noble friend's report on the operation of this legislation was published just over a month ago. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I briefly summarise the major recommendations, including the important new safeguards proposed, and if I confirm the Government's preliminary reactions to it, which were stated in another place last week by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The report recommends that new legislation be introduced subject both to annual renewal and to a limited span of five years in all. Such a Bill would incorporate other major recommendations in the review, subject to views expressed in your Lordships'

477
House, and elsewhere. It is our intention to introduce a Bill which will include the time limits recommended. We accept fully the underlying principle that such legislation should be regularly scrutinised. That has, I think, been amply demonstrated by our setting up the review last year and by the full provision of parliamentary time for discussing both it and the renewal of existing legislation this month. The report points to the changing nature of the terrorist threat, and it is right that such legislation should be capable of being amended to reflect those changes.
Some of the major recommendations are such that we must take the views of a number of those who would be affected by them, before we implement them. The major recommendations on which we are consulting widely relate to the powers of arrest, detention, and exclusion. Let us look first at the powers for detention at the ports. Under the present Act the police may detain for up to 48 hours someone whom they have arrested. After that they may detain him for a further five days, but only on the authority of the Home Secretary. If they apply for an extension of less than five days, there is no provision in the Act for them to apply for a further extension. It is probably as a consequence of that situation that such a large proportion of applications are for extension for the full five days. The report recommends that there should be a power for applications to extend further, up to the maximum, detention originally extended to less than the maximum.
I have said that if the report's proposals become law, important and significant safeguards would be introduced. The expectation would be that applications for less than the maximum would then be made far more frequently than at present. In addition, those detained at ports would have to be given written notification of their rights after one hour, and beyond 12 hours they could be detained only on grounds similar to those which would justify an arrest under Section 12 of the Act; that is to say, where the examining officer has formed a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is either guilty of an offence under the Act, or is concerned in the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism, or is subject to an exclusion order.
Looking at detention powers both at ports and inland, I would say that amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, now being scrutinised in another place, would ensure that the right of access to solicitors and notification of arrest to a third party are made explicit. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, has undertaken to move such amendments to give effect in the Bill to those recommendations in respect of England and Wales, and in the related codes. Other recommendations look to greater uniformity of controls at the ports, including the completion of landing and embarkation cards on commercial flights and sailings between Great Britain and the island of Ireland, and to great improvements in the conditions of detention.
With regard to exclusion orders, the major recommendations are as follows. First, exclusion orders would lapse after three years, unless a fresh application for exclusion were granted on its own merits. In other words, if it is considered necessary to continue an individual's exclusion beyond three years,
478
it should be done on the basis of a fresh application by the police, detailing recent intelligence on him, and setting out the reasons why exclusion remains necessary. A fresh exclusion order, signed by the Secretary of State, would be required for exclusion to last beyond three years. Secondly, it is proposed that suspects could not be excluded from that part of the United Kindom in which they had been ordinarily resident for more than three years and; thirdly, the right to make representations and see an adviser would extend to those already excluded. Those proposals are designed, among other things, to prevent the use of exclusion powers causing significant hardship, either financial or emotional, to the family of the excluded person. I take this opportunity to remind your Lordships that my noble friend concluded that exclusion had "materially contributed to public safety".
My noble friend also recommended that, to take account of the significant threat of international terrorism, the arrest and detention powers under the Act should be extended to apply to international terrorists of any group, cause, or nationality. The report draws attention to the major trend of an increasing threat from such terrorism within the United Kingdom. It points to the forging of international links by Northern Ireland terrorist groups, and to incidents on the mainland unconnected with Northern Irish affairs. Your Lordships will recall the recent trial of those responsible for the brutal attempt in June on the life of the Israeli Ambassador, which reminded us all of the gravity of international terrorism.
My noble friend pointed out that the change would help to remove the claim that these powers are anti-Irish, rather than anti-terrorist. But he emphasised that the reasons for which he made the recommendations were practical. I would remind your Lordships that he said specifically:
"I am satisfied…that the arrest powers of this Act have been of considerable benefit in dealing with Northern Irish terrorism. This being so, I believe that they should be available for use in dealing with international terrorism".
The report also recommends a number of administrative measures which we intend to take forward, subject to the views expressed here by your Lordships and by others who have an interest. Where quick action has been appropriate, it has already been taken. Henceforth the views of "receiving" forces will be stated on applications for exclusion (as proposed in paragraph 189) and my right honourable friend himself now already personally considers all applications for extensions of detention.
I turn now to the use made of the present Act during the last year and to make to your Lordships what has almost become a customary annual report on the figures. Since the Act was renewed last year, and up to the end of last month, 224 people have been detained in Great Britain, and 38 extensions of detention have been granted beyond 48 hours. The police in Great Britain have made 17 applications for exclusion, and 15 orders were signed by my right honourable friend. Eight hundred and twenty-eight people were arrested in Northern Ireland under Section 12 of the Act, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland granted 639 applications for

479
extensions beyond 48 hours, and signed two exclusion orders.
Under the arrangements to review an exclusion order three years after it is made, the Home Secretary has, in the last 12 months, revoked eight orders and confirmed 12 others. Seven cases are currently under review. None of those excluded made representations to have his case considered by one of the independent advisers.
Therefore, I ask your Lordships to renew the 1976 Act for a further year in the hope, as my right honourable friend said in another place, that this will be the last time that a Minister will be asking the House to renew it for a full year. I draw no satisfaction from seeking renewal, and I understand fully the position of those who find it difficult to square the legislative provisions with the fundamental liberties which are sacred to us all. But the highest freedom, in Britain and beyond, is—and here I quote the report of another distinguished and noble Lord, Lord Shackleton:
"that of ordinary people to stay alive and go about their business without fear".
Just as exceptional powers require exceptional safeguards, so does the prime freedom require our prime concern. I shall listen with particular interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who did so much to focus public interest and the law on this vital and difficult area.
Against the background of the constructive and humane proposals in the later report of my noble friend and the restrained and measured use of the Act over the past year, we must remind ourselves of the nature of the threat that we confront. Terrorism is destructive and inhuman; it seeks by brutal and merciless acts to shake our own determination to act with reason and resolution. But we are firm in our resolve to protect the rights of individuals and the lives of us all. I believe that the Government of the day were trying to do this when they introduced this legislation in 1974. In subsequent years this House has been united in its resolution to remain steadfast. There can be no doubt that the brutality, horror and grief in our parks last July demonstrated that the threat is undiminished. It is clear that we must continue to give the police the vital support that they need to control it. They are strongly in favour of renewal of this Act. We must demonstrate that this House will not be deflected from its duty to suppress the evils which attack the people of this country. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th February be approved. [12th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Elton.)
3.11 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, one matter on which I feel sure we are all united today is that it is regrettable that we still are having to debate the retention of legislation of this kind. We regret it, I believe, for two main reasons. First, because there continue to be acts of terrorism—grotesque and, indeed, obscene acts—which it seeks to prevent. Over the past year, we have seen once again, since the last time we renewed this legislation, further acts, including those to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has already referred, in the London parks last summer, in
480
the Ballykelly public house murders and others, which we join with the noble Lord in condemning in the strongest possible terms. We express, too, our sympathy to the injured and to the victims' families and friends.
We regret the need to debate this legislation, too, because of the nature of the legislation itself and the fact that we have found it necessary to enact laws which restrict our freedom—and I want to come back to the nature of the legislation in a moment. But, first, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his survey of the Act and the report, I should like to join him in the tribute he has paid to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for the very significant service he has performed in carrying out his inquiry and producing his report. I had occasion last year to welcome the decision to hold an inquiry and to welcome the noble Earl's appointment.
As we would have expected, my Lords, he has carried out a very thorough and comprehensive review and has produced what I can only describe as a masterly, persuasive and, I would say, convincing report. This report, and the equally outstanding contribution made by my noble friend Lord Shackleton, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred this afternoon, in his Report on the Prevention of Terrorism Acts 1974 and 1976, published in 1978, together amount to the definitive works on the operation of this legislation.
I say that the noble Earl's report is convincing for this reason. Not only has he mastered the detail and intricacies of the way the Act works, but he has also looked at it searchingly and critically. Indeed, it is clear that he has agonised over the provisions which, like so many of us, he has always found repugnant because they restrict our civil liberties and our democratic way of life, even though we are bound to accept them as necessary. I, for one, find the approach of the noble Earl reassuring in that he has plainly agonised over these provisions.
It is perhaps appropriate here to mention a point which some of us have made from time to time and which was made so effectively and eloquently by my noble friend Lord Shackleton in his report in words to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has referred this afternoon, words which bear repeating or at least paraphrasing: that in attempting to prevent terrorism we have sought to strike a balance between the need to preserve civil liberties and the need to protect the lives and property of the overwhelming mass of the law-abiding citizens of this country; and in doing so we have sought to safeguard the most basic civil liberties, the right to stay alive and, indeed, to go about one's business without fear.
My Lords, I mention all this because it is important. It is important that we should not merely make, as a matter of routine, a statement condemning the appalling acts of terrorism that our people have suffered and a statement indicating our abhorrence of the measures in this legislation and then feel that in some way we have been granted some sort of absolution, without making it perfectly clear that we really mean what we say and that we mean to act on what we say. I know that from both sides of the House we have made such statements condemning terrorism and regretting the

481
need for this legislation; and I am quite sure that we have meant and weighed every word. But what I am not so sure about is whether, once the moment has passed, we have all been as assiduous at all times as we might have been in keeping firmly in, mind the precise nature of this legislation and the extent to which it invades the civil liberties that we in this country hold dear.
In other words, my Lords, we must never allow ourselves just to go through the motions of condemning terrorism and with expressing our revulsion against this type of legislation. We must remain constantly on the alert to the dangers of both all the time. We could so easily become anaesthetised and numbed so that we are unconscious of the dangers of acceptance on a long-term basis of these inroads into our civil liberties. Terrorism—this may be obvious but perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves—is evil. It is obscene. It is possible, I suppose, to suppress it, or almost to do so, as the Communists and some other totalitarian régimes have done in cases. But none would even contempate countenancing their methods for a moment. We are prepared to use all reasonable methods to protect life and our democracy, but we are not, I should hope, prepared to jeopardise, still less surrender, our democratic principles, rights and safeguards.
I would urge this, my Lords. Let us constantly remind ourselves that there are limits to the measures that we find acceptable and we would not be prepared to go beyond them if it meant jeopardising the democratic rights we hold so dear and for which we have fought so hard. This brings me to the point that I want to emphasise today. It is that, whatever view is taken about the continuing need for this legislation, I hope that the Government will keep constantly in the forefront of their minds that there is growing unease about aspects of this legislation. The Government have shown that they are aware of that increasing unease, otherwise they would not have set up the inquiry under the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe; neither would they have been preparing to implement, as Lord Elton has indicated today, the main recommendations, if not all the recommendations, in the report.
A major complaint which I and others on these Benches have to make against the Government is that they have not been sufficiently sensitive to that unease and that they have reacted far too slowly; indeed, they have acted only when they have been pushed hard. Let me explain a little further. It was four years ago, in March 1979, that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, first put forward in your Lordships' House, in the debate on the order to renew this Act, his suggestion that when the matter next came up for debate the legislation should be reintroduced afresh as a new Bill, a main reason being that Parliament would then be able to consider possible amendments which of course it cannot do with an order. As we know, we can only take it or leave it as it stands. It so happens that I was at the Home Office at the time that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, put forward that proposal and I responded immediately by saying that we would consider that suggestion. I emphasise that I was not able to say that we would accept it there and then but we were prepared to consider it.
482
Since then I have joined, as have other noble Lords, with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in putting that suggestion each year to the present Government. It has taken—and I do not think that we can ignore it—four years for the Government to accept that need. It could be nearly five years before we actually enact a new Bill. Again, it was two years ago that my right honourable and honourable friends in another place called on the Government to set up a new inquiry into the Act. It was not until a year had passed that the Government accepted that proposal, and then only at the very last moment, or so it appeared.
If the Government really believe that on such a matter as the prevention of terrorism it is desirable to have a consensus between the Government and Opposition parties, as in war and perhaps on some other matters—and I feel instinctively that on terrorism and combating terrorism that is desirable if possible—as indeed the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary said in another place last week, then they must be much more sensitive to people's misgivings and be much more forthcoming and ready to respond instead of appearing to drag their feet when they come to reviewing and reforming this legislation.
That is a principal complaint that we have against the Government and I feel bound to spell it out. I say that not in any aggressive way and certainly not because I have any doubts about the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, or his right honourable friend, for I have no such doubts. But I offer that view as a piece of advice to the Government. I welcome the report of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and almost all of his recommendations. I hope that the Government will implement them as swiftly as possible if we are to keep this legislation. I welcome particularly what is perhaps his most important recommendation, and one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, today, that a new Bill should be introduced; that it should come up for renewal annually; that it should lapse after five years and then have to be introduced as a new Bill, if still needed, after a further inquiry of some kind. If we are to have the legislation then it is right that it should come up for review and possible revision in that way.
I hope that the Government will not wait until the next renewal date approaches but will introduce the new Bill at the earliest possible moment. Part of the unease about this legislation arises because less and less use is being made of the main powers in the Act, as the statistics show, and as the annual report given to us this afternoon by the noble Lord shows. We see that the number of detentions last year—and I do not need to mention them specifically as they have been quoted in some detail—were a little lower than in 1981 but considerably down on previous calendar years since the introduction of the legislation in 1974. The number of exclusion orders last year was similar to the number in 1981 but much lower than in most other years, and the number of extensions of detention also was down last year. However, as the noble Earl points out, the figures have to be treated with caution; and as he also points out, the proportion of what he calls "catches" has risen over the years. Moreover, as we have said in earlier debates in your Lordships' House, the effectiveness of the Act can never be proved conclusively, for its intention is to prevent terrorism and we can never be sure how many crimes have been

483
prevented, nor can we say exactly what the deterrent effect of the Act has been.
A sizeable number of criticisms has been made of the Act or of the way it has been operated, and the noble Earl has identified those and made recommendations for improvement. I do not want to go through them all in detail, except to welcome them. I want to mention a few of them. I turn first to the power of arrest. At paragraph 68 of his report, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, recommends:
"that the police throughout the United Kingdom śhould be reminded by the appropriate Secretary of State that the power of arrest under section 12 should be exercised only where the use of no other power is appropriate to the end sought".
I support that recommendation, but it should not have been necessary now.
The power of arrest in this Act represents one of the ways in which the Act seeks to assist the police in keeping down terrorism. But it also represents one of the major incursions into our normal civil liberties. The fact that it has been necessary for the noble Earl to make this recommendation—very properly, if I may say so—therefore illustrates all too plainly one of our major worries that this Act and the use of its powers need to be kept under much closer scrutiny than before. It underlines our complaint that the Government have not responded anywhere near quickly enough to the calls for a new inquiry and a new Bill so that that could be done. The same kind of considerations apply to the series of recommendations which are on page 25 of the report which centre on applications to extend periods of detention and the need to specify the period required; and the need for the Secretary of State—as is also recommended—to grant the maximum of five days' extension only where a shorter period will not do, and that if he grants a shorter period, the police will have to apply for a further extension up to a total maximum of five days. I support those recommendations.
I shall just give this word of warning about that particular proposal. Suppose the Secretary of State granted three days on a first application and then a new application came for the remaining two days. Inevitably, that would be a rush job to get the Secretary of State's approval—even more of a rush job than usual. I speak as one who has considered these applications before they have gone to the Home Secretary. There would always be a danger that the Secretary of State, with too little time to consider it, would say, "Oh, let them have the extra time". I urge two things very strongly: first, that the initial application and decision should be as thorough and as certain as possible. Secondly, that a very close watch be kept on these multiple applications, as they might be called, to see that there are not too many of them and to ensure that the system is not being abused by, for instance, asking for two or three days in the first place with the aim of grabbing the extra three or two days, as the case may be, in a great rush or panic from a Secretary of State who feels too hard-pressed to say, "No".
I agree strongly with the noble Earl that Ministers should take an active part in finding out how far the purposes for which an extension was granted have been achieved, and they should satisfy themselves that
484
people are not detained under this Act for longer than is absolutely necessary. I urge that Ministers be given a report as soon as is practicable on each case to satisfy themselves that the steps taken were justified and to enable them to take appropriate action if they are not satisfied. If I do not dwell on the recommendations in Chapter 5 about the rights of detainees at police stations, that is in order to avoid taking up time unnecessarily; but I share the noble Earl's view in attaching,
"considerable weight to the recommendations in this chapter".
There are two other specific matters I should like to mention. One concerns exclusion orders and the other is the offence of withholding information. The power to make an order to exclude a person from part of his own country marks perhaps the most severe limitation in the Act upon our traditional civil liberties in this country. I was not at all surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, found that this provision in the Act gave him the greatest difficulty. His view, expressed in paragraph 176, is—and I quote in part—
"the exclusion of some people … has materially contributed to public safety in the United Kingdom and that this could not have been achieved through the normal criminal process."
I would accept that. He also said in paragraph 178—and again I quote in part—
"the power to exclude should remain … in extreme cases:"—
I would ask your Lordships to note the word "extreme"—
"that its severity should be mitigated … and that the possibility of abolishing it should be kept under regular review, without prejudice to the Act's other powers.".
The noble Earl then goes on to recommend two of the most important changes. First, he says in paragraph 181 that—
"… citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies should not be liable to exclusion from that part of the United Kingdom in which they are settled.".
Then he says in paragraph 198, and I quote again:
"… exclusion orders should henceforth be made only for a fixed term of three years …".
instead of for an unlimited period with a possibility of a review after three years. I would support both those recommendations which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, this afternoon. On the proposal to keep the possibility of abolishing altogether the power to exclude, I would ask the Minister whether he would not agree that it would be perfectly possible to frame the new Act so that in any further renewal of the legislation there could be provision for parts of the Act only to be renewed, so that, say, the exclusion power could be dropped easily.
But there is one other point about the noble Earl's recommendations on exclusion which needs to be made. That is this: exactly the same sort of considerations arise here as arose out of the proposals to reform the powers of arrest and detention. It really should not have been necessary to make these recommendations now. If the Act had been reviewed sooner, with the chance to amend it, we might have had these changes long ago.
Then there is the offence of withholding information about terrorism. I have always accepted the need for that provision if we are to have this legislation and I have had less difficulty over it than with some other

485
provisions; because if terrorism is to be fought successfully, the fullest possible information is essential. The corollary of that surely is that the greatest harm could arise from withholding information. I agree with the noble Earl's recommendations, and in particular with the one which says that it should be made plain in the Act itself that in requiring people to be forthcoming about information a person is not being required to incriminate himself, and that in Section 11 of the Act, which is the relevant section—and here I quote—
"… the report should be amended to make it clear that the information which it is an offence to withhold relates only to the conduct of third parties and not to that of the person being questiond."
However, there is one problem here. If the information relates both to a third party and to the person being questioned and it is not possible to separate the two, it needs to be made clear whether the overriding consideration must remain the principle that a person should not be required to incriminate himself.
There is one recommendation of the noble Earl, though it is not one of the most important, with which I do not agree. That is his suggestion that the words "Temporary Provisions" be dropped from the Title of the Act. I can understand the logic behind his proposal, of course, and also the fact that he feels uncomfortable because he regards it as something of a pretence—I hope I am not paraphrasing inaccurately or unfairly—to call the Act "temporary" when it has lasted so long, and because under his proposal any new Act would automatically lapse after five years anyway. But the fact is that most, if not all, of us do regard the legislation as temporary, and I would submit that there is no harm in keeping that in the Title as a constant reminder of the need to remove that thorn—the Act itself—from the side of our civil liberties. I suggest that there is logic in that, too; so I do not feel any qualms about retaining those words.
There are many other excellent recommendations in the report, but what strikes one again and again is that we could have had many of these reforms long ago if only the Government had acted more quickly. I would just add these thoughts. Fortunately, in our debates about combating terrorism, despite some differences, I believe that no one on either side of your Lordships' House or indeed of another place has claimed a monopoly, either of a determination to beat the horror and abomination of the terrorists' evil crimes or of a feeling of revulsion for these exceptional powers in this legislation. I hope that will remain the case, for there are genuine differences of view about their acceptability and effectiveness among people who are nevertheless equally determined to destroy the terrorists.
But this I would say: if it is right to seek a consensus on a matter like this (and even in saying that I would suggest that, in a democracy, we must all reserve the right to keep an open mind) then I would urge the Government, in a spirit of constructive criticism and advice I hope, to recognise that a consensus involves a meeting of minds. Therefore the Government must be more sensitive and more forthcoming much sooner than they have been in the past in order to meet the genuine anxieties which many people have on these matters.
One matter above all on which I am sure we are all united is in our sense of grief for the victims of the
486
violence and for their families and friends, our sense of deep gratitude to our security forces, to the police and to the other services, and our determination to do all that we reasonably can to rid our nation of the scourge of terrorism.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, the first issue that your Lordships have to decide this afternoon is whether to approve the renewal of the order. So far as my noble friends in the Liberal and Social Democratic Parties are concerned, the answer is an unhesitating "Yes". We have consistently supported the order made under the principal Act since it first originated and we have consistently done so because all the evidence is overwhelming that it has served to play a valuable part in combating the evils of terrorism. One has only to give the simple figure which was produced in another place by one of the opponents of the order to make that clear. He pointed out that since 1974 there had been detained some 5,555 suspected terrorists, and he pointed out triumphantly that some 4,900 of them had not been charged. There are two things that follow from that. First, it is highly probable, though none of us will know for certain, that many of those 4,900 gave invaluable information before they were in fact released. Secondly, a simple piece of arithmetic shows that some 655 have in fact been charged, and I defy any of your Lordships to suggest that that did not make a useful contribution in the war against terrorism. That is one of the statistics that goes to show the value of this order.
Perhaps I can add, as one who has been involved many, many times in the criminal courts in the trial of terrorists, that there is no doubt whatever from personal experience of the evidence that became available in those cases that, over and over again, it was the operation of the provisions of this order that led to terrorists being caught and in due course convicted. I know, of course, that there is a very real threat to civil liberties in all this, and I know that we have all listened with care to the warnings given by the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham. It is right that those dangers should not be minimised. But I can only say, speaking for myself, that I would very much rather, being an innocent man, be detained in error and interrogated for five days than be blown to bits by the bomb of some homicidal maniac.
When I indicated that we will support the renewal of this order, and always have done, I do not want it to be thought therefore that we have not from time to time been critical about parts of it. We have expressed doubts as to whether the proscription section is anything more than cosmetic; we have expressed our feeling that Section 11, which makes it a criminal offence to fail to disclose information about other people being likely to commit offences, is a wholly unreal and, very often, a rather ineffectual provision and we have repeatedly expressed our unhappiness about the fact that every year we are asked to renew an order and have no choice, except to take it or leave it. It has never been possible in the years since the Act was passed to attempt to improve it by amending it in part.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston, was kind enough to say that it is now some four years since I first suggested

487
that there might be a lot to be said for a new Bill being brought forward, which could be scrutinised line by line in both Houses of Parliament. That suggestion was one of the main features of the submission made by the Liberal Party to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and I am delighted to hear from the Government that they accept that principle. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, criticises the Government for taking four years to act, but I can only say that if the Government acted on all my suggestions as quickly as that I should be a very satisfied person.
Although we have repeatedly been critical about some parts of this order, we have certainly never contemplated voting against it or against its renewal. Indeed, after the year 1982, in which there were some appalling terrorist outrages, it seems to us even more impossible to contemplate voting against the order. I am bound to say that I, for one, was very sad to see that a once great political party should have decided to take that course in another place. In the situation which we now face, there is no longer very much point in analysing this order with great care, because agreeing that the case for renewing it is overwhelming, we now know that this is the last time that we shall be invited to do so, and we now know that there will—we hope shortly—be a new Bill which we shall be able to scrutinise completely.
What the contents of that new Bill will be are becoming clear. They are becoming clear from the comments made by Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Waddington in another place, and by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in your Lordships' House; and it is becoming clear that the Government are willing to accept a great many of the principal recommendations of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. Perhaps I may add my tribute to the way in which this report is written. There breathes throughout every line, first, a passionate detestation of the evils of terrorism and a determination to take every possible step to defeat it; and, secondly, there breathes an equal passion to ensure that in doing so we do not infringe the liberties of the individual. It is a difficult balance to hold. I believe that the noble Earl has done it most admirably and should receive, as I am sure he will, the gratitude of all your Lordships.
In those circumstances, I want to make only three very short comments about three of the recommendations, where it appears that there may still be some doubt as to what is to be included in the new Bill. First, the noble Earl recommends the use of Section 12(1)(b) of the principal Act, in order to arrest without warrant not merely terrorists who are concerned in acts of terrorism in relation to Northern Ireland, but any suspected international terrorist. Given the links which have been demonstrated over and over again in recent years between terrorists of different factions throughout the world, that is a recommendation with which I would respectfully agree. The noble Earl goes on to say that it may not be necessary to extend that power of arrest to what he describes as domestic terrorism. I wonder whether that is wise. I wonder whether there is any real logic in saying that a police officer should not be entitled to arrest, without warrant, a person whom he reasonably suspects of being engaged in terrorist activities, whether the
488
terrorism is domestic or international. I find it difficult to draw a distinction.
Secondly, I welcome very much the recommendation that a person detained shall, of course, have a right of access to his solicitor after 48 hours have elapsed. This is important. I welcome, too, the realistic suggestion that, even after that period, there may be circumstances in which the right should be restricted and should be allowed only within the sight and hearing of a senior police officer. I say that with very great reluctance, but there has been a development in the last few years, among both barristers and solicitors, of a number of people who have become so politically committed themselves that they get excessively involved with their clients, to the extent that they are often unable to carry out their professional duty with propriety.
The third area in which I welcome the proposals made by the noble Earl, and on which the Government have yet to make clear their view, is the area in which he suggests certain limitations on the right of exclusion. Perhaps, of all the powers given in this Act, the power of exclusion is the one on which there is the greatest possibility of use in an arbitrary way. I welcome the suggestions made by the noble Earl which will, I hope, serve to reduce that possibility.
With those observations, may I just say that we await eagerly the arrival of the new Bill, so that we can discuss with great care the proposals and the recommendations by the noble Earl and, once again, we express to him our gratitude for this admirable report.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would kindly make this observation, if he wishes to do so, in view of his reference to the Opposition in another place. Did he carefully study the speeches that were made from the Opposition Benches that decried terrorism, went into the history of the matter and felt that honest doubts had upon that occasion to be expressed? Does he not acknowledge that there are at least two points of view when civil liberties are at stake?
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I am delighted to express my view, and I do. If the Opposition had succeeded and won the vote in another place, there would have been no order, the order would have lapsed, there would have been no provisions for combating terrorism until such time as the new Bill was brought into force, and I should have regarded that as quite deplorable.
3.49 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise to offer strong opposition to this renewal order. That is the convinced attitude of the Labour Party as expressed in another place, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred to the matter. No one has a higher regard than I have for the noble Lord, Lord Boston, but he would be the first to agree that in what he said today he was not expressing the attitude of the Labour Party. No one can possibly claim that he was. The Labour Party, to which I have belonged for 46 years or so, voted against it after giving considered reasons, so let us not be under any misapprehension: the Labour Party is

489
against the renewal of this Act. That is very consoling to those of us who, like myself, are against the Act. I am not a docile supporter of my party line on all occasions, but when the party line happens to be, as it seems to me, the right one I can naturally support it with even more fervour than usual.
There is another large element in our society to which I shall refer: the Irish community in this country. I am speaking on behalf of the Federation of Irish Societies when I express strong opposition to the renewal of this Act. For many years I have been President of the Irish Centre which is one of the largest constituent elements in the Federation of Irish Societies. If the House needs any further credentials, let me say that I have never failed to say that I am proud to be Irish. Not long ago I read in The Times that the late Lord Arran lamented to the late Lord Gage—also highly respected here and Father of the House—that in this House there seems to be less support for the protection of badgers than for the protection of homosexuals. Lord Gage replied that badgers are not strongly represented in this House. Noble Lords can read what they like into that observation of the former Father of this place. I, at least, am speaking today on behalf of the Irish community in this country.
There are three main, detailed sections in the report of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. It is a finely written document, as was that of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, though I am bound to say that I find some large gaps in the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. The first detailed section is called Arrest and Interrogation, the second The Port Powers and the third, Exclusion. For reasons of time, I shall confine myself to the first of these headings—that is, Arrest and Interrogation—and deal with that only in relation to the mainland, but the Federation of Irish Societies and, for that matter, I myself would have equally strong criticisms to offer about the other issues.
I should hope that by now the House is sufficiently aware that I have consistently supported the reunification of Ireland. I have a Motion down on that subject for the ballot on short debates. But I have just as consistently denounced violence, here and elsewhere, in pursuit of that end and, indeed, terrorist violence anywhere. I must not fail to quote two sentences from the evidence supplied to the Jellicoe inquiry by the Federation of Irish Societies:
"The Federation as a body, and all its member associations, are totally opposed to terrorism and have no sympathy for those who involve themselves in terrorist activities. We condemn the use of violence and threat of violence for political ends".
I hope that there remains no dubiety on that score. But the federation have consistently and ever more firmly opposed the Prevention of Terrorism Act and they are heart and soul in favour of its repeal. The Act, they say,
"is divisive in that it sets Irish people resident in Britain apart from their neighbours … Many Irish people feel intimidated by the Act … The Act has to a large degree stifled normal healthy and legitimate political discussions [among Irishmen] … As a result of arrest many people have lost their jobs and livelihoods. The conclusion must be that the principal aim of the Act is to give the police and the security forces power to arrest and detain people for the purpose of fishing exercises"—
I repeat that phrase "fishing exercises", because it is very close to my own experience of this subject—
490
"freed from the constraints of the judges and the sanctions of the court".
I shall gladly let any Member of the House have a copy of the full document from which these sentences are extracted.
I stress this attitude of the Irish community which I have just summarised in order to leave no possible doubt about the opposition to the Bill of the Irish community. In another place the Shadow Minister for Home Affairs explained that in 1975 the Home Secretary had used an argument which at the time he, Mr. Hattersley, regarded as having enormous strength and which encouraged him at that time to vote for the measure. The argument was that the Bill was intended to lessen the reaction against the general body of Irish people here. Mr. Hattersley commented that no one seriously advances that argument now.
The arguments against the Bill have been so well deployed elsewhere, though with less fervour than I might have hoped for here, that it is hardly necessary for me to labour them. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, admits in paragraph 55 of his report—I believe that this is a correct quotation—that there can be no clear proof that the arrest powers in the Prevention of Terrorism Act are or are not an essential weapon in the fight against terrorism. Up to a point I am bound to agree with that statement. I can sympathise with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, being only too well aware that in this kind of area there can hardly be a coercive proof, a proof which it is impossible for an intelligent and honest person to argue against. But the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has reached a firm conclusion on his own. He has reached the conclusion that special legislation effectively reduces terrorism. The evidence he brings forward in his report should at least point in that direction, if we are not being asked to rely on his personal hunch, supported by the views of the police.
I would defy anyone—though I cannot challenge the personal recollections of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder—coming from outside and studying the report of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to find evidence on the face of the report to justify his firm decision in favour of exceptional and most unpalatable measures. Indeed, I must call attention to a passage at the very beginning of the report which runs as follows:
"In effect".
said the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe,
"it was necessary for me to reach a major conclusion before taking on the job".
I should like the full attention of the noble Earl at this moment because I want to be quite sure that I am not misrepresenting him.
"In effect",
said the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, on the first page of his report,
"it was necessary for me to reach a major conclusion before taking on the job. Before doing so, I satisfied myself from preliminary enquiries and from a close perusal of the parliamentary debates since 1974 that some form of special legislation was indeed required to deal with the continuing threat posed by terrorism throughout the United Kingdom".
In other words, before the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, took on the job, to use his own expression, he had reached the major conclusion that special legislation was necessary, so I am afraid I cannot feel that in the rest of his report he was coming to these matters with

491
a dispassionate mind. However, I appreciate the absolute intregrity with which the noble Earl reached his final conclusion—and, indeed, the absolute integrity with which he reached his provisional conclusion—but it is a conclusion which might have been modified had the noble Earl paid more attention to the views of the Irish community, views which, for reasons I need not go into now, are relevant.
I will spend my remaining time in trying to illustrate with one example what we are talking about in practice when we point out that 85 per cent. of those arrested—or whatever the figure is—are never charged and that a tiny proportion are found guilty. It is not difficult—it never is on these occasions—to find cases of alleged maltreatment by individual police officers, but that is not involved in the case I am going to quote. In this case, as it was reported to me, the officers behaved a trifle crudely, but no doubt they conceived that they were doing their duty and no complaint was lodged. The lady about whom I am talking is a middle-aged housewife. She came originally from Northern Ireland but has been resident here for more than 30 years.
At about 4 a.m. on a certain Wednesday morning, her house was invaded by a number of police. She thought that some of them were armed but I am not necessarily sure whether she was right or wrong about that. She, her husband and her daughter were aroused from bed and taken off to various police stations. She was held and interrogated at various intervals from early Wednesday morning until Saturday evening: the best part of four days. That is well beyond the 48 hours permitted without renewal and so we must assume that some renewal was secured in this case. I need hardly add that when this lady was released, there was no expression of regret, however minimal. That applies to other cases I have looked into.
The lady described herself to me as being bewildered throughout. She could not make out what it was all about. She was asked at one point whether she was a member of the IRA, which she vigorously denied. The main questions, constantly repeated, related to her nephew—her brother's son, still resident in Belfast. She kept pointing out to the interrogators that she had seen this nephew only about twice in the previous 30 years and could tell them nothing. They seemed to disbelieve her for the best part of four days until at last they realised, so it seems, that she could tell them nothing. She was at no time allowed access to a solicitor or any contact with the outside world. She was compelled to strip and hand over her clothes, and was provided instead with a dirty blanket. Is that the way in which the system is supposed to work? I am not taking an extreme case but one that might seem to be a fairly ordinary case. I should like to ask the noble Lord to say, when he replies, whether that is considered on the whole to be something that one justifies.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should just like to answer the noble Earl, Lord Longford. The noble Earl said that this case is anonymous at present, but I do not doubt that he will reveal it to me afterwards so that I may pursue it. The noble Earl said also that this was probably a fairly ordinary case, although earlier he said that instances of this sort were extremely difficult
492
to come by. I wonder what grounds the noble Earl has for saying that this is a perfectly ordinary case.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I do not think that I did say that instances of this kind were difficult to come by. I am sorry, but my failure of articulation is responsible for a mishearing by the noble Lord. I said that it was not difficult to find extreme cases but that I was trying to cite what seemed to be a normal case where there was not any outrageous behaviour by the police.
I merely want to know what can be expected. Is 4 a.m. the right time at which to call on such a lady? She was dragged off in one direction, her daughter was dragged off in another and her husband in another; she was kept for the best part of four days without any communication with the outside world and was interrogated remorsely about her nephew. If the noble Lord, Lord Elton, says, "That does not, of course, happen and the whole thing is much more humane than that", then let us hear that also. But as I understand it, this is the kind of incident that is bound to result under this particular Act.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I really must finish because I am taking up around 15 minutes. The House may ask me whether this lady's nephew was regarded with any justification as being a dangerous person. The answer to that is that I have not the slightest idea. I have not gone into the question of the nephew but I am saying that here is a woman who was intimidated for nearly four days in the hope of dredging out of her some information that would help the police in dealing with her nephew. I am saying that if that is the Act, then the sooner it is got rid of the better.
There seems to be some implication in Lord Jellicoe's report that pressure on relatives is something that is repugnant to most people, but as far as I can see under this Act such pressure is apparently an essential feature. Pressure on relatives to obtain information of the kind described is the first step, but quite a large one, towards a police state. Certainly, it is a striking feature of any police state of which we have any knowledge. I am only saying that if that is the plan behind this Act, and it is considered to be all in a day's work, quite normal practice and essential to the preservation of liberty in some wider sense, then it is quite contrary to traditional British ideas of justice and human ideas of decency everywhere. I am delighted that my party—the Labour Party—is so strongly opposed to the renewal of this measure.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, will he answer a brief question which will help us in making our personal plans? In view of the fact that the noble Earl's party is against renewing the order, does he propose to divide the House at the end of this debate?
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I would never dream of taking a step of that kind without long consultation with my leaders.
4.6 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, we have listened to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, with great interest. Whatever the problems about the nephew living in Belfast in the case in which the noble Earl was concerned, I can assure the noble Earl that if he were to come to Belfast, he would not be considered a dangerous person.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, if I may reply to that point, the only nephew of mine who is at all before the public is Mr. Ferdinand Mount, who is a close adviser of Mrs. Thatcher; so I believe it would be very much out of order to cross-examine me about him!
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, it would be quite wrong for this House to feel that the noble Earl alone has the right to speak for the Irish derived community in this country. I do not know how many members of the Irish population here are in the societies which the noble Earl represents, but I can say with absolute certainty that there are hundreds of thousands of Irish citizens who are perfectly content and who feel that this Act is no threat to them at all. They have a great abhorrence of violence, just as the noble Earl does, but they feel that their enjoyment of civil rights in this country justifies the Act as it is, although there are problems in balancing between freedoms, civic rights, and the need to combat terrorism.
I will start by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for his report, which I found most interesting and which, like the rest of my party, I absolutely support. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Boston of Faversham and Lord Wigoder, on their speeches, because they put the case extremely well. The statistics which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, produced were very telling. He emphasised the fact that seven-day detention produces information, and that should never be forgotten. The interrogator requires time to get some rapport—if that is the right word—with the person he is interrogating before the information can be produced.
I speak on this subject, of course, from a personal angle. I feel very strongly because I am totally involved, as I am living in a community where people have been murdered. Therefore, I find it easier to accept a limitation of civil rights than do quite a lot of people who live much further from where these incidents occur. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, who said that one must be careful not to be anaesthetised towards such incidents. I can assure the noble Lord that I am certainly not anaesthetised at this moment, but I am very conscious that without a renewal of this order and the new Act to come in, the lives of many people in my area will be at risk—or they may even have been lost by now.
I welcome the inclusion in the report of all international terrorism in the scope of the Act; but I have to say that I consider it absolutely absurd to try to differentiate between nationally derived terrorism and internationally derived terrorism, or IRA terrorism, because to me murder is murder if it is violently done by terrorism, no matter who does it.
I thought I would tell the House of a very small experience I had of the link between international
494
terrorism and national terrorism. About three years ago I was asked to go to Paris to take part in a three-hour television programme. Among my colleagues were one of the Peace Movement ladies, Mrs. Williams, and Austin Curry, who is an SDLP person. To our surprise, when we arrived in Paris we found a certain lady who was deeply involved in violence called Miriam Daley; Mrs. Williams assured me that not only was this lady involved in violence but Mrs. Williams had actually experienced violence from her. I am sad to say that she was afterwards murdered, I do not know whom by, but certainly she met a violent death. The significance of this is that this was a lady from the Falls Road, a not very prosperous part of Belfast, and when she left after the broadcast in Paris, she was collected by a lady who, I was assured on the best posible authority, was the link woman between the Baader-Meinhof, the Red Brigade and the PFLP.
If somebody from the Falls Road, in the IRA or one of those organisations, can go to Paris and get picked up and entertained by somebody involved in that setup, then surely there is no doubt whatever that we should involve all international terrorism within this Act. In my view, we should involve all terrorist acts altogether. As British people we seem to think it is necessary to have a command structure, somebody who pulls the strings and gives the orders. But that is not the way modern terrorism works. There is no doubt that there have been a number of murders—I will not quote two I can think of at the moment—of prominent people, where the IRA may have pulled the trigger, but I very much wonder who ordered the trigger to be pulled. Therefore, I ask the Government to look again at the question of national domestic terrorism and try to include it.
Prevention is the main element. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said that this was to do with prevention of terrorism. I feel very strongly that it is impossible to calculate what has been prevented by the operation of this Act. I probably suffer as much as anybody else from the point of view of the inconvenience of going through airports. I have not heard anybody complain of the inconvenience. The courtesy of the officers who operate the Act is something we should be very proud of.
What has not been mentioned here, and may possibly be slightly out of order, but it is to do with the prevention of terrorism in one part of the United Kingdom, is that crimes are still being committed in Northern Ireland, quite often more than likely by a Northern Ireland citizen, and the criminal then retreats across the border. The Garda know who they are and they know where they live. But they have not committed any crime or any act of violence in the Irish Republic. Dr. Fitzgerald is a man of great humanity whom I have met and I know. The best method of dealing with this problem is undoubtedly by extradition. That is the best method because all that has to happen is that the two Attorney-Generals, the Attorney-General in Westminster and the Attorney-General in Dublin, have to agree that extradition shall be granted. The level of evidence required is much lower than is necessary for the other method under the Criminal Jurisdiction Act.
I have to repeat what I have said many times, that the Criminal Jurisdiction Act is totally ineffective

495
because the person involved cannot be interrogated by the RUC, or by the Garda if the offence is committed on our side of the border. Ninety per cent. of all convictions occur as a result of interrogation. Evidence is so difficult to produce, because of intimidation. If today, when we have such goodwill from Dr. Fitzgerald, Dublin will not grant extradition, I ask the Government to find some other method; to ask the Government in Dublin—do not let us dictate to them but ask them—to provide another method. It is all right talking about changing the constitution, but for those of us who live in Northern Ireland the most important part of goodwill from Dublin is to bring these men to justice.
My Lords, I did not approve of the Assembly, and I said so in this House. But it is there and we have to deal with the situation as it is. One of my reasons for not approving it was because it validated the IRA. That still stands; they have an electoral validity. I have to say that it was with great sadness that I saw the great Labour Party vote against the continuation of this Act. But I have to note and praise the fact that various members of the Labour Party, Mr. Callaghan, Sir Harold Wilson, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Mr. Orme—in fact every Minister who has had anything to do with Northern Ireland—stood out against that vote; and for that I should like to record the pleasure of the people of Northern Ireland. That vote against the continuation of this order undoubtedly gave comfort to the enemy. There is no better way to defeat the IRA than to show our determination to beat them, and therefore we should approve this order.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I had hoped to spend the time I was going to detain your Lordships in discussing the noble Earl's report, but I am bound to make one or two comments on remarks made by my noble friend Lord Longford. I do not believe I have ever heard him quite so passionately convinced that he was speaking party policy. I think probably he and I have not kicked over the traces very often, but if ever there was a bad case on which to be so passionately committed to party policy this seems to me to be the one. I for one am opposed to what happened officially in the other place. The noble Viscount who has just spoken has drawn attention to the rather strange number of absences from the Division Lobby. Those of us who are old members of the Labour Party are well aware—I give this to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder—that we do on occasion disagree with one another; that is perhaps the understatement of the year. I think this is the sort of difficult issue on which there are bound to be strong feelings and feelings of conscience. I hope I can remove any anxieties from the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. It is not generally the intention of the Labour Party in the House of Lords ever to vote against an order. Therefore, I think the noble Lord can go home, if he wishes, at this point.
My Lords, let me deal with one or two points of the noble Earl, Lord Longford., He did pick up, with some triumph in his voice, the statement that the noble Earl satisfied himself before he undertook this task that it was necessary to have some legislation, but he was not debarred from saying what he thought about the
496
legislation. It was perfectly open to him, as it was to me, to say that the legislation was objectionable or ineffective, that he had to have regard to the effectiveness of the legislation and to its effect on the liberties of the subject and to report. And he reported, if I may say so, very admirably.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt on one point. He, inadvertently no doubt, left out one word in his quotation. The noble Earl was satisfied that there should be some special legislation, not just legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, left out the word "special".
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I will insert the word "special". It does not affect my point, that there was a need for special legislation. If I may say so, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, committed something of a breach in the custom of the House. He said, as I understood him, that he was speaking on behalf of the Irish community. But that is, of course, entirely contrary to the custom of your Lordships. There is a reference, if I can find it, which makes clear that we do not speak on behalf of any interests. We speak for ourselves. We can identify with outside bodies who agree with us, but we do not speak on their behalf. I think it is important to make that clear.
I have always had an admiration and affection for the noble Earl and I am glad that I am speaking after him, and not before, because I am quite sure that he would deal with me far more effectively than I can deal with him. However, I am bound to say that I agree with him on one point. I think he implied that the noble Earl's report was better than mine. I would be the first to agree. It is an extremely good report. I detect that I have a certain irritation on certain things that he spotted, in the thorough and scholarly way that he approached the matter, and that I failed to see. However, it is fair to point out that in my report, and in his, considerable changes and improvements were made in the legislation. I, for one, feel that we cannot do other than renew this particular order now.
It has been suggested that the percentage of those detained at ports, and inland, and subsequently released without charge, is unacceptably high. We all understand the sense of grievance. The noble Earl drew attention with great force, as I hope I did, to the damage, discomfort and worry that is caused in such circumstances. There are conclusions of more significance to be drawn from the figures relating to detention. Here I should like to quote from the noble Earl's report. In referring to my report, he says:
"In the period since Lord Shackleton reported the arrest and detention powers in the Act [at ports] have been used more rarely but with a generally higher proportion of 'catches' than in earlier years. These figures demonstrate an increase in both the selectivity and the effectiveness of the use of these powers by the police on the mainland, which is at variance with the assertions of a number of the Act's critics."
If I may for a moment dwell on my findings in 1978, I believe that the balance of risks and benefits which I weighed then still holds true. I commented:
"It is argued that the consequences of a period in detention for the individual and his family may be severe and that where a person is released without being charged or excluded they are well-nigh unacceptable. However, the same consequences may arise in the case of a person who is arrested, charged, and later acquitted of a non-terrorist offence."

497
Of course, people are sometimes held, and may be held, without charge for longer periods than the great majority of those detained under this Act because the overwhelming majority—and I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, to this—were not held for more than 48 hours, and many of them for a great deal less. It is worth while studying the statistics, which the noble Earl points out are still not entirely satisfactory. However, I draw attention to the fact that between the beginning of 1979 and the end of 1982, 459 extensions of detention beyond 48 hours were granted in Great Britain and 210 of those—46 per cent.—resulted in charge or exclusion; that is, 459 out of a total of 5,000. So the amount of time spent in detention was very limited indeed. Therefore, when we look at the noble Earl's report we should pay particular attention to what he says about specifying the period in which people can be kept, even within the 48 hours that he mentioned—the one-hour period and then a 12-hour period.
We do not expect the Government to answer these particular issues now, but I very much hope that they will pay careful attention to them, even though it adds to the troubles of those who are responsible for administering the Act. Because we feel so strongly about this I am afraid that, inevitably, we have to impose restraints on those who have to administer the Act.
I also welcome the recommendation that the noble Earl made in his review for ameliorating conditions of detention. That is a matter to which I drew attention in 1978. I am sorry to find that the noble Earl was still not satisfied that enough has been done—in particular, that individuals detained at ports for one hour should be given a notice of their rights and, after 12 hours, detained only on the ground of suspected involvement in terrorism which would be appropriate for an inland arrest. The example which my noble friend gave is a horrifying one. I do not know how it can happen. If he regards it as an ordinary sort of case I wonder what an extreme case would be, and I am sorry that he has not given any. Perhaps he will give them to the noble Lord. I hope that amendments will follow to the Act, or a future order, which will, in fact, improve this.
In Northern Ireland, about 40 per cent. of all arrests under the Act resulted in charge and about 45 per cent. of extended detentions preceded a charge. The report comments that,
"The most worthwhile figure to use as a basis of comparison between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in this respect is the proportion of 'extended' Section 12 arrests which resulted in a criminal charge. This proportion is virtually the same.".
A charge rate of over 40 per cent. seems to me impressive in this context.
Finally on this particular aspect, while a scrutiny of the use of the arrest powers in relation to criminal charges is of considerable interest it is not, of course, the test by which the powers must be judged. This is meant to be preventive legislation, and I think that that cannot be overstressed.
I should like to make just two comments on the actual legislation which is contemplated. I am not yet entirely convinced that it is right to extend this legislation to other forms of terrorism. Indeed, I should have thought that the case for doing so for national terrorism—that is, other than the IRA—
498
rather than international seems to be stronger because there are much stronger controls at the ports over aliens coming into this country. I am not opposed to what is being done but the need is obviously greater because we are for the most part dealing with people who are not citizens of this country who can, in fact, be refused admission and can be freely deported back to the country whence they came.
I am not clear whether the purpose of Section 12 was, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, deliberately left open so that it might be applied to international terrorism. My own view—and I took this view at the time—is that it was more by chance; and that, if Section 12 applies, so also should Section 11, to which the Northern Ireland dimension is not mentioned.
Perhaps the noble Lord will consider those points when he replies to the debate. It is my view that if the powers are to be extended for international or other forms of terrorism there should be specific legislative authority, because Parliament, so far as I know, certainly did not have in mind such an application for the Act when it was originally passed.
Finally, on Section 11, I still dislike the power to charge people for failing to give information. I know that this was put in at a late stage in the original Act, that no prosecutions took place practically speaking up to the time I did my report and that the moment that I did my report and drew attention to the section a number of prosecutions followed almost immediately. I would ask the Government to consider very carefully. If, like my noble friend, they come to the view that it is a desirable power, I would accept it, but it is one of the ones that I find particularly unpleasant, smacking very much of the sort of police state type of legislation.
In conclusion, I should just like to stress that those who suggest that we are on a slippery slope are misled. On the contrary, the slope is getting less slippery. It is getting more difficult. The amendments that were made following my report, and even more so the amendments that will be made, as I hope they will be, following the noble Earl's report, will make this particular path a more difficult one to follow. It is quite right to accept now that there should be a renewal of the Act—that the Act should in fact be reintroduced every five years, as a guarantee, whether or not it is called temporary or otherwise. I can only say that it is my view that in the conflict between survival for peaceful and innocent people and the inconvenience and sometimes discomfort that is caused to individuals, on balance, this legislation is necessary. I think that the powers of exclusion are perhaps the most unpleasant of all and I am sorry that even now the Government have not yet made any provision to help individuals who are excluded from this country with removal and other expenses, to which the noble Earl has drawn attention. I hope that the Government will look at that. But, having said that, I think there is no choice: provided we can reduce the period, then I think that this Act must be continued. I should be very surprised, if I may say so, if, were a Labour Government in office, they did not in fact do so.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, in joining with other noble Lords in agreeing that the order should be

499
renewed, I would just like to say that I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, in what he has said about extradition. The extraterritorial jurisdiction legislation which was introduced has not proved to be effective, and I think that extradition from the Republic of Ireland is the only possible way to solve that particular problem.
In turning to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, if I am right in referring to this now, I would like to ask one quick question and one simple supplementary. In Part I, Section 2, it is stated:
"Any person who in a public place—

(a) wears any item of dress, or

(b) wears, carries or displays any article, in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable apprehension that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, shall be liable on summary conviction".

et cetera. Turning later in the document to Part III, Section 19, it says:
"Part I of this Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland".
My question, my Lords, is: why should this be the case? My guess is that the answer is that although there is other legislation which covers this, the problem is that whatever that legislation may be it does not appear to be effective.
All too regularly we see on television and in the press IRA funerals where a group of masked men emerge from the crowd and, with what are presumably illegally-held weapons, fire a volley of shots over the coffin and then retire once again into the crowd. They are observed from a discreet distance by the security forces. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord when winding up this debate would explain why this is so. I would be glad if he would tell us whether or not he is aware that this blatant flouting of the law in Northern Ireland causes considerable resentment among the law-abiding citizens. If, for instance, at a regimental or British Legion parade I were to display an illegally-held weapon, I would be hounded by the police, and quite rightly so. So how, therefore, can these hooded and masked men fire shots from illegally-held weapons in a public place without being arrested and brought to order?
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I would like to say a few things about this review and this Act. I do not want to make a long speech, but I would like just to put forward a thought about the principle behind this review and also an idea about certain of the recommendations made in it.
I think it must be quite clear from what the noble Lord the Minister has said, and from what other noble Lords have said from all sides of the House, that the base of the Prevention of Terrorism Act is to reflect a balance—a balance which is made up, of course, of measures necessary to protect the lives of innocent people while at the same time maintaining the necessary respect for civil liberties and a concern for the sensitivities of those people most affected by those extraordinary powers. In fact, my Lords, it is a balance which will most help the forces of peace to fight the forces of violence. So, my Lords, if we are all agreed that it is merely a case of identifying the best weapons to do this, then I think it is wrong to accuse those who
500
oppose this Act of supporting violence. They do so because they believe that the powers under this Act do not represent that balance.
My Lords, to my mind it is quite clear, from reading the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe's report, that he wrote it with great concern, compassion and a respect for humanity. In my view, this is a constant factor throughout it. It is also clear that he, too, was very preoccupied with maintaining this balance. But I think at some points in his report it is equally clear that the noble Earl was a little doubtful that he was achieving this. To give one example, he said:
"The most important assistance which the police can have in the fight against terrorism is not special powers but the support of the public. It is vital that such powers do not unnecessarily alienate—either in their essence or in their application—any section of the law-abiding population".
Thus, from this extract from the noble Earl's review—and I think I can give others—Lord Jellicoe clearly did have some doubt as to achieving the right balance, yet his recommendation was in favour of renewal, followed by a new Act.
However, I think at this point it is really right that we should remember the noble Earl's final injunction, when he said, as your Lordships will remember:
"the Act should remain in force only while it continues to remain effective, only if its aims cannot be achieved by use of the general law, if it does not make unacceptable inroads on civil liberties".
This leaves us with varying thoughts. I must confess that for my part I find it really impossible to forget what the honourable Member for Belfast, West said in the House of Commons. As we know, there can be no doubt of the continual and courageous stand that Mr. Gerry Fitt has taken against the terrorists and how much he has been persecuted by them. Equally, there can be no doubt of his intimate knowledge of the effect that these special powers have on the sensitivities of the minority communities; and yet Mr. Fitt has decided that, on balance, the Prevention of Terrorism Act is of greater help to the men of violence than it is a hindrance to them. He feels very sincerely that it drives many members of that community into the arms of the IRA.
My Lords, I really do not feel myself qualified to make these decisions, so I would merely like to put forward one or two very brief reflections. First, may I say a word about some of the recommendations in Part II, which deal with arrest and interrogation renewal in the review. These appear to concern the all-important humanitarian provisions about the treatment of detainees. Fairly naturally, my noble friend Lord Shackleton has mentioned these. I would like to support what he said. For example, Recommendation 16 says that:
"Implementation of Lord Shackleton's recommendations on the welfare of persons held under the Act in Great Britain has been patchy and variable".
Can we have an assurance that this will now be carried out?
Other recommendations concern the force orders operating in Great Britain. It seems of the highest importance to have a categorical assurance from the Government that, while the implementation of the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in this regard clearly fell down, the recommendations

501
of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, will be strictly adhered to. Surely while we retain these special powers, it is of critical importance to give priority to the humanitarian provisions and to ensure that the welfare of those detainees—after all, many of them are entirely innocent—should be protected and safeguarded. Arising out of this, I hope that when, each year, Parliament debates the annual renewal, the prospect of the five years' re-enactment will not diminish the importance of the debate, while at the same time these annual debates will be used to report on how these recommendations are being carried out and on those other areas of the review.
On another point, I hope that at all times the Government will maintain the closest relations with the Republic of Ireland in order to enable the two countries to co-operate to the full in controlling the violence. Lastly, I also hope that in order to prevent these measures from being considered—as I fear they are at present—as anti-Irish rather than anti-terrorist measures, the Government will always keep an open mind to moving towards a wider framework in which to oppose both domestic and international terrorism.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, referred to the incidence of international terrorism, and many other noble Lords have referred to it. In regard to this matter, the Council of Europe's convention for the suppression of terrorism is, as I said, still thought by very many people to be the most constructive effort to attain a minimal measure of international cooperation for the protection of innocent people. If we were able to move towards measures set in such a wider framework, the Provisional IRA would be robbed of a propaganda weapon which clearly the present Act now presents, and a basis for seeking agreement on extradition and other judicial, political and police forms of international co-operation would be provided. So surely it must be agreed that any steps leading to a more authoritarian society are bound to be abhorred. Already the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill in the House of Commons could be seen as a step in that direction.
Therefore, I end merely by saying that it seems of the greatest importance, first, to attach the highest priority to the humanitarian safeguards included in the recommendation of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe; and, secondly, to keep our minds wide open to alternative and, indeed, more democratic methods of containing the violence which so tragically exists in our society.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I want to draw attention to a relatively new phenomenon, which is international terrorism, a considerable part of which is government supplied, government directed and government trained. I think that this is a menace to all peaceful societies and one which we have not adequately recognised. There are two kinds of laws—the laws of peace and the laws of war. I think one can say that the primary purpose of the laws of peace is to provide for and protect civil rights. The laws of peace are the laws of the individual. Within the laws of peace I have always regarded capital punishment as an anachronism, an absurdity and inefficient. But the laws of war are a very different matter indeed. The purpose of the laws of war is to
502
provide government with the powers to protect the citizen against the violence of the Queen's enemies. To that purpose civil rights must take a back seat. Courts-martial must be expeditious and feared. Death, not as a punishment but as a means of coercion, must be at their disposal. Both our will and, it seems, our means are inadequate to protect our citizens against this new danger of organised violence and terror.
The Middle East has had a very long experience of the States of the Assassins; right from the days of Omar Khayyám and before the Crusades one found the Society of the Assassins whose leader said, "If two men will obey me totally, I can command the world". He sent his two men with a message to the ruler, "Obey or you will die". The ruler died and the next ruler obeyed. So for 200 years the Middle Eastern rulers were held in awe and terror by the Society of the Assassins. That has continued there through history from that date.
Today Iraq, Iran and Libya are assassin states, training, using, despatching and, through the diplomatic box, supplying and arming assassins throughout the world. The man Rosen, who was sentenced to 35 years for the attempted murder of the Israeli ambassador, is a colonel on active service in the intelligence corps of the Iraq army. How long will be served? How long will it be before the Foreign Office comes here and says, "There are some important trade agreements with Iraq and we have considered an amnesty in these matters, which I am sure everyone regrets"? I can hear them saying it. How long will it be before some important Englishman is kidnapped in Iraq and we are offered an exchange with which, of course, would go various economic deals? When you are dealing with what I think one may term "sovereign" criminals—that is to say government directed assassins—I am afraid that prison is no good. The bars do not hold against a sovereign patron. The only sentence that sticks and the only sentence feared is death.
Then one turns again—and I am talking of Foreign Office behaviour in these matters—to the PLO. Nobody has any doubt at all that the PLO has built its position and gained its influence by its capacity to assassinate rulers in the Middle East. They have also sent a series of assassins who have operated here. Yet it is Foreign Office policy to negotiate with these assassins and to recognise the power which they have taken by assassination and nothing else. I do not think you can operate a peaceful world on these lines. As regards Europe, the international terrorists operate on both the Left and to a far higher degree on the Right. I am told that Britain is regarded as a safe house by the Right-wing terrorists in Germany, Italy and France. I can give the noble Lord who will reply a list of names if he wants them. Terrorists from these countries stow safely away here.
Now again one comes to Ireland. The IRA claim to be soldiers, as indeed do terrorists in the Middle East. They claim to have the right to be treated as military combatants. Let them have those rights. Let them remember that their activities are forbidden by the laws of war under the penalty of death. For combatants to operate without uniform and without order against even an invader is forbidden under penalty of death by the laws of war. If they choose to

503
claim the laws of war, let them have them. Let them be tried by courts-martial.
When the Irish trouble began 12 years ago I was then a Member of another place. I then pleaded for immediate application of martial law to Northern Ireland. I remember that Mr. Whitelaw came up to me and said, "What do you mean by martial law?" I referred him to the Duke of Wellington's memorandum. It is still the classical statement of what martial law amounts to. It means that the legislative power, the judicial power, and the executive power are vested in the commander-in-chief for the period during which martial law is applied.
If you had done that, and if the commander-in-chief, Northern Ireland, had issued an order that arms were to be surrendered by a certain date; that anybody found with illegal arms after that date would be tried by a court-martial, by a drumhead court-martial with a major as president; sentenced; the sentence would be confirmed, and execution would take place within 48 hours, how long would it have taken to disarm Northern Ireland? I do not think very long.
Again—and this is a suggestion I made—the taking of hostages in face of guerrilla activity is recognised by the laws of war and our own military manual as necessary and justified. We had at that time some 300-odd hostages whom we were holding under detention, and who were members of the IRA. I suggested at that time to put their names in a hat and say, "This will be the order in which these men are taken and shot, one for each bomb that goes off'', so that the people who lay out bombs will know at least one of the people they are going to kill.
If we had had the guts to do that, remember the excitement that would build up. The list published and known, and as he came down the list the agitation by the priest and the family, "For God's sake don't kill old Joe"; and how long would they have had the nerve to go on doing it? I very much doubt whether it would have been necessary to shoot half a dozen. Almost certainly not a dozen. Since then over 2,600 people have died horribly by murder, because one did not have the guts to do what was necessary early enough.
It is that kind of weakness for which thousands die. We are facing terrorism in its newest form at this moment. If we go on being soft with it—and this Act is hopelessly soft compared to what we are up against—there are an awful lot of people who are going to join that 2,600 who have already died and been mutilated because of our weakness.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he would agree that the Germans tried exactly that, and would he agree that they were not very successful in the end?
Lord Paget of Northampton: No, my Lords; I would agree that they were exceedingly successful. Where the German Army were in charge, which was primarily France, the German Army were able to go into bars, and they were able to use public transport for over four years until it was clear that the Germans were beginning to be beaten. The German occupation of
504
France was safe, and there was no terrorism or violence in France. As long as you are on the winning end it works. Of course, once you begin to be defeated, then people rouse themselves up.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the review conducted by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was published only six weeks ago. We have had less than one week's full notice of the debate on that review, and I feel that we have been rushing into it somewhat. I express the hope that the usual channels on all sides of the House will take notice of this. One of the amazing and encouraging things about your Lordships' House is that there seems to be almost always someone or other who knows precisely where the shoe pinches. It is for that reason that I was particularly glad to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, had to say earlier. I would invite the noble Lord, Lord Blease, if he is willing, to tell us when he speaks of some of the problems which have occured of perfectly innocent trade unionists crossing the Irish Channel in both directions and being detained and arrested simply because they happen to have an Irish name or an Irish accent.
I am one of those who, over the years, has been concerned about this Act because of its implications, not only for civil rights, as has been mentioned on many sides, but also for its impact on community relations. I agree that the review provides some considerable improvements. I should particularly like to welcome paragraphs 9, 21, 25, 29, 30, 36, 43, 50, 56 and 57 of the conclusions and summary. We have, however, to remember that the great majority of suspects who are likely to be detained in the future are likely to be innocent people. I say this in spite of the points rightly made by the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Shackleton.
This is what makes me draw attention to conclusion No. 16, and here I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I hope that the welfare of arrested persons will be rapidly improved where it is now inadequate. As regards recommendation No. 19, I should like to ask that persons arrested in Britain should be informed of their rights, as will be done in Northern Ireland. This is already covered by the Judges' Rules in Britain, and by the recent Home Office draft code on the treatment of persons in police custody. I have only just managed to obtain a copy of the code, but I trust it will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom and that it is designed to protect both suspects and police forces. It would be good if the sections on interrogation could form the basis for an eventual European code.
As regards other safeguards, I should like recommendations 10 and 13 to be more positively stated and to read something like, "Except where circumstances make it impossible, applications should" and so on. We should note what is said in conclusion 52 about the relative ineffectiveness of proscribing organisations in view of the existence of legal wings and parallel bodies. I hope it will be possible to abolish entirely exclusion orders before a further five years have passed. Meanwhile, would Her Majesty's Government please consider that a person served with an order should be enabled to make his representations to a judge in chambers, instead of to an

505
adviser? If that happened, the judge could then, in complete privacy, weigh the grounds for suspicion against whatever the suspect might have to say on his own behalf. I believe that would be a more obviously fair way which would not impose a great burden on the judiciary, because relatively few orders are made.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I would remind the noble Lord that the proposition he is advocating was considered very carefully. The danger of it is that it would imply some form of judicial process, whereas by definition it cannot be a judicial process. Therefore I strongly support the use of the appeal to the adviser rather than to a judge in chambers, who would find it very difficult, as it would not be possible to confront the individual with the evidence on which he was being excluded.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I bow to the superior knowledge and experience of the noble Lord, but I should still like to obtain a judicial flavour in the matter.
I am concerned very much with the overlap of the Act we are considering today with the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. In Northern Ireland, a suspect may be arrested under either Act and then treated somewhat differently. Surely there is scope for harmonisation of the two. Last summer the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, wrote to me saying he expected the Government to announce a review of the Northern Ireland Act early last autumn. Can the Government today cast any light on when such an announcement will be made and who will conduct the review?
The terms of reference for this second review will be of great importance, and I ask first, that they should include, the question whether any sections of the Northern Ireland Act can be omitted or amended; secondly, that the review should consider, as I am sure it will, all aspects of the operation of the Act; and thirdly, that the question of harmonising the Northern Ireland Act with the Prevention of Terrorism Act should, in the light of Lord Jellicoe's review, be taken into account. I urge the Government to pay most serious attention to the representations that have been made on both Acts by the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights in Northern Ireland.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, first I wish to echo the tributes paid by my noble friend Lord Boston to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and to my noble friend Lord Shackleton for their thorough and masterly reports in a very difficult and sensitive area of issues of a high political nature. A considerable amount has already been said in the debate about general attitudes to the prevention and suppression of terrorism, and I shall try to avoid repetition. However, I feel it important for me to restate the fact that this emergency legislation has been in force for nine years and that in that time the levels of violence and the effects of outrageous damage to life and property have continued to appal peaceful and law-abiding people. At the same time, I firmly believe it is right that emergency measures, like any legislation, should be open to critical scrutiny and public discussion. While, it is not sufficient to rehearse
506
stale arguments based on a lack of sensitivity to human values or because of a blind reliance on the fair and impartial administration of law and order measures, it cannot be claimed that this legislation is perfect. Nor can we be satisfied from the evidence provided that there is not administrative inertia which has allowed delays, default and abuse when legitimate and individual rights have been infringed.
When this order and the Jellicoe Report were debated in another place on Monday last, Mr. Roy Hattersley drew special attention to paragraph 10 of the report, which states:
"The most important assistance which the police can have in the fight against terrorism is not special powers but the support of the public. It is vital that such powers do not unnecessarily alienate—either in their essence or in their application—any section of the law-abiding population."
I agree with Mr. Hattersley when he commented:
"There is much evidence to suggest that the alienation has already happened. Law-abiding Irish visitors feel threatened and harassed at the ports, and the Irish community in Britain feels that it is under constant suspicion. Propaganda victories are handed to the most disreputable elements in Irish politics.".
I am in total agreement with Mr. Hattersley when he went on:
"We can beat the gunman and the bomber only by scrupulous and clearly visible support for the rule of law which the terrorist defies and despises. We cannot beat them by sometimes descending to their own contempt for our normal judicial procedures".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/83; Col. 574.).
However, I consider it important that I should at the same time indicate my equally strong support for the views further expressed in paragraph 10 of the report:
"There is a fundamental liberty about life in Britain which is not easily found elsewhere. Accordingly, if Parliament sees fit to grant the Executive and the Police special powers, in special circumstances, then they should be required to exercise those powers as selectively, humanely and openly as is consistent with the demands of security".
In my opinion, that passage contains the numb of the debate about effective terrorist legislation. For those reasons, I welcome the Jellicoe Report. It provides Parliament with a fresh opportunity to bring forward new, agreed and effective measures to deal with the prevention of terrorism.
I turn to some relevant matters arising out of the report and the debate in another place on 7th March, and I wish to apologise to the Minister for raising some points and asking some questions about which I have not been in a position to give him notice. Perhaps those he is unable to answer when he replies to the debate—and I shall understand his not being able to do so—he will inform me of at a later date. In that debate in another place, in reply to an honourable Member, the Minister of State, Mr. David Waddington, said:
"The hon. Gentleman said that if we have an Act that will lapse after five years that will be the beginning of permanent legislation. That is an Irishism all right. Every five years hon. Members will have the opportunity to examine the legislation in detail and to decide which parts of it, if any, they want to retain. The hon. Gentleman said that the Act should be allowed to lapse so that the Government should be obliged to bring in another Bill. This is precisely what we are doing".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/83; col. 641.]
Even after considering that statement in detail, I feel that it requires further explanation. Perhaps I may explain how I see the position, and the Minister for his part may clarify the points. I understand that what is proposed is as follows. First, the Government will introduce a new Act based on the decisions arising

507
from the Jellicoe Report. Secondly, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 will lapse. Thirdly, Parliament will review the new Act each year during its five-years stipulated life, Fourthly, it is possible that during each annual review of the new Act sections of it may be deleted or amended. Fifthly, at the end of the five-year period of the proposed Act, it may be found not necessary to reintroduce whatever may remain of the measures.
I have gone into a little detail because I believe that it is important for us to realise that we are entering into a new situation in dealing with measures for the prevention and suppression of terrorism—a new situation that is born out of two reports and nine years of exercising and administering different measures.
It has already been mentioned that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights made recommendations to the inquiry of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. I understand that the Eighth Report of the Standing Advisory Commission has been issued today and is now available in the Printed Paper Office. I know that in its report the Standing Advisory Commission goes to some lengths in dealing with the approaches connected with making legislative changes. It also makes strong recommendations for a monitoring body.
I want to make a number of points, and I want to do so as succinctly as I can. I do not propose to argue them. I think that the relevance of the issues will be understood without my going into a lot of detail. In dealing with the question of exclusion orders, while replying to matters raised during debate in another place, Mr. Waddington said, as reported at column 637 of the Official Report:
"The right hon. Member for Down, South, said that he welcomed the shorter period than 20 years, which would prevent the use of the power of exclusion. That recommendation will be examined. Again, on the question of exclusion the right hon. Gentleman said that he welcomed the recommendation in the report that the police on both sides, that is, on the excluding and on the receiving end, would be consulted and advice taken"—
Lord Elton: My Lords, is the noble Lord quoting at length a Member of the other place who is not a Minister?—because I think that that would not be in order.
Lord Blease: I am sorry, my Lords, if I did not make clear that I was quoting Mr. Waddington, as reported at column 637 of the Official Report, No. 73, Volume 38.
Lord Elton: That is perfectly in order, my Lords; I am so sorry.
Lord Blease: I am concerned here with what is a point of great contention and controversy in Northern Ireland. I shall attempt to restate the reply that was given in the other place:
"Again, on the question of exclusion, the right hon. Gentleman said that he welcomed the recommendation in the report that the police on both sides, that is, on the excluding and on the receiving end, would be consulted and advice taken from them before an exclusion order was made".
I have already said that we are concerned here with a very contentious and controversial issue, and I want to
508
ask the Minister whether he will give an unequivocal guarantee that the Chief Constable of the RUC is fully consulted before an exclusion order directly related to Northern Ireland is made. That point did not emerge from the particular question that arose in the other place.
A further point arises from the new three-year rule regarding exclusions proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. I appreciate that the Minister made some reference to this point in his opening speech, but will he give an undertaking sympathetically to examine the equity position of persons now excluded, who would not be excluded under the proposed new three-year rule? In other words, they are persons who are now excluded under a perpetual, or a 20-year, rule. If a three-year rule is introduced, will they have an opportunity to be examined? I think that there would be a serious breach of human rights if that position were not clearly understood.
Earlier I said that I shall make my points without arguing them, and I hope that this will be acceptable, but if the Minister wants a further explanation I shall be pleased to elucidate, should anything not be clear. In paragraph 87 of the report the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, stated that he had received evidence of verbal abuse of suspects by RUC interviewing officers. May I ask the Minister what steps have been taken to remedy that?
The noble Lord has already referred to differences between the prevention of Terrorism Act and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Section 1 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act provides that in Great Britain membership of a proscribed organisation carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. Under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, the maximum penalty is 10 years, and perhaps the reasons for the discrepancy can be made clear.
Her Majesty's Government have given notice of derogation under the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the powers conferred by the Emergency Provisions Act. They have not done so in respect of the more extensive powers of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Here I should like to support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and mention that in July of last year we were promised an inquiry into the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Can the noble Lord the Minister indicate when such an inquiry is likely to be announced, or can he state what stage we have reached in preparing for it?
Paragraph 142 of the report of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, recommends that an examining officer should lose the right to examine and detain a passenger after 12 hours, unless by that time he has formed reasonable suspicion that the person is guilty of an offence under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, or is involved in terrorism, or is subject to an exclusion order. That seems to be an excessively long period. Section 14 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act provides that Her Majesty's Forces may detain suspects for up to only four hours. A 12-hour period may be justified if the suspect is not a United Kingdom resident and inquiries have to be made with police forces abroad. But in the case of Northern Ireland residents, surely their identity can be more readily

509
verified, through well-established links with the RUC, within the four-hour period operating under the Emergency Provisions Act in Northern Ireland. Modern information technology ought to be able to provide a more speedy response to inquiries about any suspect.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to persons arrested and detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act who subsequently had lost their employment. Some such persons looking for appointments had failed to gain employment. I understand that the representative of the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions made strong representations to the review carried out by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, regarding this particular problem. Considerable suffering and hardship have arisen from this particular situation. I know that the position is not simply black and white. There are persons who go out deliberately in order to provoke situations and to bring about some publicity. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would undertake to examine this particular matter.
Also, Paragraph 142 of the Jellicoe Report recommends that a person who is examined at a port for longer than one hour should be given notice of his rights. In the paragraph explaining the rights, it goes on to say, "and so on". But "and so on" does not mean anything in terms of words. I think it might be more helpful if there were a clear definition of the list of rights that a person has to receive in this respect. In Paragraph 180, Earl Jellicoe recognises the strength of feeling in Northern Ireland that the province is being used as a "dumping ground". He also recognises the growing links with international terrorism; but there is no reference in the report to having looked at the controls at Aldergrove or on the Northern Ireland border which might demonstrate an equal concern about keeping terrorists out of Northern Ireland as well as out of Great Britain. I would ask this. Will improvements in port controls in Great Britain extend to the entry points into Northern Ireland?
As has already been indicated in a speech which I would not like to follow at length, it appears that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, perceived a growing threat from international terrorism. We know also that the United Kingdom is a signatory to the European Convention on the Supression of Terrorism (Cmnd.7390) of November 1978. What surpised me was the absence of any reference in the report to the legislation and the administrative measures taken and exercised by other national governments for the prevention of terrorism. Surely, it would have been useful—if not necessary—for an examination of these aspects of international terrorism to have been undertaken.
Finally, I should wish to press the Minister for an earnest consideration of inclusion in the new proposed measures of an effective monitoring arrangement. Some suggestions have already been made, but I would put forward my own view that the appointment of a parliamentary Select Committee or a Standing Commission under a person of high legal standing may be a suitable and appropriate way to carry out effective monitoring. I say this for the simple reason that it would be best if the monitoring arrangements were put in and were subject to report at the annual review period, rather than waiting until the end of a
510
five-year period and then having another long review and the bringing forward of measures. It would be an ongoing situation. I understand that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights has strongly proposed in its evidence to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, the need for an effective monitoring body. Having said that, I support the renewal order and look forward to the early introduction of a new Act.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, it is reasonably clear that the Labour Party is seriously divided on this important issue. In another place a week ago, it was announced as Labour Party policy that the order renewing this Act should be opposed. My honourable and right honourable friends there divided the House and there was unanimous support for the Opposition, although, of course, with very noticeable absentions. In this House today we have had strong speeches in support of the order from my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham on the Front Bench, from my noble friend Lord Shackleton below the Gangway and from other noble Lords. I do not see any harm in such a difference of opinion. This Act is an extremely controversial—indeed contentious—Act.
It has always struck me as remarkable that large bodies of intelligent people—and I mean the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Liberals and the SDP—should find agreement on so many of the extremely diverse subjects that come before Parliament at one time or another. When a matter such as this one arises, I think it is only to be expected that a party that prides itself on its attention to individual matters, to the rights and wrongs of individual cases, should find itself unable to agree. Therefore, although there have been one or two somewhat equivocal voices on this side in opposition to the order, I welcomed the clarion call of my noble friend Lord Longford for opposition to the continuance of this Act.
I have several things in common with the noble Earl. Like him, I am an Irish citizen; I share the wish that he expressed for the eventual reunification of Ireland; and, like him, I oppose as strongly as I can the use of violence in any form on either side in connection with the achievement or non-achievement of that end. I share his conviction that the renewal of this Act by this order should be opposed.
My Lords, it surprised me that my party finally came out in favour of the ending of this legislation without its replacement by any other legislation. But, when I examined the Act again—as I do every year—in more detail, I decided that much of it was so repugnant and none of it indispensable that the days of its usefulness (if they had ever existed) were over. There are two main provisions of importance. They are the power of detention for up to seven days, if necessary, without charge, and the question of exclusion orders. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred to the very interesting statistics which are published in the table at the end of Lord Jellicoe's report. If I may say so in parenthesis, I read the report with great interest and admiration.
I must point out that the figures quoted by the noble Lord on the Liberal Front Bench, although he extracted them from the report of the debate in another place, are not accurate, in that although there have

511
been 5,555 detainees under the Act, the figure that he gave of some 650 who had been charged with an offence is greater than the true figure. That figure includes 261 in respect of whom exclusion orders were granted, and those were not charged with an offence. The number charged is only 384, which is 7 per cent. of the total; and, of those, only 303 were found guilty of an offence and only 171 received custodial sentences—that is, 171 out of 5,555, which is just over 3 per cent. It should also be noted that 20 of those were for offences in no way connected with terrorism. They were for burglary, theft and so on. They were just chance minnows that fell into the net. So we have a situation where no more than 2¾ per cent. of those detained were imprisoned for offences in any way connected with terrorism.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, seemed to think that these figures did not demonstrate in any way that the Act was undesirable. He said that there would be some 5,000 detainees who would have given valuable information to the police. That is probably true. The police probably did gain a good deal of information in this way. But is this what the Act is all about? Is this why the right to detain was given? The police are allowed to detain a person only if they reasonably suspect that that person is guilty of an offence connected with terrorism. Here we have a situation where over 5,000 people have been reasonably suspected by the police of being implicated in terrorism and only 151 of those have been found guilty of terrorist offences and sentenced to imprisonment.
This great operation has been carried out by the police, arresting over 5,000 people supposedly on reasonable suspicion that they are terrorists, and 2·7 per cent., of them were so guilty—virtually, none of them. I suggest that this proves that either the police are totally incompetent—which I do not believe to be the case—or that they are unreasonably suspicious or else—which is a much more likely suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder—that they are interested in arresting people without having any reason to think that they are guilty of terrorist offences but because they think that they may be able to provide them with valuable information. That is not the purpose for which this Act became law, and it is not the reason for the police to act in order to obtain information.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the noble Lord will, of course, concede that the very great majority of those who were so-called detained were detained for a relatively short time, and that the ratio of charges to those detained for more than 48 hours was very much higher.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, of course I agree that the majority were detained for fewer than 48 hours; but I do not see the significance of that remark because you start to interrogate somebody and if after 36 or 48 hours you feel that you are getting somewhere, then you apply for the period of detention to be extended because the person is a suspicious character. So it is among those who are interrogated for more than 48 hours that you would expect to get a higher ratio of men charged.
512
I turn now to the exclusion orders. Again, some very interesting figures are given in the tables at the end of the Jellicoe Report. We find that 337 applications for exclusion orders have been made to the Secretary of State, and the Home Secretary refused 45 of those. In every case where the Home Secretary did not oppose the application, exclusion orders were made but 11 of these were revoked before the exclusion took place. That gives a total of 281. Some 13 of these were outside the United Kingdom at that time. So 268 men and women were actually excluded, of whom—to complete the break-down—231 were removed to Northern Ireland and 37 to the Republic of Ireland. Of those 268, incidentally, 40 were subsequently revoked, leaving a total of 228. What I want to say about the 231 men who were excluded to Northern Ireland is that these were United Kingdom citizens subjected to internal banishment. That is what it is: internal banishment. They are being told, "You cannot live in this part of the United Kingdom; you have to live in that part of the United Kingdom". How on earth would we feel if the same thing were said about Yorkshire? Suppose there was some trouble in Yorkshire and Yorkshiremen were told in London, "You cannot live in Middlesex; you have to go to Yorkshire". Yet we are told that Northern Ireland is as much a part of the United Kingdom as a British county.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for one moment? Surely this is an exact example of what we should expect. If there was a group of people in Yorkshire who were openly threatening to bomb us in London, we would expect the police to take steps to see that they did not, and we would resent it if the police failed to do so.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. If this was taking place in an English county, if it was not across that convenient little bit of sea, if there was a move from a British county or an area in Britain to cause terrorism, to cause death and destruction in London, the ordinary civil procedures would be used. The people would be traced by the police, arrested and charged under the law. This is internal banishment, telling people that they cannot stay in England, where they may have lived for 18 years. If they have lived in England for 20 years they are okay; but if they have lived in England for 10, 15 or 18 years they are told, "You cannot live in England any more, you must move to Northern Ireland". I object to that whole provision in the exclusion orders most strongly because there is no trial; very often there is not access to a solicitor. People are told that they have to leave the place of their abode and go and live somewhere else. There is something that is totally odious by any of the normal principles of British democracy and British law.
The final point that I want to make is that we often hear—we hear again and again—the slander that there are known terrorists walking about in the Republic of Ireland who are known to the Gardai but who are not arrested, and that no action is taken. I hope that we shall hear less of that, because it is nonsense. The Gardai and the Irish army have worked with enormous skill and courage to combat the terrorism that threatens the Republic from the North. The fact

513
of the matter is that the proof is that there are these 231 persons against whom exclusion orders have been made and who are therefore reasonably suspected of having been concerned in terrorism. They have been sent across and the authorities in the North have known that they were reasonably suspected of terrorism. However, although the laws in Northern Ireland are very much more draconian than they are in the Republic and it is much easier to pick up a known terrorist in the North than it is in the Republic, they are walking about and nobody picks them up, nobody charges them, nobody imprisons them. I therefore draw attention to this fact: if there is any suggestion from anyone that the Republic is not taking the action that it should be taking, then let them look to the 200-plus known terrorists excluded under this Act, not to mention the many others in the same position. We are not, apparently, going to divide the House tonight, but if we were I should express myself, "Not-Content".
5.40 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I apologise for speaking when my name is not down in regard to this Motion. My colleague was down to speak but is not able to do so and I want there to be no doubt as to where I myself and my colleagues of the SDP stand on this issue. I find myself in acute difficulty even to understand the approach of my old colleague and friend who has just spoken and indeed the approach of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who spoke earlier. But let me say at once that I do not believe either of them are in favour of terrorism; there has never been any question that we have suspected their motives. 1 just think they are wildly, furiously and hopelessly wrong—and dangerously wrong, too.
Nobody who has been concerned in the direct rule or concerned in government in one way or another in Northern Ireland is going to vote against this. Nobody has yet, or has shown the slightest sign of it; and when we were in that awkward position we were constantly being blamed by the "shoot-the-lot" school so well exemplified by the noble Lord, Lord Paget, earlier, for not doing a bit more decimation of the enemy and that sort of thing. We were constantly being opposed by the other side, who objected to every effort we made to tighten up the screws of law and order. I will say no more than this: on the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, at least 151 likely bomb-throwers have been kept out of this country and, so far as I am concerned, this justifies every single thing that has been done.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have listened with the greatest interest and attention to the views your Lordships have expressed. Of course, in deciding whether this Act should be renewed, the Home Secretary of the day and Parliament must seek to strike a balance. My right honourable friend has freely acknowledged in another place that the Act makes regrettable inroads into our civil liberties. We cannot afford to lose sight of this and I do not cavil at anything the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, mentioned in that context. I also accept that consensus is a very desirable foundation for legislation of this sort; that is indeed what we are most urgently seeking.
514
He may think us slow and insensitive in this. The consideration which it was undertaken to give to the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that the law should be made anew, has perhaps gone on for longer than he may think he would have managed with—though it did not in fact take us four years to act because my noble friend's report was commissioned early in 1982. But this passage of time has, I think, sharpened his appetite for what my noble friend has placed upon the legislative menu, and I take careful note of his comments upon it. One of these was that the new Act sould be renewable piecemeal, and I will certainly undertake that we will consider that proposal with care when we come to draft the legislation.
I hope that your Lordships will bear with me for a moment, because replying to a debate of this nature is rather like doing a jigsaw puzzle where the pieces become separated from the main plot; in fact, they sometimes entirely disappear. If I may now turn to the contributions of noble Lords and the noble Baroness, I should like to begin by welcoming the robust support given by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, to the renewal of the order and his very clear exposition of the benefits which flow from it. I also welcome the restrained and balanced way in which he dealt with the anxieties of himself and his party touching the liberties of the individual. I was particularly interested in his comments on the considerations that we should have in mind when looking at arrangements to enable detained subjects to receive professional advice and support. He expressed some reservation, as did the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, about the report's recommendation that the arrest powers should not be extended to non-lrish domestic terrorism. The Government have not reached a final conclusion on that point and will take careful account of the views of both noble Lords. But perhaps I should point out that the noble Earl was concerned that these far-reaching powers should be available to the police only when there was a real and clearly-established need. If non-Irish domestic terrorism were to become a serious problem, it would be open to the Government of the day to ask Parliament for fresh powers.
The contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, highlighted the striking difference in tone between what the noble Lord, Lord Boston, said in this House and what his colleagues did in another place. I had thought that this bore out the rule that mature reflection always tends to add judgment to hasty attitudes, though I found myself shaken in this view when listening to the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I did indeed find it very odd that the noble Earl, who found an ally in the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, should infer that there could be any question that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe's conclusions were based on,
"personal hunch supported by the views of the police".
If the whole report itself does not give the lie to that, which I think it does, the list of witnesses at the end does, and I note the ironic conclusion therein of the Federation of Irish Societies, for which I thought I heard the noble Earl say he was speaking in this debate, although of course I may have misheard him—in which case it must have been the second thing that I misheard from the noble Earl since it would have been, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, quite out of order to speak on their behalf—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I interrupt? For once I cannot get the noble Lord's point. He speaks of the society with whose goodwill I spoke to the House earlier and which I mentioned as those who had given written evidence. They were not asked to give oral evidence, so I do not think that would commit them to anything in the report.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I did not think they were committed to anything in the report. I thought that the noble Earl had spoken not with their benevolence but on their behalf. Plainly I misheard him at the beginning of his speech. As I implied when I intervened in his speech, I will always look into a case where the details are provided to me, and I hope that he will do so in this case.
The noble Earl asked me whether the case that he described was typical of police behaviour. I can assure the House that the police do not seek to make arrests at inconvenient times without good reason. When they are seeking the arrest of suspected terrorists, it is understandable that their primary concern is to carry out their duty safely and surely. That may sometimes lead to arrests being made in the early hours of the morning when both the honest and the dishonest may be presumed to be asleep.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was well worth the attention which I promised and indeed which I gave to it. It is reassuring to hear such accord between the authors of two such very professionally-constructed reports as his own and that of my noble friend. The area where he was most in doubt is that which concerned the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, as well; namely, the extension of powers to cover international terrorism. The noble Lord asked in particular whether it was the intention to extend the use of Section 12 to apply to terrorism other than that with an Irish connection. I can give him the assurance that we will not do so under existing legislation. If it were to be more widely used it would only be under new legislation.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough took us to Paris to remind us that all terrorism is able to connect with an international network, which bears on my noble friend's recommendation that the powers of the new Act should extend to control of international as well as to specifically Irish terrorism. He also spoke, with a wistfulness which I share, of the advantages which an agreement on extradition could bring in dealing with terrorists who seek refuge in the Republic. Successive Irish Governments have never been left in any doubt as to the importance we attach to the problem of fugitive offenders. We believe that a workable extradition arrangement offers the best way of ensuring that terrorists are brought to justice. We will continue to make our concern abundantly clear, and we have been very encouraged by the success achieved by the Irish authorities in extra-territorial prosecutions of people accused of terrorist offences in Northern Ireland and in London; but we do not consider it to be a satisfactory alternative. The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, was particularly interested in funerals, but as I see he is not in his place I will deal with that matter by correspondence.
The noble Lord, Lord Paget, made a number of far-reaching points, which time forbids me from pursuing
516
in detail. On the recent case concerning the shooting of Mr. Argov, I am afraid that I cannot confirm or deny the truth of the allegations made by the noble Lord, but I undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend. I see that he is not here, either. Therefore, I shall not deal at length with his remarkable interpolation. I would merely echo what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, and, had the noble Lord, Lord Paget, seen fit to give way to me when I sought to intervene, I would have put before him the example not of France, but of Norway, where exactly similar methods were used with totally ineffective consequences. I would not endorse anything that he said.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, were softer spoken in their approach. Their first and shared concern was for the welfare of detainees. That is a concern which we share, as is indeed evident also from the report of my noble friend. The first question to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, then addressed himself was that of when we would review the Emergency Provisions Act. This concerned also the noble Lord, Lord Blease. We did not feel that this review ought to overlap with the review of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, which we have been discussing today.
Since the publication of the report last month, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been finalising arrangements for the review of the Emergency Provisions Act and hopes to make an announcement very shortly. I have noted his views about the terms of reference that ought then to be taken on board. He referred also to the report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. We hope that the views of the commission will be made known to those—or he—who review the Emergency Provisions Act, and I have no doubt that they will be carefully considered on that occasion.
The noble Lord also wished to know whether the Government consider appeals against exclusion orders to a judge in chambers who would see evidence in private. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, intervened at that point. The Government, I should say, welcome constructive proposals on these matters and will take full account of the views of both noble Lords expressed in the House today.
But I draw attention to the report's conclusion in paragraph 191, that,
"Exclusion is a matter of public policy. It is based not merely on the conduct of the excluded person, but also—once his terrorist involvement is established—on matters such as the security situation at the time exclusion is considered and the danger the person poses to the public at large".
These matters fall properly to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, who is accountable to Parliament for the way in which he discharges these onerous responsibilities, and that is something which we must consider when we look at what the noble Lord suggests.
His third question was on whether the force orders, judges' rules, and draft codes, which are referred to in the report, are public documents. Force orders are, in fact, operational documents and are not made publicly available, but copies of the judges' rules and draft codes are in the Library of the House for him to refer to. I should say that the noble Lord is a very kindly

517
man. In spite of his feeling, to which he gave voice this afternoon, that we had given him too little notice of the debate in this House, he was kind enough to give me notice of his questions and that may have quite a lot to do with the fact that I have been able to answer them. If more of your Lordships were to do as much, I dare say that my speeches would be a good deal longer and my letters a good deal shorter.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, did not follow that admirable example and I fear that I must reply to him principally by post. But I can confirm his lucid exposition of the Government's position on new legislation in all respects except one, and that I have already given the lie to. We are only considering whether the new legislation should be renewable piecemeal as opposed to in toto. On exclusion orders from Great Britain, I can confirm that the recommendation that the RUC should be consulted has already been implemented and is being observed. The position of persons already subject to exclusion orders will be carefully considered in the course of preparing legislation. On the monitoring of the Act, I would refer the noble Lord to paragraph 17 of my noble friend's report. On a number of other points I will write to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, made much of the small percentage of detainees who are subsequently charged. I think he said that the figure is 2·7 per cent. It matters not how small it was. It was a very small percentage—
Lord Kilbracken: It was 7 per cent.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if it was 7 per cent., a fortiori what follows? The noble Lord is, I think, connected with farming, He may be familiar with the disease of ergot in wheat. This has the effect of giving a poisonous character to a few grains in a crop. I do not believe the noble Lord would think that the millers were failing in their duty if they sifted the whole of the crop before baking his bread, if only 2·7, 7 or, indeed, 0·2 per cent. of the grain proved to be infected, because the result of that is to protect his life, and that is the purpose of the legislation which is before us.
I have listened carefully to the matters which have been raised and I hope that I have referred to most of them. In conclusion, may I repeat one point? Of course, this Act causes inconvenience and perhaps even an occasional sense of injustice to innocent members of the public. I regret that as much as any other Member of this House, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is always ready to look into any case which appears to have caused hardship. But it is perfectly clear that the terrorist groups in Northern Ireland are still as dedicated as ever to violence and to murder.
I believe that the public are entitled to look to us to do all that we can to protect them from acts of terrorism. This Act has helped the police significantly in their fight against terrorism. They deserve our help and I am persuaded that they need the practical support which the powers in this Act give them. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe's review has given us many constructive proposals to consider, and we shall be looking at this very carefully in the light of the views expressed today in this House and in another place last week. But, while the threat from terrorism remains at
518
the current level, I believe it would be folly to allow the Act to lapse and I ask your Lordships' House to agree to its renewal for another year.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): The Question is, That this Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, Content?
Noble Lords: Content.
The Deputy Speaker: To the contrary, Not-Content?
Noble Lords: Not-Content.
The Deputy Speaker: I think that we have constitutional difficulties about dividing the House on this Motion on this order. I will put the Motion again. As many as are of that opinion will say, Content?
Noble Lords: Content.
The Deputy Speaker: To the contrary, Not-Content?
Noble Lords: Not-Content.
Lord Kilbracken: I think the Contents have it.
The Deputy Speaker: I need a little advice on this.
Lord Elton: I think the Contents have it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1983
5.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved. This order is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. Its purpose is to appropriate the 1982–83 Spring Supplementary Estimates and the 1983–84 Vote on Account of Northern Ireland departments.
Part I of the schedule to the draft order describes the supplementary provisions sought. These amount in total to some £62 million and bring the total voted provision for expenditure by Northern Ireland departments for this financial year to £2,581 million. Part II of the schedule gives details of the services for which the Vote on Account of £1,139 million for 1983–84 is required to enable services to continue until the 1983–84 Main Estimates are debated and approved, and that, as your Lordships will know, is usually in July. It is based on a standard calculation of 45 per cent. of the total provision for the current year.
The major items in the Supplementary Estimates are for payments to Northern Ireland farmers under the European Council's Calf Premium Scheme, for restructuring the package of financial assistance to Lear Fan, for payments resulting from the decision to abolish the four-month delay on capital investment grants and for expenditure in connection with the

519
proposed supply of natural gas from the Kinsale field. Additional provision is also sought for the roads, housing, education and health programmes. More detailed information on the Spring Supplementary Estimates can, of course, be found in the Estimates Volume itself, copies of which have been placed in the Printed Paper Office, along with the copies of the 1983–84 Statement of Sums required on Account.
I have no doubt that the Northern Ireland economy and unemployment will figure largely in the debate. I understand that it is also to be subjected to major television treatment by the "Panorama" team this evening, although of course I have not seen that film. I should like to set some of these issues in perspective by reminding your Lordships of the very basic issues in repect of the broad economic environment in which we have to consider the Northern Ireland economy. It is of course our firm conviction that the future economic prosperity and well-being of the United Kingdom as a whole and of Northern Ireland in particular depends on the creation of conditions which permit sustained rather than temporary economic growth, as only sustained economic growth can in turn provide stable employment. As I have said before often enough—and I make no apology for repeating it this afternoon—we must continue to control the erosion of the currency and of investment through inflation. This is a critical plank in the Government's overall economic strategy.
Equally critical to that plank is control of public spending, and particularly Government borrowing. Increased spending and borrowing results in increased interest rates and increased taxation, and both are deleterious to jobs and growth. Therefore, if we want to do more in any particular area or service in the United Kingdom, this inevitably means doing rather less in another sector. We must keep the books balanced, and we do this by setting targets and by ordering and debating our priorities within those targets.
The way we operate within Northern Ireland is exactly the same. When I spoke to your Lordships in December recommending approval of the Autumn Supplementary Estimates, I referred to the announcement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that public expenditure in Northern Ireland in 1983–84 would be of the order of £3,800 million. This represents an increase of some £30 million over the previous plans for the province at a time when for the first time in some years the total public expenditure plans for the United Kingdom as a whole are being maintained at a lower level than the planning total previously set. So this allocation to Northern Ireland represents the Government's recognition—indeed, the Government's continuing recognition—of the special needs and circumstances of the province at a time when world economic conditions are difficult and at a time when the national economic situation is being strictly directed and controlled in this respect of public spending.
It is our responsibility, then, to ensure that the funds which are allocated to Northern Ireland are used to the best possible advantage there. This means assessing competing needs and programmes, and in the final analysis it means drawing up a list of priorities. It is in
520
this crucial task that I look to the Assembly, as elected representatives, to play an important part. Producing worthwhile schemes is not at all difficult. What is difficult is trying to accommodate them within a given, fixed total. Difficult choices have to be made. As we all know, they have to be made nationally and it follows that they have to be made locally as well.
Over the past two to three years we have given the highest priority to law and order services in order to secure the protection of life and property; to the promotion of the Northern Ireland economy by encouraging investment; and, within the social and environmental programmes, to housing. We believe that this balance remains the right one. As the world moves out of recession and the national economy improves, then Northern Ireland must be in a position to take best advantage of all opportunities. Our aim is to create and maintain the viable long-term jobs in the private sector which are essential to future prosperity. On the industrial front, the IDB and LEDU are making a vital contribution to stimulating job creation throughout the province. Indeed, the IDB is currently developing its strategy for the future.
Nevertheless, substantial programmes on other services are being maintained. Very substantial sums have been allocated to maintain agriculture, health, education and environmental programmes. Assembly committees have been set up for each of the Northern Ireland departments and they have already made an impressive start in getting to grips with the problems. The Assembly has, in fact, now got down to its task of scrutinising the processes of direct rule, and it is already clear that it has a useful part to play. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has referred a number of proposals for draft orders in council to the Assembly for its comments and the departmental committees have been examining a wide variety of subjects. May I give a quick summary at this point of the activities of these committees to date?
The Agriculture Committee has produced an urgent report on special aid for Northern Ireland agriculture and an interim report on inland fisheries, and it is currently examining the possible extension of less favoured areas. The Economic Development Committee is currently taking evidence and preparing a report on industrial development incentives and will be looking at the issue of consumer protection. The Environment Committee has produced reports on proposals for two draft orders in council dealing with access to the countryside and housing. It is currently examining rent structures and levels, and its future programmes may include an examination of planning law and integrated operations for the Belfast area. The Finance and Personnel Committee has produced reports on the Property (Discharge of Mortgage by Receipt) Draft Order and a discussion paper on the regional rate, and it is also currently examining the issue of additionality of European Community funds. The Education Committee has carried out a major examination of the rationalisation of schools and is preparing a report. The Health and Social Services Committee is examining the proposed reform of housing benefit, changes in the structure and management of health and personal social services and also the education and training of mentally handicapped children.

521
In addition to considering the reports of the departmental committees, the Assembly has held debates on a number of other topics. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has addressed the Assembly in plenary session on security policy. My honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Butler, addressed it about unemployment and the Michelin Company. And my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Mitchell, addressed it on housing. I myself welcomed the opportunity to explain the Government's approach to public spending and some of the problems involved in resource allocation. The Assembly has also raised a great many matters of local interest in adjournment debates.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office are very glad to receive the Assembly's views and to take them into account in the formation of policy. This was demonstrated in our response to the Assembly's views on the proposals for a draft Rates Amendment Order and a draft General Consumer Council Order. In response to the Assembly's views on the draft Rates Amendment Order, my right honourable friend decided to increase the discount offered to ratepayers who pay their total rate bill promptly from 3½ to 4 per cent. My right honourable friend also decided that he should not proceed to lay the draft General Consumer Council Order before Parliament, given that the Assembly was not satisfied that the new arrangements proposed for consumer protection would be as effective as the present arrangements. He has asked my right honourable friend Mr. Butler to discuss this matter further with the Assembly's Economic Development Committee. This illustrates both the important role which the Assembly has to play and the Government's willingness to listen carefully to its views.
Finally, may I turn briefly to the major items featuring in the draft order. The provision sought in Class I, Vote 2, relates to the European Community Calf Premium Scheme under which Northern Ireland farmers are expected to benefit to the extent of some £2 million in the current financial year. On the industrial development front, a Supplementary Estimate on Class II, Vote 2, is sought mainly for technical reasons to enable financial restructuring relating both to the former Northern Ireland Development Agency and to Lear Fan.
Additional provision is also sought on Class II, Vote 3, mainly to meet the costs of the Government's decision to abolish the four-monthly delay in the payment of capital investment grants. New provisions totalling some £3 million are sought for youth community projects and employer-based schemes which form part of our special programme of employment measures to help young people. Supplementary provision is also required to meet a capital contribution of £5 million toward expenditure incurred by the Republic of Ireland on the construction of a pipeline to carry the gas to the Border, although this will only be required if there is a successful outcome to the negotiations this year.
Moving on now to environmental and social matters, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the supplementary provision of £3·4
522
million sought under Class IV, Vote 1 Roads Services to allow the completion of several new construction schemes, the commencement of a number of priority works and the making good of excessive damage to road surfaces caused by the severe weather during the winter of 1981–82. The Supplementary Estimate on Class V, Vote 1 seeks an increase of almost £9 million for housing services. The major requirements for the increased provision are the housing grant (which meets the difference between the Housing Executive's rental income and approved revenue expenditure) and support for the voluntary housing movement.
The major element of supplementation required on the education services is for the increased costs arising from the 1982 teachers' salaries award, while on the health services the additional provision is sought to meet the increased pay settlement to National Health Service workers, expenditure on maintenance and equipment, grants to voluntary bodies, and the increased costs of the family practitioner services.
I know that your Lordships have particular points which you may wish to raise and I am especially grateful to those noble Lords who gave me advance notice of the topics that they may be bringing up today. I will reply to as many of your Lordships' points as I can at the end of the day—and any which remain unanswered through lack of time will, of course, be replied to in correspondence later. I commend the draft order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
6.12 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am certain that the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, for his comprehensive introduction to this appropriation order and also for the information given in the various documents. It was a very comprehensive introduction and I can choose only a few handy items on which to comment and to seek information.
The noble Earl referred to the Lear Fan project. When we discussed the last appropriation order in December, I raised this question and at that stage the noble Earl considered it rather inopportune to say too much. I noticed a statement in the Guardian on 14th February where doubt was thrown on plans to start production this year. The article stated, and I quote:
"A company forecast that the controversial new Lear executive aircraft would begin production in Belfast this summer is not supported by US aviation officials".
The report continued:
"If the venture were to fail, and it has already come close to the edge of bankruptcy, it would cost British taxpayers a £50 million Government investment".
I am certain noble Lords will appreciate that after the De Lorean failure and the devastating cutbacks by Michelin of their Northern Ireland factories, any failure to start the Lear company's production will have an appalling effect in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell the House what the position is and how much public money has already been expended?
Under Class III, there is reference to provision for expenditure to facilitate the restructuring of the gas

523
industry. The spring supplementary estimate booklet for 1982–83 shows an item of £5 million in connection with the introduction of the supply of natural gas. The estimate for 1983–84 for restructuring of the gas industry is a sum of £16 million in total with £10 million required on account. Can the noble Earl say on what the £5 million for 1982–83 was expended? In the last debate, on the previous appropriation order, I raised the question of a possible natural gas line for Kinsale to which the noble Earl made a brief reference this evening. At that stage, the noble Earl said that a final decision had not been taken and that it depended on costs and viability. May we know what the current position is and what the possible financial implications are?
I note from a Written Answer to a Question from Mr. Adam Butler in another place on 14th February that, although the cost of a pipeline from Dublin to Belfast will be around £21 million, the cost of transmission lines and pipelines to customers and for the conversion of appliances will bring the total cost to around £147 million. Has a clear decision been taken? What will be the effect of these costs on the gas industry and on the cost of gas? If this opportunity for natural gas is taken up, will it have a very great effect on the future of the gas industry in Northern Ireland?
Linked to this, I note that in Class II, Vote 3, of the spring supplementary estimate there is provision for £166,000 for a consultancy exercise on the possible exploitation of lignite deposits. Is any information about this available? I noticed that in the booklet.A Strategy for the Future, issued by the Northern Ireland Electricity Service, there is a paragraph on this matter, which emphasises that these lignite deposits are the only significant proven fuel reserves in Northern Ireland. I quote from the booklet:
"Therefore, the service is naturally keen to thoroughly assess and utilise this deposit. In fact, a press notice of 9th February said that this assessment should be expedited".
With 90 per cent. of the generating plant in Northern Ireland being oil-fired, the development of lignite together with the steady conversion of some plants to coal would not only conserve British oil but would also help Britain's coal industry.
Under Class VI, Vote 2, there is provision by the DLE for the enterprise zones in Belfast—which started, I believe, in October 1981—and Londonderry. Can the noble Earl say what will be the net cost, taking into account all the financial assistance to concerns coming into these two zones? How many new jobs are being created? There is an indication that in some enterprise zones in Great Britain some firms are not creating new jobs at all; all that has happened is that new firms have moved in from other areas to get the financial benefits which are available in enterprise zones. Will this aspect be watched, and how will it be avoided? Is there any indication of how many new jobs have been created by the enterprise zone already in Belfast?
The noble Earl has given his views and the Government's views on the progress in the Assembly and has given encouraging information about the development of the departmental committees. It is gratifying to know that the Government are taking into account some of the observations of the Assembly committees
524
on some of the orders referred to it. May I ask whether the Assembly will be considering orders which will be subject to affirmative resolutions of each House here? If that will be so, when these affirmative resolutions are brought forward will Parliament be informed of any changes that have been made as a result of consideration by the Assembly?
Unemployment in Northern Ireland has now risen to around 21 per cent. It has been pointed out that nearly 27 per cent. of males are without work. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a programme, "The Trade Union Alternative", which has been prepared by the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. This points out that of the registered unemployed, nearly 20,000 are under the age of 19. This matter may have some relevance to the Unstarred Question which your Lordships will be debating later this evening. Nearly half of the number of unemployed have been without work for a year. The trade union document points out, and I quote:
"Our industrial decline is dramatically illustrated by the fact that there are now 30,000 more people on the dole than at work in manufacturing industry".
Then there is a somewhat frightening sentence from these men and women in the trade union movement of Northern Ireland, who know only too well the situation there:
"It may well be that the industrial base of Northern Ireland has moved to a point beyond which recovery is impossible."
In this connection, although good progress has been made with the development of new housing by the Housing Executive, over 23,000, or 48 per cent., of the construction industry workforce are out of work. This is double the figure that it was in May 1979. The document points out that the housing programme required to deal with the level of unfitness alone has not yet materialised.
Time will not permit me to give details of this alternative programme put forward by the Northern Ireland trade union movement, but a paragraph in its introduction states:
"The core of this programme is an industrial strategy. With the devastation of the manufacturing sector of the economy referred to earlier, there is clearly a need to restructure the entire industrial base".
The programme goes on to urge:
"The Government must tackle both unemployment and poverty by ensuring major public investment in industrial development".
Although the programme to which I have referred is one for Northern Ireland prepared by the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the proposals are regarded by that committee as being the application of the British TUC's alternative strategy adapted to meet the problems of Northern Ireland. I ask the noble Earl: how far is the programme being considered by the Government? I understand that, at a meeting of the Finance and Personnel Committee of the Assembly on 10th March, evidence was to be given by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, by the CBI, by the Northern Ireland Economic Council and also the Commission of the European Communities. As there are amounts included in the appropriation for industrial support and regeneration under Class II, it would be very helpful if the noble Earl could comment on the trade

525
union programme and on this very important meeting of the Finance and Personnel Committee of the Assembly, because that may give an indication as to how far the Assembly will be able to deal with economic matters, which may have a considerable bearing on the progress of events in Northern Ireland.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl for his introduction of this order. As we are having a more general debate later on, I will confine myself to asking the Minister four questions of which I have given him notice. First, can he give any more information about Class II, No. 3? He did say something about LEDU earlier on. Can he give more detail of how much is going on account to Harland and Wolff, Shorts and Lear Fan respectively? The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also raised this point. Secondly, with regard to Class II, No. 4, can the noble Earl give some details of the success or otherwise of promoting the tourist industry? The amount allocated to this does not seem very large. Does he think the troubles have a seriously adverse effect? Thirdly, on Class IV, No. 2, is the noble Earl satisfied that enough is being spent on recreation, considering the great need in a society with such high unemployment?
The total Vote mentioned is only just over £8 million, and this includes planning, historic monuments and other environmental services, including enterprise zones, which again the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, touched on. Fourthly, on Class XI, £1,260,000 is allocated on account for the Northern Ireland Assembly. What has been the expenditure to date, because this does not seem to be listed?
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I should like to start be welcoming this order. I have given my noble friend notice of two questions which I want to raise. I should like to start by welcoming the establishment now of the IDB, the Industrial Development Board. When I heard the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, talking about De Lorean, I just hoped that we shall not have what could be called the De Lorean factor inhibiting the IDB from taking risks again. The situation in Northern Ireland, with its very high, unacceptably high, unemployment, means that there is no possibility of getting large-scale investment without taking risks and without the Government taking risks. When many years ago we had another failure in Northern Ireland—it was called seenozip—the total amount was only £100,000 or something like that, but I can tell your Lordships from my experience in the Ministry of Commerce that there was a seenozip complex, and for some time those in charge of Government grants were over-cautious in what they were doing. I should like to feel that the hands of the IDB are not being tied by the failure of the past.
I want to raise the question of inward investment into Northern Ireland. We have practically no inward investment coming on at the moment, in contrast to our neighbours south of the Border; their incentives and their inward investment appear to be very successful. I have heard my noble friend's colleagues saying that the great inhibiting factor is the violent image of Northern Ireland. That may be so, that may be the only reason, but Borde Faillte, the Southern Irish
526
Tourist Board, in complaining about its failure to attract tourists, has said that the image of violence envelops the whole of Ireland. If that is so, and if their incentives are bringing in investment, where lies the difference? I believe that there must be some reason for one to succeed and the other to fail.
I have spoken about this and tried to do something for many years. Our incentives in Northern Ireland must really be seen in the context of incentives in other development areas in the United Kingdom. There is absolutely no doubt that the Northern Ireland package is the best package in the whole of the United Kingdom. It is the best compared to the North-East of England or Wales, or somewhere like that. Any industrialist who takes time can see that it is a very good package. The problem is that, in order to catch the industrialist's eye, the goodies have to be in the first five lines of the brochure. The Dublin incentives include a tax incentive; they have had freedom from income tax for exports for many years. There is absolutely no doubt that that has produced an enormous amount of inward investment. But I repeat that, if any industrialist were to cost the whole thing out over five or 10 years, he would find a lot of the advantage of that was rather illusory. However they do not do that. It is the sugar coating on the pill that we really require; we really want a sexy photograph at the beginning of the brochure to attract their attention.
I would ask the Government whether they cannot persuade the Treasury to let us experiment. After all, Northern Ireland is separately costed; it can be totally limited. Let us be allowed to experiment with totally new forms of incentive which are not common to the rest of the United Kingdom, because the problems of our unemployment are so absolutely catastrophic.
While sitting here today I suddenly thought of something of which I have not given the noble Earl notice. I do think that the Government's problems are made so very great because of currency fluctuations. The noble Earl mentioned the importance of maintaining the value of the currency. We used to have in Northern Ireland the greatest concentration of artificial fibres in Europe. We had two extremely efficient factories, one British Enkalon and one Courtaulds. They were exceptionally efficient. The Courtaulds factory was near Derry. They have both been closed. I believe that, had they not been closed, they would, with the reduction in the valuation of the pound, in fact now be the largest profit-making artificial fibre plants in Europe. It must be extremely difficult to make decisions on whether or not to support a factory when, in the course of less than a year, our currency can drop like that and an uneconomic factory become economic.
I turn now to the second subject about which I warned the noble Earl. This concerns the amalgamation of the new university and the Ulster Polytechnic. I was in the Government when the polytechnic was first formed and when the whole Act went through our Parliament. The reason that we formed it was that we felt there was a great need for practical-orientated higher education with a commercial tilt to it. Any question of languages had to be related to what I call trade and industry. In 1965 the Lockwood Report proposed that. I see a great danger, with the amalgamation of the polytechnic with the university, of what

527
could be called an academic drift. I remember what happened, or what almost happened, to our secondary moderns. There was always a try on the part of the secondary moderns to become grammar schools and a failure to realise that the education provided in the secondary moderns was a very important part of our educational process.
I have made inquiries about what has been happening in the polytechnic and there is such a tendency already. I should like to know from the Government, considering the freedom that they give to the various universities to allocate their money, how they will make sure that that allocation maintains the commercially orientated courses at the polytechnic. I am very much afraid that we shall end up by having just one university. That will be to the detriment of Queen's University, which is the oldest established university.
Still on the subject of education, I now turn to the actual technical colleges. I start off by congratulating the Government on getting the youth programme—YTP—off the ground. We are miles ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom and I feel that that should be trumpeted from the hills. The Government deserve great credit for getting on with the job. Our technical colleges throughout the province are excellent and they stand absolutely at the top of their ladder. I am worried that they will be swamped by YTPs.
Perhaps I should explain that. I do not know how many people know this, but when a young person is on a YTP programme he must, one day a week, go to a technical college. He can, if he wishes to accept it, go to the technical college the whole time. There is a great danger that discipline will break down, because whatever one may say—and there are a lot of extremely good YTPs—on the whole they are comprised of people who have failed to get a job for some reason, and many of them put the discipline of those colleges at risk. I already know of one student who has refused to go to a technical college in Bangor because she feels that the discipline is breaking down and that she will not be able to achieve her aim of being a nurse. So I ask the noble Lord whether he can tell me how the Government will maintain the money for the polytechnic for technical commercial courses and how they will control the question of YTPs swamping technical colleges. I welcome this order.
6.33 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for presenting the appropriation order in his usual and characteristically very clear way. I also thank him for giving us news of the work of the Assembly about which, on account of the rather negative reporting that often happens in the Press here, we have not heard enough. I was extremely glad and grateful to hear about it. I should like to make one or two points about housing and ask the Minister two questions of which I fear I have not given him notice, but knowing the very capacious content of the Minister's mind I am quite sure he carries most answers with him.
I cannot claim to be a constant visitor to the Province but I do go to Belfast often enough to be
528
constantly struck by the level of housing for people there. It is a heartbreaking level. Therefore, when we hear the Government say that they are putting the housing programme for Northern Ireland at the top of their list of priorities and are aiming to spend £400 million on housing we can feel nothing but relief. However, in regard to housing it must be remembered that in Northern Ireland there is a different level from that which exists here. It must also be remembered that right from the point of departure the level of housing in Northern Ireland has been infinitely inferior to that on the mainland. So although I know that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is an enormously respected body and that there is much admiration for many of the housing developments, nevertheless it is generally accepted that simply to keep pace with the unfitness level of houses in Northern Ireland the Government would need to make another 500 starts this year, and so far as I can see that is extremely unlikely to happen.
When one reflects on another aspect of housing—namely, that, as my noble friend Lord Underhill said, half the total construction workforce in Northern Ireland is out of work—then one begins to despair. There seems to be an unbelievable paradox that, on the one hand, we have the worst housing in the European Community, recognised by the Brussels Commission, and, on the other hand, we have half the labour force sitting around idle and costing the Exchequer a huge amount of money in unemployment benefit.
Therefore, may I ask the Minister this first question. Can he give us any news about the European funds—I think it was £6 million—which the Community has set aside for Belfast housing? I know that there has been a problem, in that one of the member states had blocked this as it did not wish to see a precedent established; but perhaps in view of the really critical state of housing in Northern Ireland, the Minister would be good enough to tell us whether this problem has been resolved and whether the blockage has been removed.
Secondly, in relation to housing, I raise the question of the homeless in Northern Ireland. As noble Lords may well know, there is an anomaly in Northern Ireland regarding who is responsible for the homeless. This surely points to the urgent need for the introduction of statutory rights for the homeless in Northern Ireland. Indeed, bearing in mind the desperate housing shortage in the Province one can think of no place which is in greater need of such statutory rights. As I understand it, at the moment the official position appears to be that the social service authorities provide temporary accommodation for the homeless while the Housing Executive in due course provides permanent accommodation.
The Government have promised to draw up a joint code of practice to clarify the responsibilities of the two agencies. I understand that the Housing Executive is also considering some minor changes to its house allocation scheme to give greater discretion to local housing managers to grant absolute priority to the people most currenty covered. But although this looks all right on the surface, it is all hotly contested by the voluntary agencies who are actually dealing with the homeless. They argue that the absence of any statutory

529
duty to deal with particular cases means that the social services and the housing executive can mess around individual applicants by prevaricating and passing the buck. Thus, the social services do their best to find hostel accommodation for people who have nowhere to live, but when dealing with families clearly they have to divide them up and put them in different hostels. In many cases the children go to institutional care. This seems a highly unsatisfactory situation, the more so in a troubled area such as Ulster, where the cohension of the family unit is obviously of enormous importance. Moreover, as there is no statutory obligation on the housing executive to find these families public accommodation, the family risks remaining split up for very lengthy periods.
I gather that the organisation of Shelter in Northern Ireland last month brought out a report which has tried, first, to identify and quantify the problem of the homeless and, secondly, to set out the steps to be taken to alleviate it. The major points which emerge from this report are as follows: first, that the problem of homelessness appears to have been worsening over the last 12 months; secondly, that the problems spring directly from the lack of Government response in the way of increasing funding or legislative initiatives—either increasing one or the other; thirdly, that there is a heavy reliance upon voluntary bodies to play an important housing function and that they do that with limited resources, limited statutory support and inadequate co-ordination. Finally, although there is a critical need for support services for the homeless, the need to cater for housing-related problems has never been satisfied in either legal or financial terms.
Would the Minister give an assurance that the recommendations put forward very clearly in this report by Shelter will be seriously considered by himself and by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State? On the other hand, will he say whether the Assembly is empowered to make some decision in this regard? Surely it must be agreed that, while the lack of houses is one sad truth, the fact that in some cases there is not even a satisfactory statutory procedure to distribute that housing makes it even worse. I would be very, very grateful for some kind of assurance from the Minister on that point.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Earl for having kindly given us notice of this debate and having solicited points which we might want to raise. I gave him notice of a number of points but he will be relieved to know that I shall not by any means touch on all of them.
The first point concerns the control of dogs under Class I(1). In fact in Saturday's post I received a memorandum on this subject which I was glad to see but which I have not yet had an opportunity fully to assimilate. The only comment that I would make about that is that, when many years ago we started talking about the necessity to improve the control of dogs, particularly to obviate the very serious incidence of sheep worrying, particularly in the spring, it was thought that an increase of the dog licence to £5 would be enough to instil into aspiring dog owners a sense of responsibility; but inflation since then has been such that I would hazzard the suggestion that perhaps £5 is
530
no longer sufficient and that by the time the legislation reaches the statute book perhaps something more like £10 would be appropriate to ensure that people do not take on the responsibility of acquiring a dog without realising how great a responsibility that is and the degree of control and maintenance that is required.
Another matter on the subject of agriculture under Class I is that of poultry. I have received complaints about chickens in transit being overcrowded in lorries. One particular complaint was investigated and those responsible for transporting the poultry reported that afterwards only eight in the lorry-load were dead. I would respectfully submit that eight is eight too many. Having made inquiries, I understand that there is no statutory maximum of density when transporting fowl by road; rather there are spot checks done by a Ministry of Agriculture veterinary surgeon. I would respectfully suggest that there should be a statutory limit so as to ensure that this particular cruelty is avoided.
Again under Class I, less favoured areas is a subject that has been under scrutiny by the Agriculture Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, of which I am a member. We have so far spent 14½ hours on this subject. From the evidence which we have received it has become apparent that a very much broader brush was used in defining less favoured areas in other parts not only of the United Kingdom but of Europe as well, and the Republic of Ireland, than was the case in Northern Ireland, where the boundaries seem to be somewhat arbitrary. Odd islands of comparatively good land—I say comparatively with deliberation—have been excluded.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who is not in his place at the moment, will know one of the areas to which I refer, because it is in the Clogher Valley adjacent to where he lives. That has been excluded from the less favoured areas, thus being denied the advantages to be derived therefrom. There is no doubt that that is an area of land which is basically far inferior to areas in Scotland, for instance, which have been designated as being less favoured. In Scotland I understand that some 92 per cent. of the total agricultural land is designated as less favoured. I know some of it quite well just to the east of Stranraer. It is most certainly superior to some of the land which has been excluded in Northern Ireland.
Another factor which has come to our notice is that, because a certain farmer may have been assiduous in improving his farm—draining it and working it well—although his land is no better but just looks better, he has been excluded as well. I hope that with the present application which I understand is under consideration at the moment for the whole of the United Kingdom for a review of the less favoured areas, the anomalies which have up to now existed in Northern Ireland will be made good.
Turning now to Class III(1), I am wondering what is happening about the gas pipeline link-up. My view was that the most economic and obvious way to link up the Northern Ireland gas grid would have been to put an undersea pipeline to Scotland, thus making a supply of North Sea natural gas available, but Her Majesty's Government have consistently rejected that proposal. However, I understand that the proposal to link up the Northern Ireland grid with the Kinsale

531
supply is still under review. The consideration of that seems to be dragging out rather a long time. I would be interested to know what is happening. While the future of the gas industry remains in doubt the gas undertakings are finding it more and more difficult to retain their customers. Sales of gas appliances have plummeted to a very dramatic extent.
Similarly under Class III, I am wondering what is happening about the electricity inter-connector between Northern Ireland and the Republic which your Lordships may remember was blown up a number of years ago. Nothing has been done about it since. I think that it is a sad reflection on the security situation if we cannot have an electricity inter-connector replaced and properly guarded so that surplus capacity for generation of power in the north can be sold to the south, thus making the electricity service in the north more viable.
Under Class IV, a rather startling document was reported in the press last week to the effect that maximum fares on the Strangford Ferry were to be trebled. It has since become apparent that these are maximum fares which may—not necessarily will—be brought into effect over the next five years. I sincerely hope that the maximum will not be reached within five years because there are many of us who feel that this ferry ought to be regarded as an extension of the road system. People do not have to pay a toll when crossing a river bridge, and in the same way the ferry should not be regarded as something which has to be financed by passengers and vehicle drivers paying an economic fare to travel on it.
I come to Class V, dealing with housing. I would merely mention that the housing associations seem to have started to do an extremely good job, but, despite the extra injection of cash which was announced earlier this year, I would draw the noble Earl's attention to the fact that even projects which are in the pipeline now are likely to have to wait for some five years before a start can be made on building. I think that that is a great pity because the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to the deplorable housing situation in Northern Ireland and the necessity for many more houses to be built. The housing associations are all ready to do this if only the finance is available. I know of a site adjacent to my home which could be developed right away, but the finance is not there to enable it to proceed as a viable project.
The final class to which I would refer is Class XI, and in No. 1 we read that £1,260,000 is to be voted for the expenditure of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I would pose the question as to whether or not this is money well spent, because, if the Assembly is to continue to work—and I use the word "continue" deliberately—it will be money very well spent indeed. But if the Assembly does not work, it will not be money well spent; it will be money squandered.
Therefore, the question is: do Her Majesty's Government want the Assembly to work or not? It would appear that the Secretary of State does want it to work. I quote from a statement issued by his office on 10th March last, in which the Secretary of State said:
"I welcome the wide range of topics which the Assembly is addressing, and my Ministerial colleagues and I will continue to do
532
all we can to assist the Assembly, and to take full account of its recommendations."
Those were words which I welcomed, which I was glad to read. But I wonder whether that view is shared by all the Minister's colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office. I pose this question because in the Assembly I was responsible for moving one of the first resolutions which was passed by that Assembly without a Division. I am aware that a number of resolutions passed by the Assembly were not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government because they involved additional expenditure of public funds for which provision had not been made. Indeed, perhaps they were verging on a sensitive area from a political point of view.
However, I moved a resolution that park coursing of live hares—in other words, coursing of live hares in an enclosed space—should no longer be permitted in Northern Ireland, and the Assembly agreed to that. That was on 27th January last. On 24th February I wrote to the Secretary of State asking him what the next step would be, as it was four weeks since the Assembly had passed that particular motion and I had not yet received a reply. I do not complain about that because I realise that Ministerial replies take a while to process. But other members of the public who are interested in this particular issue wrote to the Secretary of State and received what seems to have been an identical letter from a member of the permanent staff of the Department of Health and Social Services, writing on behalf of the Minister responsible for that department. The letter says that the Minister:
"is very much aware of the sensitivities of this subject in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, the Government's view has been that questions of this sort are more suitable to be raised through Private Members' channels than through Government legislation since in the former way MPs are free to vote as a matter of conscience. In this connection you may be interested to know that the law in Northern Ireland on this subject is essentially the same as that applying in England and Wales."
I am very sorry to say that not only do I consider that reply to be disgraceful, but I consider it to be an insult to the intelligence. Perhaps it was designed to mollify members of the public who are not familiar with parliamentary procedure, but anyone who is remotely familiar with parliamentary procedure knows that the chances of a Private Member's Bill getting through or even getting selected for debate are very slim indeed. Anyway, why should it be subordinated to a Private Member's Bill?
For instance, in the case of compulsory wearing of seat belts, I understand that a majority of both Houses of Parliament eventually, after many years' debate, voted in favour of the compulsory wearing of seat belts in cars. Would it have been in order for Her Majesty's Government to have said, "All right, Parliament thinks that this ought to be the case, but it is rather a sensitive issue so we will just leave it and see whether a Private Member happens to raise it in a Private Member's Bill" I hardly think so.
Similarly, if Her Majesty's Government are to accord the Northern Ireland Assembly the status which the Secretary of State seems to think it deserves, I respectfully suggest that when a resolution is passed without division, action should be taken rather than having it put on the long finger in this respect. Further

533
more, the reply from the Department of Health and Social Services says that:
"the law in Northern Ireland on this subject is essentially the same as that applying in England and Wales."
Quite frankly, that is not true; it is different. Park coursing—that is, coursing of live hares in an enclosed space—is not permitted in England. The motion that I raised in the Assembly was merely to bring the law in Northern Ireland into line with what it is and has been since the 1920s in England.
Therefore, the question is: do Her Majesty's Government want the Northern Ireland Assembly to work or not? If they do, they had better back it up. The Alliance Party and, to give credit where credit is due, the Democratic Unionist Party as well have done all they can to try to make this Assembly work. My party has backed Her Majesty's Government and the Secretary of State to the hilt. We cannot go on doing that unless we receive some reciprocal backing as well.
Therefore, I respectfully suggest that the ball is now in the court of Her Majesty's Government, and I sincerely hope that the civil servant who was responsible for the letter from which I have quoted will be admonished and told not to write letters like that again.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I rise to support the order before us this evening. I should like to say that I warmly welcome the Minister's statement concerning the role and functions of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am also very pleased to have heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath—spelling out the problems of the Assembly in this Chamber. I think it is important that the Minister has taken the initiative and that it is placed on the record of this House that, so far as the Government are concerned, there is a very perceptive understanding of the constructive way in which the committees of the Assembly have undertaken their deliberations and their functions. There is a general awareness outside among the general public in Northern Ireland that the Assembly is at these early stages fulfilling a useful, participatory role, and exercising great responsibility and prudence in the decisions concerning the distribution of resources in Northern Ireland.
I also read with great interest the Official Report of the Minister's own appearance, if that is how one terms it, before the Assembly on 16th February. The debate was wide-ranging, covering agriculture, shipbuilding, housing, health services, education, construction, youth training programmes, EEC funds and energy, among other matters. I have the impression from the tone of the official debate that the Minister found it a useful experience.
As well as the Northern Ireland Assembly, I consider that there are at least three other developments which are deserving of favourable comment at this time. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has already mentioned the emergence of the Northern Ireland Industrial Development Board. I am sure that I share with many, not only in this House but in the general public in Northern Ireland, in offering warmest congratulations and delight at the appointment of Mr. John Parker as
534
chairman and chief executive of Harland and Wolff and the Belfast Shipbuilders, and also to Sir Philip Foreman, the current managing director, on his appointment to the position of chairman of Short Brothers and Harland, the Belfast aircraft and engineering enterprise. Both these men have made valuable contributions to their respective industries and have honourable records of dedication and leadership within the context of industry in Northern Ireland. It is deserving that they should be mentioned in this House because they represent the two largest employers in the engineering industry in the Province.
Within the last few days we have had the announcement of the Industrial Development Board direction. This direction gives the guidelines to the vital task of the IDB in the promotion of industrial development. There are a few general questions I wish to put to the Minister at this stage in the debate. The matters will be obvious, and I am not going into a lot of detail. Can the Minister indicate whether the annual report and accounts of the Industrial Development Board will be laid before Parliament? I understand from a statement in another place on 10th March that the Industrial Development Board have produced a strategy document. Would the Minister indicate that this document is available, particularly to Members of the two Houses of Parliament here?
It is understood that the Secretary of State, Mr. Prior, is undertaking a review of industrial incentives. As it is felt in some quarters that the delay in publishing this review could hinder some investment proposals, may I ask when we are likely to have a statement about the relevant incentive issues? I am not putting my points under particular class headings, because they come under various headings.
The British Textile Confederation has proposed a programme of action to rebuild confidence and fulfil the potential of the industry. As this programme has important implications for the development of textiles and clothing in Northern Ireland, can the Minister give an assurance that the Industrial Development Board will undertake to give adequate support to the relevant Northern Ireland initiatives? I should also like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the programme of afforestation in Northern Ireland is being maintained.
May I ask the Minister whether he has read the statement made on 1st March, by Mr. Gordon Burnison, the director of the Federation of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors? Mr. Burnison declared that 45 per cent. of building and 80 per cent. of civil engineering firms are operating at less than half capacity, and that some 25,000 construction workers are unemployed. I would be pleased if the Minister would urge his ministerial colleagues and the departments to do all they possibly can to stimulate an increase in the development projects and capital spending relevant to the construction industry.
Finally, I know that the Minister has a very high regard for the rich, diverse, and beautiful natural environment of Northern Ireland. With a view to the maintenance and improvement of this environment and the development of Northern Ireland's natural resources, may I ask him whether he would kindly draw to the attention of the information divisions of

535
Northern Ireland departments and the Industrial Development Board the series of studies undertaken and published jointly by Queen's University, Belfast, and the New University of Ulster? This book which has over 500 references is obtainable at a nominal price of about £6. I know that this sounds like a commercial plug, but I understand that this publication is not done on any sort of commercial basis, and in my opinion it warrants inclusion in any information package sent to potential capital investors in Northern Ireland. I know that the Minister's interest in this matter would be much appreciated. With those general remarks, I welcome the order.
7.6 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful to the House for the general reception of the appropriation order. I tried in my opening remarks to place these large figures within the context of the Government's overall strategy, and I shall not repeat myself here except to say that at a time when public spending has been under considerable restraint and has been successfully contained for the first time in many years to the levels planned, Northern Ireland has had a modest increase, but nevertheless a real increase in real terms. That, I think, is an earnest of the Minister's commitments to the special needs and difficulties of the Province.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asks me about some adverse media comment about Lear Fan. I am afraid that I cannot comment on the newspaper report to which the noble Lord refers. In fact, I read the newspapers carefully but this particular item is news to me, and I shall look it out. I can say that the company has already achieved two of the three critical milestones on its way—the prototype construction and the first flight, to which of course should be added the flights of the second prototype—and the next target of the company is type certification of airworthiness by the United States Federal Aviation Administration. I certainly know that we all wish the company well in seeking that certification. We know that it is difficult and that there may be need for additional research and development work.
On the matter of the Kinsale natural gas project, as I said in my opening remarks the estimate provides for an up-front payment, to use the jargon, of £5 million to the authorities in the Irish Republic on the signing of the heads of agreement. The estimates I have laid before your Lordships allow for that. Whether this money is spent is dependent on the agreement of acceptable terms of supply with the Government of the Republic. A broad understanding was reached in May of 1982, but I have to advise your Lordships that important issues remain to be resolved, and I shall of course keep the House informed as these develop.
I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, that it is thoroughly to be desired that uncertainty should be ended in the gas industry. It would be expected that consumers in Northern Ireland could first receive natural gas approximately two years after a decision to proceed with the project, and we all hope that such a project should be viable. Still on energy matters, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to lignite resources and wanted to know the
536
latest news of the utilisation of those resources. Again, I cannot go far at present because a detailed assessment of the reserves is in progress. On present information it is estimated that there are recoverable reserves of 100 million tonnes in the landwood area near Loch Neagh, and the Government are currently looking into uses for these resources, and possible uses would include electricity generation, which, in view of the high costs of electricity generation in the Province, would be very welcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about developments in relation to the Belfast enterprise zones and for some hard information about that. I can tell him that 193 jobs in 30 firms have been created in those zones since designation, in October 1981; 69 of those are genuine new jobs spread over 22 new small businesses, and the eight firms which have relocated have not done so solely to obtain the benefits but because they had wanted to expand their businesses or because existing property has been subject to compulsory acquisition. It is also encouraging to note that, of 175 further jobs to be created in the near future, 140 will be in two companies which are setting up in Northern Ireland for the first time. Private investment in the zones to date amounts to an estimated £8 million, and I shall note the points of advice the noble Lord gave and refer them to my honourable friend the Minister responsible.
Turning to matters connected with the Assembly—and I was grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blease—the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, kindly gave me notice that he intended to ask whether the Assembly considered orders to be subject to affirmative resolutions of Parliament and, if so, whether both Houses would be informed when they were considered here. My right honourable friend refers proposals for draft orders in council on transfer of matters to the Assembly, with the exception of the appropriation and other routine financial orders, pure consolidation orders and orders to be made by the urgent procedure. This is done on publication of the proposal for public consultation. Simultaneously, copies are placed in the Vote Office of another place and in the Printed Paper Office. The Assembly's report on a proposal is laid before Parliament pursuant to Section 3(4) of the Northern Ireland Act 1982 and therefore Parliament, including of course your Lordships' House, will be able to take the Assembly's views into account when the draft order is laid.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that I have indeed seen the document of the trade union alternative strategy and I shall continue to study it carefully. I can only say at this late stage in the debate that there are substantive general economic strategy differences between the Government and the trade unions who, we feel, in spite of many useful suggestions and much good work, ignore the difficulties of containing public spending and containing inflation. I would remind them, as I have reminded the House, that public spending, by which they set considerable store in the document, is higher in real terms in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom, and higher even after taking into account the needs for benefit and the law and order budget. It is really for that reason that we are anxious to get some political movement into Northern Ireland, so that investors inside and

537
outside the Kingdom acknowledge that Northern Ireland is taking its own special needs and difficulties into account and is trying to wrestle with the problem of creating a stable environment there which can attract investment.
Still on the issue of the Assembly, I did, as the noble Lord, Lord Blease, was kind enough to remind us, have the pleasure of addressing the Assembly on 16th February. I outlined the general strategy and order of priorities which underlay the plans contained in the White Paper and I listened with great interest to the views expressed there. What I had to say to the Assembly was that it was not enough, respectfully, for them to call for additional expenditure; they must get down to the hard job, through the committees, of making the allocations within overall planned resources, and that I am confident they will attempt to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked about progress by the LEDU. Since its inception in 1971 to 31st January 1983, LEDU has promoted 14,377 jobs, including 1,613 in the last financial year. I regard that as a significant achievement and it can be attributed to the body's close involvement with, and recognition of, the needs of small industry in the Province. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in Parliament on 9th March that the Government would be making available public funding of £7·4 million to Shorts in the year to 31st March 1984. Discussions are continuing with Harland and Wolff as to their funding requirements for the next financial year, and I too welcome, with the noble Lord, Lord Blease, the appointment of Mr. Parker.
With regard to Shorts, as with other aerospace companies, the current recession in the industry has had a great impact on Shorts, and the company's aerostructure division in particular has suffered a loss of orders. But the company will continue to pursue contracts on any new aircraft developments, and their new commuter airline went into service last November, which is certainly welcomed. Your Lordships may like to know that missiles made by the company were used in the Falklands campaign, and Shorts are hopeful of obtaining export orders now that their products have been so well proven in combat conditions.
Regarding Harland and Wolff, it would be a very bland Minister who felt anything approaching optimism in relation to the state of the world-wide shipping market. There is very fierce competition, particularly from the Far East, for the very few orders which are available, but I know the new chairman and chief executive will be spearheading an energetic drive to secure some of those orders.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked about tourism, and perhaps I may give a blanket answer also to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, whose concern for the lovely environment of Northern Ireland I wholeheartedly share. The tourist industry has suffered from the poor image of the Province. The people we attract there from all over the world, either as tourists or in order to see the investment possibilities, are constantly amazed at the way peace has broken out in almost all corners of the Province. But it is difficult, while there is so much intransigent political debate, for that amazement to be widely
538
shared, which of course is what we should very much like to see.
I will draw together the points about how we might approach the North American/Canadian market, where there are an estimated 20 million people with Northern Ireland roots, as part of a major drive for tourism in the Province. Of my right honourable friend and my colleagues and myself, one of us is nearly always either just completing or about to undertake a trip to North America in relation to this and other matters, and we shall keep the needs very firmly in mind. That point goes well with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, when he suggested that we must start adapting to the needs of greater leisure in our society, and I certainly take his argument on that on board.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Dunleath, asked about the costs of the Northern Ireland Assembly; £1,260,000 is allocated on account for the Assembly, and expenditure incurred to date in the current financial year on the Vote is £1·3 million. The Vote on account is based on 45 per cent. of the expected full year costs for next year, in the absence, of course, of comparative costs for the current year.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough asked me about incentives to industry, and he made a point which I think is often made; namely, that in this regard we may perform adversely compared to the Republic. This, too, is a complex issue, and my noble friend will be aware that the criticism may have lost a little validity in recent years; not, I fear, for very good reasons, but rather due to the sad fact that at the moment there is a certain amount of investment famine all over the Western world, and in this respect the Republic is not in fact doing so well as it was. Of course I take no satisfaction in noting that.
Nevertheless the fact of the matter is that, in terms not merely of security issues but of political deadlock and intransigence as well, the poor image of the Province is a disincentive to investment. I urge all those political representatives in the Province, on both sides of the community divide, when they make their utterances to weigh them very carefully with the need to attract overseas industry to the Province. In saying "overseas industry", I include investment from this part of the Kingdom; and I have often made play of the fact that there is greater investment from Great Britain in the Republic than there is in the Province.
I do not think that there is too much wrong with our package of investments, but I take my noble friend's point that the shop window is not—as he put it—sexy enough. I do not know whether Northern Ireland would welcome a very sexy shop window, but I shall bring to the attention of the bodies concerned my noble friend's view that there is a need for that.
On my noble friend's point about the merger of the new Ulster University and the Ulster Polytechnic, I would say that we have repeatedly made it clear that the new institution is to have a practical and vocational emphasis, as well as pursuing academic quality. The steering group that is responsible for planning the merger is also acutely aware of this vocational need, and the draft charter which the steering group has prepared makes specific reference to sub-degree and higher technician courses, as well as

539
general degree and post-graduate work. It also places an obligation on the new institution to conduct regular reviews of the university's success in meeting these objectives.
I was not aware of there being special problems in terms of the North Down Technical College, but if the noble Lord will give me further information on some of his anxieties. I shall of course have the matter looked into. On the special arrangements being made to meet the requirements of the youth training programme at the college, I would say that eight additional temporary classrooms have been provided and accommodation has been rented in Bangor for the Youthway courses.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked about the housing executive's programmes. I share her concern, and the concern of others of your Lordships, about the need to improve from a very poor base the housing stock in Northern Ireland, as well as the connection between poor housing in inner cities and some of the problems in the Province. In respect of the failure of the European Community regulation proposing special aid for housing in Northern Ireland, I have to say, as I think the noble Baroness will be aware, that the proposal failed to secure agreement at the Council of Ministers because of reservations expressed by the German Government. However, discussions on aid for Northern Ireland are continuing, and I can say that it has not been necessary to effect any reduction in housing programmes in the current financial year due to non-receipt of European Community aid.
However, because of the doubts surrounding future aid from the Community for housing in Northern Ireland, the Government feel that it would be unrealistic to plan future programmes on the assumption that such special aid would be available, and the housing executive has been advised to adjust its forward programmes by reducing the annual planned level of new starts from 5,250 to 4,500—a reduction of 750, for which European Community aid had previously been assumed. But I can say that we as a Government have been unremitting in our efforts to bring to a successful conclusion the Commission's initiative. My right honourable friend has been to Brussels in order to pursue the issue, and my honourable friend Mr. Mitchell went there shortly before Christmas. Of course, we all recognise that any progress on the question must be dependent on the initiative having the support of all member states. To this end we are continuing to work hard with the Commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, drew our attention to the issue of dogs. Very often when one raises an issue regarding dogs, people think that one is dealing with rather minor factors, but as the noble Lord well knows, this is a major problem in Northern Ireland. The present position with regard to the draft Order in Council on dog control is that the order, which was published on 8th July last, has now been amended to take account of comments made during the consultation period and during debates. It is expected that it will be laid before Parliament very shortly. In using that term I do not want to fall into the trap that your Lordships baited for my noble friend Lord Swinton the
540
other day, but I think that in this context "very shortly" probably means this week.
I share the noble Lord's concern regarding the conveyance of live animals; he referred to poultry. This matter is covered by statute. The Conveyance of Live Poultry (Ireland) Order 1979 covers the carriage of poultry by road, rail, and sea, and the order still applies in Northern Ireland, as does the Welfare of Animals Act 1972, with its general provisions. All complaints, whether from welfare organisations or the public, are investigated, and the department is willing to prosecute if it is at all possible. I shall take note of the points that the noble Lord put to us in this regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, then moved on to the question of the less favoured areas. I have to say to him that all boundaries carry with them the likelihood of boundary disputes. There are, for instance, questions such as: Where should an enterprise zone begin or end? Where should a boundary of a less favoured area begin or end? I am aware that in some areas there is dissatisfaction about the drawing of lines. The proposed boundary line cannot be regarded as definitive until Brussels has decided on the areas to be designated. Representations will then be considered, but I warn the House that it is my belief that the scope for adjustment will be somewhat limited.
The noble Lord asked me why there was a five-year wait before new starts can be made by housing associations, despite the increases in finance provided, which he generously acknowledged. As the current housing associations' development proposals contain schemes amounting in total to £60 million, it is necessary to programme them over a period of years to ensure the proper control of available funds and the application of those funds on a priority basis.
The noble Lord asked me about the restoration of the electricity inter-connector with the Republic. I share very strongly with him the view that this would be desirable, and both sides of the border, which in economic terms is fairly artificial in many areas, would benefit from the restoration of the link. We are determined to restore it as soon as practicable, but, as the noble Lord will appreciate, the detail of this is not I think a matter that is appropriate for debate on the Floor of the House, though of course it is a perfectly fair and suitable point for him to raise.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, asked me whether I would make a statement on the Strangford Lough Ferry Order 1983. This revised the maximum levels for the tolls or dues recoverable from users of the ferry, and it will enable the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland to continue its policy of fixing annually tolls for the ferry over the next five years, or such longer periods as economic circumstances may permit. The ferry, which I have had the pleasure of using, obviates a journey of 45 miles around the head of the loch, and it therefore results in a very considerable saving in terms of both time and cost for traffic from Downpatrick and its hinterland, bound for the Ards peninsular, and vice versa.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Blease—
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, if the noble Earl will forgive me—and he is now moving on to his final point—could he give us, before he sits down, the reply

541
to the question of whether he and his colleagues want the Northern Ireland Assembly to work or not? If they do, will they pay respect to resolutions passed without Division by that Assembly?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I have already given that reply, both in my opening remarks and at the beginning of my speech in winding up the debate on the appropriation order. Of course, the Government are committed to the Assembly, but our commitment to the Assembly and to its part in achieving greater political progress towards stability in Northern Ireland does not mean that the Government are bound to agree with the Assembly on every particular. I will look at the issue on hare coursing, which was new to me—and as the noble Lord will be aware, it is not my direct area of responsibility in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord must not tempt us into thinking that an agreement to differ on an issue between the Government and the Assembly in some way undermines our commitment to that body or to the achievement of political progress. If I may so respectfully suggest, I hope he will not put it quite in that way.
The two last points which I wished to make were in response to the noble Lord, Lord Blease. The noble Lord asked about the IDB guidelines. These were published on Friday, 11th March, and copies were widely distributed. In due course the board will be publishing its own industrial development strategy document. I will endeavour to see that there is a copy of this document placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Blease—and this point was taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs—added his concerns to those of others about the construction industry in the Province and wanted to know when the Secretary of State was going to make a statement. The Government continue to be aware of the importance to the Province of the construction industry. The plans for public expenditure, which I have mentioned, provide for capital expenditure totalling £611 million in 1983–84, an increase of 8 per cent. over the previous year, and some £10 million higher than previous plans. In addition to capital expenditure on construction, this large sum includes expenditure on grants and loans to the private sector, which generates considerable work for the construction industry.
Current expenditure on maintenance will also generate work for the industry. In particular the plans for 1983–84 provide for the high level of house building established last year to be maintained, as the Housing Executive has acknowledged. A further £5 million has been added to the £12 million package of measures to assist areas of special need which was announced last year. These levels of public spending are a substantial contribution to reducing unemployment in the construction industry and they are being made, as I said at the beginning, at a difficult time. Noble Lords should be under no doubt. There is no way in which we can solve the problems of employment in Northern Ireland through public spending alone. They are too deep-seated. High rates of public spending are an earnest of our own contribution but, as we constantly urge, Northern Ireland must start to make its own contribution towards the settling of its very deep-seated and long-standing difficulties.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down may I say that I know I did not give him notice of my question about statutory rights for the homeless in Northern Ireland referred to in the report by Shelter. Will he be good enough to write to me on this subject, as it does seem a very important point?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am sorry that that point escaped me. I will write to the noble Baroness.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing (International Airports) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983
7.35 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie rose The Earl of Gowrie rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the main purpose of this order is to allow a wide range of duty-free goods such as cigars, cigarettes, alcohol, perfumes, watches and jewellery, to be sold at any time to departing international passengers in the licensed premises within the duty-free area of designated airports in Northern Ireland. The order will also allow sales of non-duty-free alcoholic drinks for consumption in such premises provided other kinds of beverages are available at the same time.
The facilities I have mentioned will be available only to bona fide international passengers departing from Northern Ireland. The order brings the law in Northern Ireland in this respect into line with that applying throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for so briefly moving this particular order. I understand that one of the reasons why this particular order has been moved is to enable additional revenues to be generated at Aldergrove Airport, which will enable the landing charges at that airport to be kept down and so to alleviate from increased charges those flying into Aldergrove from such destinations as London, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, Glasgow and the Isle of Man. But we all realise that those particular passengers on domestic routes will not themselves be customers in the duty-free areas and that the only customers in the duty-free areas will be those who are making international trips. I understand that the amount of international traffic at Aldergrove has substantially increased over the past few years and that this would include traffic to Dublin.
We are aware that the sale of duty-free goods overall has managed to keep down the air fares by about £100 million a year through the profits generated by these concessions. I think one has some concern at this point of time as to whether the situation with regard to duty-free goods will continue in the same way as it has been in the past. We know that the European Economic Community commissioners have made emphatic

543
statements about retaining the rights to buy duty-free, but I wonder whether the noble Earl had any information about the attitude of the European Court to the sale of duty-free goods within the Community as a whole.
I should be interested to know whether the noble Earl would have any figures with regard to the proportion of international passengers using Aldergrove who are passengers from within the Community and those who are passengers from outside the Community; because, as noble Lords will recall from when we have been discussing previous orders concerning duty-free goods, different regulations apply to goods which are manufactured outside the Community and bought within the Community from goods which are bought within the Community and manufactured within the Community itself. It seems that unless one is very certain about all these things, the establishment of these duty-free facilities at Aldergrove may not be as easily and as readily justified as one would hope. Certainly, in a general sense, one welcomes this order because it will provide an additional subsidy to the running costs of the airport which will enable landing fees to be reduced.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his brief introduction. I see no reason to oppose the order. Perhaps I might put two questions. Reference is made to international airports in Northern Ireland such as Aldergrove. Are other airports planned? Secondly, what is the meaning of the qualification in the explanatory blurb in the words, "so that to all intents and purposes" international passengers departing from a recognised airport in any part of the UK will be subject to the same treatment under the law?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I have always felt that the phrase "to all intents and purposes" was a kind of "legislativese" for covering one's bets. I shall look into the point that the noble Lord makes. I cannot give him an off-the-cuff answer on the latter issue. I think that it is only sensible, since there are other airports in Northern Ireland—there is an airport at Enniskillen, and in Belfast itself at Sydenham—that the order should cover contingencies at all airports there. But obviously in practical and immediate terms this applies to Aldergrove, which is where the vast bulk of international traffic takes place. I am grateful for the way that the order has been received.
I am a little bemused by the reception of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. As a spokesman for a party committed to taking us out of Europe, he feels that we should skulk in the wings until Europe has okayed every suggestion of a sensible kind that we should make. That would seem to be rather a contradiction. I think that we can go ahead without recourse to Europe on such a sensible matter. I know of no objections which are likely to be made for providing facilities for international travellers which are common in all other parts of the United Kingdom. I shall look at the anxieties which the noble Lord has raised. I hope that he will not feel that we should not go ahead with the order until every jot and tittle is
544
cleared up, as otherwise we shall have to wait in this country for a very long time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983
7.42 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd February be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the order is short and uncomplicated and basically seeks to do three things to require only one rates demand to be issued to ratepayers each year, instead of the current half-yearly billing; to allow discount for prompt payment of domestic rates only if the full amount of rates is paid as a single sum; and to provide for the partial exemption from rates of non-domestic hereditaments which straddle the boundaries of enterprise zones.
The provisions on annual billing and on discounts for domestic ratepayers have resulted from a package of proposals made by a team of officials working in consultation with Sir Derek (now Lord) Rayner. This team was charged with the task of considering ways of improving efficiency and reducing the cost of rate collection in Northern Ireland. I was the overseeing Minister in respect of this exercise.
In relation to the first objective of the order—that is, annual instead of twice-yearly billing—this will facilitate the introduction of a new computerised rate collection system which we hope will start on 1st April 1983. This change will reduce administrative costs and will enable action for the recovery of arrears of rates to begin earlier in the rating year and take account of the full year's rates. Similar procedures have been introduced by many local authorities in England and Wales with a resultant reduction in costs and an improvement, of course, in cash flow. I can assure the House that ratepayers will not suffer any inconvenience as a consequence of this proposal.
When the draft order was published on 29th November 1982, it was proposed to raise the level of discount from 2½ to 3½ per cent. However, the position has been re-examined in the light of trends in interest rates and analyses of the costs of operating the new system. I am pleased to say that the Government are prepared to raise the proposed level of discount even higher; that is, to 4 per cent. In arriving at this increased figure, close attention was paid to the comments made during the debate on the order by the Northern Ireland Assembly. Indeed, this proposal was the first to be considered by the Assembly which took note of the proposal and passed an amendment to the effect that the amount of rates due should be payable in two moieties before appropriate dates at 3½ per cent. discount.
In the course of that debate on the draft order reference was made to the position of ratepayers following the introduction of the new procedures. I am, of course, very conscious of the need to facilitate ratepayers in making payments and dealing with any problems or queries they might have. In relation to the payments, I am pleased to be able to say that arrange-

545
ments have now been made with the Post Office whereby payments can be made through the National Giro Bank, and the cost of transactions will be paid by the department. As I mentioned earlier, domestic ratepayers can choose to pay their rates by 10 instalments, two half-yearly payments, or in a single sum for discount.
The House will recognise therefore that the general effect of the order is to streamline rate collection procedures and so increase the efficiency of the administering department. At present the rate collection arrangements in Northern Ireland are being reorganised and the changes proposed in this new order will form an integral part of a new computerised rate collection system. When this reorganisation is complete and the new procedures proposed here are fully implemented savings of £1 million a year will be realised. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd February be approved.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in welcoming the explanation given by the noble Earl, may I ask one question? There is to be a saving as a result of this single billing. Can the noble Earl indicate whether this will lead to redundancies and tell us the number of jobs likely to be affected? What will be the net effect of the saving in view of the heavy unemployment position in Northern Ireland and the net loss that will be encountered by paying out unemployment benefit and losing tax revenue?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I hesitate to be drawn into the macro-economic argument with the noble Lord. The saving of public monies is essential to maintain employment. It is not deleterious to employment. No individual jobs that I know of are lost by this saving, although it should be—and I hope it may well be—that those engaged in public administration in respect of the grades for whom, as I have said, I am responsible will he more usefully and more productively employed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Assembly Elections (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.47 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I hope in all modesty to be able to convince your Lordships that it would he contrary to natural justice were you to decline to give this Bill a Second Reading, or indeed to pass it. A Member of the European Parliament represents not the British institutions vis-á-vis the British Government; he represents the people of his constituency vis-á-vis the institutions of the European Community: specifically the Commission and the Council of Ministers. I would humbly suggest that it is therefore anomalous and illogical that a British subject should be banned from being able to exercise his franchise simply because he lives in another part of the Community outside this country.
546
It is also a matter of concern that there is an increasing number of British citizens living outside the United Kingdom in other member states. It is estimated that there are 250,000 citizens. Most of them are disenfranchised and will be disenfranchised in June 1984, when European elections take place, unless your Lordships have approved this Bill or some similar Bill so that they can be placed on the electoral roll. Another anomaly is the fact that British servicemen resident in other member states are able to vote in European elections. Why, I ask myself, should not British businessmen resident in Brussels, Paris, or Frankfurt, be able to do the same? A British businessman surely these days is doing his country as much good and is serving his country as faithfully as is a British serviceman. Nevertheless, he is under present legislation disenfranchised if he lives in a different member state from that of his nationality.
I place this matter really in the same category, in terms of national elections, as whether a Londoner should be disenfranchised if he moves to Glasgow, or a person from Manchester if he moves to Cardiff. Such a thing would be wrong, and I hope your Lordships will agree that it is equally wrong for a British subject to be disenfranchised simply because he lives and works in Paris, in Brussels or in Rome.
I would also suggest to your Lordships that the present situation clearly violates the principle that there should be no taxation without representation. All those who reside in Community member states pay value added tax, and it is the 1 per cent. of value added tax which makes up a very large part of the Community budget. In other words, a British subject is a European taxpayer whether he lives in this country or in France or Germany. He still pays VAT, and when he buys something which is subject to VAT the tax that he pays goes into the same Community budget, but if the British subject is resident outside the United Kingdom he has no say in how that taxation money should be spent. He does not have a vote in electing a Member of the European Parliament; and that Parliament, as the joint budgetary authority over the European budget, has to make its decisions without any influence being brought to bear upon it by that very substantial group of British citizens.
I am happy to say—and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Elton will confirm this—that the Government accept the principle that I have just put forward. Indeed, that principle was accepted by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne when speaking for the Government in June 1979. He said that the Government favoured the extension of the franchise for European Assembly elections to include United Kingdom nationals resident in other member states and they would in due course consider the introduction of legislation for this purpose.
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne said "in due course", and I suppose that these words are the nub of the matter, because nearly four years have passed and legislation has not been introduced along the lines suggested by my noble friend. It has been put forward by Government spokesmen that this matter must await a decision on a uniform electoral procedure for European Parliamentary elections. I have to say that I am afraid, if that is the case, that we are not going to find this matter resolved for many years to come,

547
because the question of a uniform electoral procedure is a very long way away from solution at the moment, and certainly it cannot be solved before the elections next year.
However, there are other persons of influence close to the Government's thinking who feel that this matter should be dealt with separately. The Paymaster General, in his capacity as Chairman of the Conservative Party, said in evidence recently before your Lordships' Select Committee that he personally hoped that the Government would consider taking interim action on this point before October 1983, even if agreement on a uniform electoral procedure proved impossible. I believe that is a view which is widely held in circles close to the Government, and I hope that my noble friend will confirm it.
Perhaps most importantly of all, your Lordships' Select Committee itself recommended unanimously that the Government should take action. The noble Baroness, Lady White, I have no doubt will be referring to that point; but I think in these opening remarks I should point out that paragraph 74 of her excellent report suggests clearly and unanimously that the question of enfranchising British subjects living in other member states should be considered a completely separate matter from that of the electoral system. It points out that elections are on the horizon, and it urges the Government to proceed rapidly. I hope that my noble friend Lord Elton will be able to assure us that he takes these quotations—one made on behalf of the Government, another made on behalf of one of the major political parties and another made on behalf of your Lordships' Select Committee—extremely seriously, because I believe there is a majority in this House for such a principle, and not only for the principle of enfranchisement along the lines proposed but for the principle of rapid action. That rapid action should be before October 1983, which probably would be essential if those British citizens abroad are to be able to take part in next year's elections.
I shall be the first to admit that the Bill before your Lordships this evening is incomplete. It is very much a Second Reading draft; but I hope that your Lordships will not castigate me too severely on that account. Indeed, in the course of this evening's debate and in the course of the next few weeks, if your Lordships are kind enough to give it a Second Reading tonight, I hope to receive amendments from noble Lords. I hope also that amendments will come from my noble friend Lord Elton. I also hope, indeed, that my noble friend will be able to indicate to me whether he will be prepared, assuming that there is a Second Reading, to take a constructive attitude towards this Bill, to try to get it into shape and to try to work out its details, to dot the i's and cross the t's.
Clearly, many questions are begged. Who is to be allowed to vote? One would hope that all British citizens of age living in other member states would be allowed to do so; but in practice I suppose they are going to have to prove a connection with a constituency, since that is the electoral system at present prevailing in the United Kingdom. In which constituency would a British subject resident, say, in Frankfurt, be entitled to vote? Would it be in the
548
constitiuency in which he was born, in which he was last resident or in which he was last on the electoral roll? All these points will have to be worked out at the Committee stage, but I hope that your Lordships will look at the matter constructively and helpfully and that you will forgive me for not having tackled these details at this early stage of the Bill's legislative procedure.
Also I should like to point out that this is a matter which I believe should be tackled on its own. It is not an attempt to solve the question of a uniform electoral procedure for the European Parliament, or even to take very much of a step along that path. Certainly it is not a step towards electoral reform, either of the European Parliament or in this country; that must be a separate debate. But I believe that the present situation, where a substantial number of British citizens is disenfranchised, is essentially unjust. It is essentially undemocratic, and being, as we are, part of a European Community which is based on democratic principles—unlike its East European conterparts—I hope that this principle will be the one that overrides all other objections and that your Lordships will be kind enough to consider the Bill and give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bethell.)
7.59 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has explained the purpose and intention of this Bill in terms which everyone can understand. He has also referred to your Lordships' Select Committee's report on the question of a uniform procedure for elections to the European Assembly. As a member of the Select Committee which made that recommendation, I am naturally in accord with the recommendation made. But as to whether this matter can best be dealt with by a Private Member's Bill, that is open to question and would certainly be dependent upon the suggestion which the noble Lord threw out, that the Government should take over and give assistance in drafting the Bill. Unless that is done many important issues may not be dealt with. I hope that the Government will pay attention to the important issues which are not referred to at all in the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, freely admits. Therefore, although I have sympathy with the aim, I think there are points which must be considered.
First, the noble Lord himself raised the subject of electoral registration. This matter cannot be treated lightly, because the compilation of a proper electoral register is the key to sound democratic elections in this country. Therefore we must pay careful attention to that aspect. That point, and other matters which will need to be resolved are dealt with in a memorandum submitted by the Home Office, which is in paragraphs 24 to 29 on pages 34 and 35 of your Lordships' Select Committee's report.
The noble Lord said he hoped that this would include all persons resident abroad. I wish to make it clear that although there is sympathy with the aim of the Bill, in no circumstances would the Labour Opposition support extending the franchise to those persons who have been resident abroad for very long periods—20, 30 years or more—or to those persons

549
who, frankly, are tax exiles from this country. Therefore, there are certain qualifications that we shall wish to see.
If there is to be an extension of the franchise we must look at a number of issues. The first, which is dealt with by the Select Committee, is that a person should be given the franchise for European elections only provided that he was resident in this country within a fixed period. The Select Committee threw out the suggestion of 10 years. The question of extending the franchise to British subjects resident abroad is also being considered by the Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs. They have been looking at numerous aspects of the Representation of the People Act and their report has not yet been presented, but a memorandum submitted to that committee by the Home Office states that
"to avoid the basis of the extension—that is, a previous connection with the United Kingdom—becoming increasingly artificial, a time limit would seem to be essential."
A memorandum to your Lordships' committee states that the longer the absence from this country, the less satisfactory registration at an address in a United Kingdom constituency would become. Your Lordships' committee suggested the possibility of a 10-year period and the Home Office suggested a seven-year period, But some have considered that this may be too long, and have suggested a five-year period.
The other important point which will need to be considered is the question of a declaration—which some people feel is essential—that a person who wishes to take advantage of this extension, if it should be agreed, should indicate a definite intention to return to take up residence again in the United Kingdom. As the Home Office evidence points out to your Lordships' Select Committee, there are at present provisions for certain persons resident outside the United Kingdom to be registered in a constituency in this country. There are what we call service voters. They cover persons who are members of the armed forces overseas and their spouses; persons who are employed in the diplomatic service and persons employed by the British Council. The provisions do not cover persons who are temporarily working abroad or British citizens who have taken up residence overseas.
The requirements for these service voters are all listed in the present regulations on the representation of the people, as is the declaration which they have to make. Therefore the declarations of the persons who are at present covered, although resident outside the United Kingdom, can be verified. If the franchise for European elections is to be extended to British subjects resident in member states of the Community, it is essential that a procedure be devised, so that any declaration that such people make can be on a par with that of the present service voters. Unless that is done, it will be trying to give natural justice in one way, but inhibiting the situation as regards the present service voters.
The existing service voters are registered in the constituency in which they were last resident before going abroad, and, unless there is some careful check, it could be possible—there may be legal penalties—that without a proper procedure for verification a person could be registered in more than one United Kingdom constituency. That is why the declaration
550
and verification are so important. As I said, that can be done in the case of service voters, persons in the diplomatic service and persons who are employed by the British Council. Therefore the issues raised are not merely academic; they go to the heart of our electoral registration, which is based on a residential qualification. So, while having some sympathy with the aims, I believe that these points must be dealt with—possibly, in a schedule to the Bill.
The attitude of the Labour Opposition will be dependent upon the answers that are given by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, when he replies for the Government. If the Government are prepared to look into the two important issues that I have raised—and these are points raised by the Home Office evidence as well, both to your Lordships' committee and to the Select Committee on Home Affairs in the other place—and adequately to deal with them, then I think that we shall give general approval to the Bill. But I emphasise, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, that this is a matter which is being dealt with solely on its own, and it does not involve any other electoral procedure. That was a recommendation from your Lordships' own Select Committee and, no doubt, my noble friend Lady White will amplify that. But provided that we get that assurance from the Government, we shall wish the Bill good progress.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, this short Bill does not require a long speech. We on this Bench support it, in principle, and would vote for the Second Reading if there were to be a Division. I am also speaking for our Liberal allies, who have asked me to convey their support as well. The extension of the franchise for elections to the European Parliament to include British subjects resident elsewhere in the Community who would be entitled to vote if they were resident in the United Kingdom is the aim not only of this Bill but also of a recommendation which has been mentioned—in fact, the only recommendation—made in the report of your Lordships' sub-committee on a
"Uniform Electoral Procedure for the Election of Members of the European Parliament".
on which I had the privilege to serve under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady White, together with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill.
Paragraph 3 of that report states that
"this matter appeared to the Committee not to be dependent upon the choice of a particular electoral system, which may require protracted consideration. It affects a democratic right of citizenship which could and, if necessary, should be determined separately."
The report then turns to consideration of the main part of its remit—that is, the question of a uniform electoral procedure—and does not revert to the question raised by the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, until Part VI, paragraphs 67 to 74, where it goes into the matter in more detail and specifically, in paragraph 72, suggests a mechanism for implementation of the extended franchise.
This brings me to the first query raised in my mind by the noble Lord's Bill. His proposed addition of a new category to paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 does not specify how, or where, the group of people whom he very properly seeks to enfranchise would vote. The

551
noble Lord himself admitted the Bill's shortcomings in this respect, and indicated his hope that the Government will help in filling in the missing parts at a later stage. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be able to give him that undertaking.
One possible course is registration at a British consulate and vote by proxy. But there are problems in deciding whether under a list system the proxy is to be aggregated at regional or national levels. The committee therefore opted for an interim arrangement, under which those who have within the previous 10 years been registered as electors for parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom would be entitled to vote by post, or by proxy, in the constituency in which they were last registered. This, I think, was in line with the preferred solution in the Home Office memorandum on this subject, which is printed in the subcommittee's report.
The choice of method is of course largely a matter of cost and administrative convenience, but whatever method recommends itself most on these grounds one would hope that the Government would give it their full backing. This at least is what one would have expected after the statements of sympathy for an extension of the franchise made by Lord Trefgarne in June 1979 and Lord Belstead in June 1981, both referred to in Paragraph 69 of this report. But the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was rather less helpful to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, in November 1982. One therefore awaits with interest the Government's reponse this evening.
But I am afraid I cannot quite let the matter rest there, with a pat on the back for the Bill and hopes for a sympathetic reception by the Government. The subcommittee chose to see this issue as,
"a completely separate matter from that of the electoral system"—
Paragraph 74—and urged the Government to proceed on this basis. I do not dissent from this. It is obviously posssible to right one wrong without righting another, and arguably better to do so than to do nothing. At the same time, though the two issues are not "interdependent"—that is the sub-committee's word—they are obviously not poles apart. If we enfranchise these 300,000 fellow citizens, are we then going to sit back, rub our hands and say, "Well, that was a good day's work" and simply leave it at that? I would submit that this is not good enough. For what shall we have enfranchised them for? I will tell your Lordships. We shall have enfranchised them for an election which, on present policies, is likely to yield as distorting, not to say as farcical, a result as it did the last time round in 1979.
Whatever the merits or demerits of the first-past-the-post system for Westminster, there can be no doubt that it is highly unrepresentative for much larger European constituencies. As a result, the votes that we are proposing to bestow are likely to be largely wasted. In his evidence to the sub-committee, on page 63, Doctor Butler said:
"I have tried to think through the consequences if at the last European elections we had given the franchise to everyone who wanted it who were British citizens living overseas. I doubt if a single constituency would have gone in a different direction".
That is the electoral system the Government appear to want to perpetuate and to which we shall condemn
552
these new electors if the Bill becomes law. I do not think the Government can simply shelter behind the Council of Ministers and say, "Oh, well, they couldn't agree on a uniform method, so that absolves us", for all the other countries of the Community have already adopted a more rational system than our own and there is absolutely no reason why we should not unilaterally put our own house in order—for example, along the lines proposed in the 1977 Bill which is described in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the report.
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, this still would be just possible if the political will were there. If the political will were there, we would still be able to ensure a fairer result in 1984, with a less distorting effect on the whole balance of the European Parliament. As matters stand, we may see similar and equally unwarranted distortion in favour of the Labour party or the Alliance. I have here some simulations using the present electoral method. One of these assumes a switch of just one-third of the 1979 Tory votes and one-third of the 1979 Labour votes to the Alliance. The result gives, in percentage terms, 41 per cent. to the Alliance, 33 per cent. to the Conservatives and 22 per cent. to Labour. In terms of seats, this would yield 75 for the Alliance, two for the Conservatives and one for Labour. This might be a consummation devoutly to be wished, but no one could possibly claim that it would be a fair or proper representation of the state of British opinion.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, if I appear to have muddied the limpid waters of his Bill, for which I repeat our support. My quarrel is not with him but with the Government. What I would like to hear from the Government is not only that they will find time for his Bill in another place and help him to fill in its lacunae, but also that they will follow it up with further legislation of their own to ensure that electors to the European Parliament, both existing electors and those whom this Bill is intended to enfranchise, are given a better deal and that the European Parliament gets a more representative cross-section of British opinion than at present. If the Government help to pass this Bill, they will have taken one small step in the right direction, but let them not lie back and think they have finished the job.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, it falls to me as Chairman of the Select Committee in your Lordships' House which studied this matter in some detail to indicate that in principle we support entirely the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in promoting the Bill which is before your Lordships' House tonight. Needless to say, it would be much more appropriate if this were a Government Bill because it is a constitutional matter. Sooner or later it would appear to me that if it is to proceed in time for the next European elections it will have to be a Government Bill. I should have thought that propriety demanded that it should be a constitutional Bill sponsored directly by Her Majesty's Government.
I do not know whether it is by accident or design that this matter is being discussed tonight. My suspicious mind suggests it could just conceivably have been by design because this very question is on

553
the agenda for the Foreign Ministers' Council, and they might possibly have reached it today. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will enlighten us if they have. However, if it is reached at all, this question is more likely to be reached tomorrow. But, unless the despatches have come with haste from Brussels, it means that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be in no better position tonight than he has been all along in stonewalling on this question when it has been put before him on previous occasions in your Lordships' House. He has taken a very detached view of the whole matter.
We have it on record—it has been repeated in another place by the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, Mr. Hurd—that it is the Government's wish to extend the franchise; they simply find the technicalities too much for them. When he replied to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on 22nd December last, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said:
"There are many important and difficult considerations, all of which are at present with the European Council, and which Her Majesty's Government will have to consider when the matter comes to us".
How detached can one be? From that Answer one would suppose that we had no part in the European Council, that we were utterly aloof from it, that we were simply waiting on some detached body to indicate what proposals they had and that then Her Majesty's Government could at leisure consider the matter.
Similarly, on a more recent occasion, in reply to a Question on a different matter—the Irish citizens' vote—on 9th March when the noble Lord was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, if he could say whether there is any other country in Europe which allows non-citizens to vote in their general elections—a slightly different question but germane—he gracefully sidestepped, did not mention Europe at all but gave the interesting information that several Commonwealth countries, including Australia, New Zealand and, in some elections, Canada, allow non-citizens to vote in their domestic elections.
We are not asking for anything so revolutionary as that. We are asking that for the elections to the European Parliament it should be possible for British citizens who would be entitled to vote in this country, if they were still resident here, but who are resident in some other member state, to be enfranchised. Our Select Committee report makes this quite clear. I must not reiterate what has already been said very comprehensively, particularly by my noble friend Lord Underhill, but that we were at one in this particular matter, though we had differences of view on the desirability or otherwise of various electoral procedures. So far as they were concerned our remit was, as far as we could, to analyse and elucidate the proposals put forward by the European Parliament. But on this matter of justice and the civil rights of British citizens in the Community, we were entirely at one.
There was no division whatever in the committee on the principle. We recognise, of course, that there are problems. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred in his speech to the evidence which was given to your Lordships' Select Committee by the Home Office. Further evidence, and, to my mind, more sympathetic
554
evidence, was given some three weeks later in another place to the Home Affairs Committee, who were examining this matter, though not, of course, from a European point of view. The major part of their discussion was concerned with the possibility of some general arrangement for overseas voters—nothing to do with the Community as such—and it was in that context that they discussed the question of registration and the possibility of a period during which the people who had been previously registered could be retained or re-registered in the constituency with which they were formerly connected. It was in that context that the period of seven years was mentioned; not in the context that we are debating tonight.
The context in which we are discussing these matters tonight is a narrow one. It is confined to the European Parliament and confined to persons resident within member states of the Community. We are discussing something that is not necessarily linked with any extension for parliamentary elections to Westminister or for local elections in this country. We should have that point perfectly clear in our minds.
In the evidence given to the committee in another place on 19th January, representations were made, I was interested to observe, by the British Conservative Association in France and the British Conservative Association in Belgium, as well as by the Association for the Rights of Britons Abroad, who also approached your Lordships' Select Committee. We did not have the pleasure of receiving arguments from the British Conservative Association of either France or Belgium but there is no doubt that those two bodies—which are associations of British citizens in those countries who support the present Administration in the United Kingdom—were very much concerned that justice was not being done. When asked by the chairman of the Select Committee in another place,
"Is it the view of our witnesses"—
that is, the representatives of those associations—
"that Britain places her citizens in a less fair position vis-á-vis voting rights than any other European country?"
the gentleman from Belgium said,
"That is absolutely right".
The gentleman from the British Conservative Association in France said,
"This is not only absolutely but blatantly right".
He then continued:
"This causes great surprise abroad because it is not appreciated. When European politicians are told that, in Britain, the Mother of Parliaments disenfranchises her citizens who happen to live outside Britain, they do not understand".
I have in my hand one of a number of letters received on this subject. It is addressed to the "Committee on Suffrage" in the EEC Parliament, so I took it that it was possibly intended for myself. It begins, engagingly,
"My dear Lords: As a British subject"—
this is from a gentleman who lives in France, in Liancourt—
"I live and work in France, yet I have no right to vote for the European Parliament elections. Thus, as a citizen of one EEC country living in another EEC country and so, one presumes, following the policy of the EEC to create greater understanding between the member populations, I cannot vote for the EEC Parliament. This strange situation appears to apply to British subjects; the French, Dutch, German, Italians, et cetera, all vote when living

555
abroad. The Italian Government even pay fares home to Italy for national elections. To this contradictory state of affairs must be added the special position of Ireland".
That, I think, we all appreciate, because Irish subjects living in the United Kingdom can vote in British elections and also in European elections. My correspondent continues:
"I am informed that soon British subjects living in Ireland will be able to vote there too. I fear, my dear Lords, that the basis of this problem is simple laziness on the part of some legislators who cannot take the time to apply the democratic right to vote—the very basis of all we hold so dear. I should like to thank you for all your efforts in making an inquiry into the problems of voting for the European Parliament and hope that your work may result in the application of universal suffrage for that Parliament."
I think that puts in a nutshell the emotions of very many Britons who live and work within the Community—not least those who are working for the institutions of the Community; persons who are themselves British subjects and who feel that it is grossly inequitable that they, who have been working for the success of this experiment, are deprived of the vote. They feel not only disadvantaged but in a sense rejected. They believe, as I think our own Select Committee believe—that if the Government really wish us to take steps in this matter, they can and should still do so.
One appreciates that it would be very much better if we could legislate in this country on lines which were compatible, in most details at least, with the arrangements in other member states. The stance of Her Majesty's Government so far has been that unless there is complete agreement of the Council of Ministers on the frachise matter, then they are unable to proceed. We do not accept that argument. As we have said, we recognise that the choice on the main electoral procedures whether one goes in for some measure of proportional representation or not, is a very different matter. It has already been declared by the Council of Ministers that there is no possibility of this being determined in time for the European elections in 1984. This does not apply to the enfranchisement of British citizens, enabling those who would be entitled to vote in this country, and who were previously registered in this country, to vote in the 1984 elections.
It would be possible for Her Majesty's Government, if they really wished to do so, to get the legislation through. It may be that we shall have the happy tidings, at the conclusion of the Council of Ministers' meeting tomorrow, that they have reached agreement. If so, so much the better. But if they have not reached agreement then I would ask the Minister directly, do the Government have any deadline in mind by which they can wait no longer for agreement between the member states and the Council of Ministers? By this is meant a date from which the Government could still obtain legislation in this Parliament to make it possible for those who were previously registered in constituencies in this country to re-register by 10th October 1983. This would enable them to vote by post or proxy, as we have suggested, whichever seems to be the more satisfactory from an administrative point of view.
I am quite certain that, if the Government really made up their minds, the Government could get
556
through in a week the kind of Bill that is necessary! The noble Lord, Lord Elton, looks disbelieving, but we have seen it done when it has had to be done. I am not suggesting that it is in the least desirable, but we do not know what other things may be happening between now and October. What we really want tonight from the Minister in charge is a firm declaration that, having supported this principle in Opposition and in Government, the Government are now prepared to take the necessary steps.
In conclusion, I would call in aid the statements given to us in evidence by Mr. Cecil Parkinson, who is not only Chairman of the Conservative Party but a member of the Cabinet. He made it perfectly clear that in his view it was entirely desirable to take the kind of action which we have outlined. I am quoting from page 125 of the evidence submitted to the committee. I am sure it is engraved upon Lord Elton's heart. Mr. Parkinson said:
"I fervently hope that room can be found in the legislative programme for a measure to enfranchise the approximately 250,000 Britons who will otherwise find themselves deprived of their right to participate in elections in which they have as much stake as those permanently resident in the United Kingdom constituencies."
Nothing could be plainer than that. He went on
"This is such a serious question that I would personally"—
he is not, admittedly, speaking for the Government, but he is speaking as Chairman of the Conservative Party—
"hope that the Government will consider taking interim action on this point before October 1983, even if agreement proves elusive in the Council."
That is as clear and specific a statement as anybody could ask for. It is supported by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, and we hope, therefore, that the noble Lord tonight will indicate that, whatever is happening in Brussels at the Council of Ministers today or tomorrow, Her Majesty's Government have the will to do justice to these British citizens.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I would like to begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Bethell for bringing this important matter before your Lordships' House this evening. It is right that we should address ourselves to elections to the European Parliament in which we ourselves may vote and stand for election. Indeed, four Members of your Lordships' House, including my noble friend himself, are also Members of that Parliament. So this is a matter in which your Lordships' House can express a particular interest.
I would also like to take this opportunity of conveying the Government's thanks to your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities, and to the sub-committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady White, for their recent report on the European Parliament's proposals for a uniform electoral procedure. Much of the ground covered in that report lies outside the scope of today's debate. But the Government have noted that the right to vote in elections to the European Parliament is the subject of the only recommendation in the committee's report. I shall say something about the substance of that recommendation in a moment.
I have listened with very great interest to everything that has been said in today's debate, and in particular

557
to the view which has been expressed that the Government must take steps to ensure that British people living in other member states of the European Community should be able to vote at the next European Parliamentary election on 17th May 1984. Before I go any further I should make it clear that the Government agree that British citizens ought to be able to vote in elections to the European Parliament irrespective of their place of residence in the Community. That was our view in 1978, as I have been several times reminded, and it remains our view today.
As noble Lords will recall, it was agreed in 1976 that for the first direct elections to the European Parliament each member state should run its own election in its own way. So far as the right to vote is concerned, some member states gave the vote to the citizens of other member states resident in their territory, while others gave the vote to some or all of their own citizens resident in other member states or outside the Community. The result was that some Community nationals could vote in two member states while others could not vote at all. Although while we were in Opposition we tried to change this, British people resident outside the United Kingdom were among those deprived of a vote.
The initiative for correcting this sorry state of affairs rested with the European Parliament itself, which was required by the Community treaties to draw up proposals for a uniform procedure under which its elections would be held throughout the Community. So far as the right to vote is concerned, the Parliament had, in effect, to choose between what for convenience' sake I refer to as either the residence or the nationality principles. By the residence principle I mean the idea that a person should be given the right to vote by his country of residence. By the nationality principle I mean the idea set out in my noble friend's Bill that a person should be given the right to vote by the country whose nationality he holds. The European Parliament, after toying with the idea of a mixed system, came down in favour of the nationality principle. Under the proposals which the Parliament eventually adopted last March, member states would be required to give the right to vote to their nationals irrespective of their place of residence in the Community.
It then fell to the Council of Ministers to decide whether it could agree to recommend the Parliament's proposals for implementation by individual member states. It is now almost a year since the Council began considering the Parliament's proposals. It soon became clear that agreement on a common franchise was not going to be possible without some amendments to the Parliament's text. Prompted by a desire to reach agreement on this issue in time for member states to pass the necessary legislation by 1984, the Council decided a few months ago to give priority to discussions on a common franchise. Last month, the Council agreed to make a further effort, and the Council is meeting in Brussels today and tomorrow to see whether agreement is possible. I regret I cannot tell the noble Baroness where they have reached on the agenda at this particular time, but I have received no courier hot foot from the meeting.
The Government are aware of a widespread feeling
558
that we should simply ignore what is happening in Brussels and go ahead with out own legislation. This is, for example, the view put forward by your Lordships' Select Committee. In considering the possibility of "interim" legislation the Government have to remember that as a constitutional measure a Bill to extend the franchise at European Parliament elections would have to go through all its stages in another place on the Floor of that House. Experience shows that legislation of this kind is acutely controversial. The Labour Government's European Assembly Elections Act had to be introduced twice and took a whole session to get through. That was, of course, a more wide-ranging measure than my noble friend's Bill, but even so we could expect any Bill to extend the franchise at European Parliament elections to take up a disproportionate amount of parliamentary time.
The noble Baroness would, I think, concede from her experience in Government that, except where there is national unanimity in a national crisis to motor something through both Houses in—I cannot believe she said 48 hours; she may have said a fortnight, it is not within our grasp. The Government simply could not justify asking Parliament to go through the whole procedure in the absence of all-party agreement on the details of the scheme as well as on the principle of the scheme, and in the knowledge that the whole lengthy and acrimonious process would have to be repeated once agreement is reach in the Council.
There are, furthermore, a number of substantial issues which need to be settled before legislation can be introduced. The most important is perhaps the question of who should qualify. The noble Lord has proposed it should be all British citizens, and with commendable precision he refers us to the British Nationality Act 1981 which introduced the term. The noble Baroness and her committee, on the other hand, propose that it should be British subjects. The term "British subject" now refers only to a few residual groups who have no other citizenship under the 1981 Act, and I assume—the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong—that the expression is intended to convey the sense it has in the Representation of the People Acts, including not only British citizens but also the citizens of all other Commonwealth countries who can vote if they are resident here. The committee also proposes that the right to vote should be limited—I quote from paragraph 72 of the report,
"to those who have within a fixed period of, say 10 years, been registered as electors for parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom".
That, of course, would exclude any Members of your Lordships House who happened to find themselves in another member state. No doubt the Select Committee had its own good reasons for considering that desirable, though I am not quite clear whether your Lordships would welcome it. What are the Government to do? The two proposals—that is, my noble friend's and the noble Baroness's—are, in fact, mutually exclusive. We cannot have them both. And if we adopt either we know we shall have to think again when agreement is reached in the Council.
That brings me to my next point, which is that the Bill tells us nothing about how these new electors are to be put on the electoral register. The noble Lord,

559
Lord Underhill, picked up this point. I know that my noble friend takes the view that this is something which can be left for my right honourable Friend the Home Secretary to sort out in regulations. Would that it were so! What is needed here is a new power for the electoral registration officer. At present he can only register a person who is resident in his local government area. He cannot include the names of people resident in other parts of the United Kingdom let alone in other member states of the Community.
And how are we to decide which constituency a non-resident voter should vote in? If we give the right to all British citizens many, it is true, will have some sort of link with an address or a constituency which would help decide where they should be registered. But many British citizens do not have such an easily identifiable link, and some have never lived here at all. Some new electors would presumably have to be given a more or less absolute choice of constituency. I can tell your Lordships that if I were in that position I should certainly cast my vote in the most marginal constituency I could find.
Finally, my noble friend's Bill needs to make provision for his new electors to cast the votes that they have been accorded. I am sure we can all agree that, if we do give the vote to people who live outside the United Kingdom, we ought to make sure they can exercise it. I doubt that your Lordships would be content with the solution adopted by Luxembourg in 1979, which was to allow those resident abroad to vote provided they came back home to do it.
Perhaps this is a suitable time to pick up the challenge that the noble Baroness I think intended to throw before me—perhaps I ought to say "My dear Baroness White"—on the question of what the provisions are in other countries in the Community. Briefly they are these. In Belgium, eligibility is given to citizens whose main place of residence is Belgium. They vote by proxy. In Denmark, citizens permanently resident in other member states vote by post through diplomatic missions. In Germany, citizens resident in other member states vote by post. In France, all citizens resident abroad, whether in other member states or elsewhere, vote at diplomatic missions or by proxy. In Ireland, eligibility is restricted to service voters, who vote by post. In Italy, all citizens resident abroad, whether in other member states or elsewhere, have the vote and exercise it at consulates in other member states or in person in Italy. In Luxembourg, as I said, citizens resident in other member states can vote in person in Luxembourg. In the Netherlands, citizens ,resident in other member states can vote by proxy. In this country, your Lordships are familiar with the arrangements which extend to service voters.
So we should have to choose between postal voting or proxy voting. Proxy voting is the method traditionally used by service voters and other electors resident abroad. But it is not a popular method, and your Lordships might consider that postal voting would be a better alternative. The objection to allowing electors who are out of the country on polling day to vote by post at a general election has always been that it would require an extension of the parliamentary elections timetable. Your Lordships might
560
consider that for European Parliament elections, when the date is known so long in advance, postal voting would, in fact, be a possibility.
One of the most invidious tasks entrusted to a Minister is to tell one of your Lordships, and more particularly one of his noble friends, that his drafting is defective. I hope that when I tell my noble friend that this is so he will accept that it is not intended as a criticism of him but as a reminder of the immense complexity of legislative drafting. The points I have raised are, however, points of substance as well as points of drafting, and before we can get the drafting right we shall have to have a settled policy.
The Government have no monopoly of wisdom here. In the normal course of events we should expect the issue to be resolved through discussion with the political parties. I should remind your Lordships at this point that the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place is currently examining ways of giving the vote at parliamentary elections to British people resident abroad. Their report is expected in a few months' time.
My noble friend rallied to himself various allies in his desire to get legislation swiftly on to the statute book. In particular he quoted, and was echoed in this with even greater precision by the noble Baroness, Lady White, my right honourable friend the chairman of the Conservative Party. An important contradiction in terms was included in my noble friend's reference and the quotation of the noble Baroness. My noble friend said that my right honourable friend spoke both in his capacity as chairman of the party and personally. The noble Baroness quoted the relevant passage. If my noble friend reads the passage quoted by the noble Baroness, in paragraph 12 of the account of the select Committee's proceedings, he will see that my right honourable friend was indeed speaking personally and not in any other capacity when he excited my noble friend's expectation of legislation before October 1983.
So far as the prospects of the Bill are concerned, the qualifying date for voting at the 1984 elections is 10th October this year, so any Bill altering the franchise would have to reach the statute book before the Summer Recess. I have explained how Bills on this sort of subject have fared in another place in the past. I have also explained that this subject is under active consideration in Brussels. The Government think that it is not appropriate to bring forward our own proposals at this stage. Even without the cogent remarks of the noble Baroness, I should have had to say that the Government's legislative programme is already full enough without trying to force more contentious measures into it than there is time to consider properly. That is why the Government are not, I regret, prepared to help my noble friend with drafting amendments to his Bill. Nevertheless, as an indication of the Government's sympathy with what my noble friend's Bill seeks to achieve, we do not intend to oppose this Second Reading of it.
8.49 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am, of course, grateful to my noble friend for the qualified welcome that he gave to the Second Reading of this Bill, and for the assurance that he and his noble friends on the Front

561
Bench will not oppose it. However, I suspect that I speak for the majority of those present in this House when I express my disappointment that, when it comes to practical measures to put this Bill on the statute book, my noble friend is not prepared to be helpful. However, I hope he will accept that those of us who support the principle of the Bill and who believe that the present draft—however incomplete, although I hope not too defective—contains the basis for a Second Reading and the basis on which a Bill could be built, will be ready to proceed and to produce a piece of legislation that will at least pass your Lordships' House and will be ready if, indeed, it should turn out that time were to become available in another place in this Session or another Session.
I believe that it is preferable to proceed along these lines than to take the perhaps rather slow approach recommended by my noble friend, which is to wait until full agreement has been reached on a uniform procedure by the Ten. If we wait that long I fear we shall wait until the Greek Kalends and very large numbers of British subjects will be disfranchised in the meantime. I suspect that most of your Lordships will consider that such a thing is wrong and undesirable.
A number of points were raised in this debate. One was the question of whether British subjects should have a cut-off point beyond which they should be ineligible for the franchise. It was even suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that some of those whom this Bill hopes to enfranchise were tax exiles. I should like simply to state my personal view to him that, due to the wise administration of the present Government, there are few tax exiles left. Indeed, the incentive to become a tax exile has very largely vanished. Great benefits have accrued to the Exchequer as a result of this wise provision.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Bethell: I am glad at last to be getting one or two cheers from my Front Bench. Perhaps the third will follow at some later date.
The question of proxy or post is important, but that is a Committee point and one which I hope will come out in the later stages of this Bill. I very much agree with those who put forward the view—I think everyone who spoke, except my noble friend Lord Elton—that it would be more appropriate if this Bill were a Government Bill. Given the length of period during which the Government have expressed themselves in favour of such a principle, it seems a pity, to put it mildly, that they have not taken any action at all in nearly four years and seem unwilling to take any action now, or indeed to be helpful over action taken by a private Member and supported by a large number of your Lordships. However, we will proceed as best we can nevertheless. I am grateful for the neutrality of my noble friend, benevolent or whatever it may be.
I would like in conclusion to thank my noble friends who have worked hard for this provision, and in particular my noble friends and colleagues Lord O'Hagan and Baroness Elles. I would also thank my colleagues the Marquess of Duoro and Mr. Adam Ferguson who put forward cogent evidence to your Lordhips' Select Committee in support of this provision.
562
It is true, as my noble friend Lord Elton pointed out, that this matter is controversial. It is true that it could take up parliamentary time, but I hope that having put forward these practical observations, my noble friend will not lose sight of the fact that this is a provision which is essentially just and that it should not be left for too long. The vote is a basic right of anyone who pays tax. Partially in response to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I point out that all British subjects on the Continent pay Community tax. I would suggest to your Lordships that all of them should have the right to vote and should be entitled to have an influence over how the tax that they pay through value added tax is spent. It only remains for me therefore to commend this Bill to your Lordships and to ask you to be kind enough to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Northern Ireland: Violence
8.53 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking with a view to limiting, and if possible ending, the spiral of violence in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, towards the end of something of a marathon day, I would almost apologise for asking this Question at this time. I do not do so because of the ever-present urgency of the matter and because I believe that the British Government can do more than just stand firm in the face of violence. I would suggest that the two qualities most needed are, first, sensitivity and, secondly, imagination. I will come back to this point later on.
The background to the question is that there are two distinct identities existing in Northern Ireland and two traditions in political, cultural and religious matters. This has been much recognised, particularly in the devolution White Paper of April 1982, Cmnd. 8541, and then in the month immediately following, in greater depth possibly, in Dr. Garret FitzGerald's Dimbleby Lecture. I am glad to say that a two-traditions group has recently been formed in Northern Ireland to work at voluntary level towards mutual respect between the two sections of the Ulster people.
I should perhaps try to explain in a few words what I mean by the spiral of violence. We have seen how violence persists from one generation to the next and how it continues in certain families and in certain neighbourhoods. We have seen also how it can feed upon itself and how one atrocity can lead to another, sometimes by way of reprisal or revenge. The question, I believe, is how can Government help people to abandon some of their current attitudes which may on occasion include a sneaking or half-admitted tolerance for the men of violence. I would suggest, first, that we need greater sensitivity and awareness of the actual effects of policies and practices. I may say in passing that we did see something of this in the earlier debate this afternoon on the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I would submit, secondly, that Government should try to show greater respect for the legitimate and democratic aspirations of various sections of the whole population. Here the remarks

563
made earlier by my noble friend Lord Dunleath might be cited.
The sensitivity and respect that I think are needed will call for the development of current policies in a number of ways, and I should like to give some examples. I would welcome once again, very warmly, Circular No. 21 of 1982 from the Department of Education in Northern Ireland. This concerned cooperation between Protestant and Roman Catholic schools. Schools, I think it is agreed, have a considerable potential for the improvement of community relations. For example, recently 250 children from 19 secondary schools in Belfast, 10 Protestant and nine Catholic, came together in Belfast Cathedral to put on a musical version of the story of Moses. That I think is something that just could not have happened only a very few years ago.
I would come next to consider this time of high and rising unemployment, when it is of the utmost importance that recruitment and promotion should be scrupulously fair and non-sectarian. Her Majesty's Government have a clear responsibility for what happens in the Civil Service and the public sector. I should like to ask whether they will, in the near future, make a statement of what they have been doing in this respect in recent times and what their plans are for the future. Do Her Majesty's Government think, secondly, that the Fair Employment Agency has been as effective as it was intended to be? Will the recently agreed extra staff in the agency and the revised committee structure enable it to do substantially better? The agency must, I think, enforce the law, and if it cannot do this it will be seen to be a toothless watchdog.
I had intended to say something on the subject of coroner's inquests into violence and unexplained deaths, but only today I received a letter from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I think that the noble Earl also has a copy and this letter is a long one which needs considerable study, so I shall confine myself to saying that there is considerable concern in Northern Ireland on this matter. I have had letters from a number of sources about it. Where a delay of more than a year occurs after a death and then the Director of Public Prosecutions decides that there can be no prosecution, then follows an inquest and quite often one just gets an open verdict. Sometimes this is felt to make a farce of the whole procedure. I should like to ask the Government whether they will think very hard about ways and means by which the whole process can be speeded up.
Next, I come to joy-riding and by this I mean young people riding about in stolen cars. It is a very sensitive subject, and I have mentioned it before in your Lordships' House. It has caused several deaths in Belfast. Some good preventive work has been done by volunteers so that stock-car racing can be enjoyed by young people. But I should like to ask whether Her Majesty's Government will co-ordinate the Department of Manpower Services and the social and probation services in organising training on the repair and construction of cars, together with some controlled driving and racing? I suggest that perhaps three or four workshops and one racetrack would save quite a number of lives and, in the process, produce
564
some quite skilled people. Could there be a combination of intermediate treatment and youth training for employment and adult life?
Next, I move on to some of the recommendations made in past years by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. Will Her Majesty's Government repeal the Flags and Emblems Act 1954? This was asked for in the second report from the commission. I understand that the law on the breach of peace covers this matter perfectly satisfactorily and that there have been no prosecutions for a good number of years. I believe that the Act is redundant and should go.
The commission also asked for certain minor tidying up of Northern Ireland electoral law, particularly in paragraphs 16 to 18 of the report, which I have already quoted. Will the noble Earl the Minister please think again about this and, if possible, change his stance from the reply he gave me to a Question for Written Answer on 28th January? Surely it is proper to correct anomalies affecting the rights of probably over 5,000 people—and I take this figure from the Anglo-Irish Studies Paper, Cmnd. 8414.
My last point concerns prisoners with families in Northern Ireland who are serving their sentences in prisons in Britain. Many of them have applied for transfer to prisons in Northern Ireland. However, I believe that since 1975 none has been transferred, except possibly one man who was temporarily moved. This is so despite assurances from the present Home Secretary that each request for transfer is considered on its merits. The present impasse imposes great burdens on families and an added penalty on the prisoners. A careful costing shows that one wife would have to spend over £300 to take three children under the age of 12 to visit her husband in prison on the Isle of Wight. Another case known to me personally is of a mother who had to spend £175 to visit her son in Gartree Prison in Leicestershire and the visit lasted only two and three-quarter hours.
Thus, heavy expenditure falls either on the family or, failing them, on the Department of Health and Social Services. The result is that the prisoner is lucky if he gets three or four visits per year as compared with one visit permitted per month in Britain or two visits per month in Northern Ireland. I also have details of four men now serving life sentences who have averaged only two visits per year in recent years.
I submit that successive Governments have been breaching the spirit and intention of Prison Rule No. 31, which is paralleled by Rule No. 57 of the Northern Ireland Rules. I beg Her Majesty's Government to listen to the reasoned case put forward by the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders and the National Association of Probation Officers. The latter body wrote last August:
"Transfer would ease the pressures on families and relatives, reduce the risk of family and marital breakdown, improve stability within relationships and help these men and their children to maintain some form of parent/child relationship. For others it would give the opportunity to keep closer contact with often ageing parents, who are frequently in poor health and unfit to travel long distances. In addition it would considerably reduce the financial burden now placed on all relations when a visit to England is planned."
I think that these are three very cogent reasons, all the more so because we know that over one-third of

565
the cases in question are life sentences. Therefore, on humanitarian grounds I appeal to the Government. I urge them to grant this appeal from a position of strength in accordance with the prison rules and in the spirit of the European convention on the transfer of sentenced persons.
At a time when the Northern Ireland Assembly is experiencing difficulties, I have made suggestions for improving direct rule. They are not suggestions that require the expenditure of large sums of money and only a few of them call for minor legislation. Taken together, they would show that the Government are possessed of sensitivity and imagination and that they command the support of people of goodwill in all parties. Further, I believe it would show that the Government are determined to use all lawful means to limit and, if possible, end the spiral of violence. I hope that I have outlined a case for believing that progress does not depend on security and economics to the exclusion of all other considerations.
I should now like to thank those who will speak later and express the hope that they will fill in the details which I may have omitted or only sketched in. Just in case there should be anyone here who might think that I have been speaking in any kind of one-sided manner, I should like to say something to the British Labour Party and to those people in Ireland who advocate a united Ireland. I would say: beware of arousing expectations that cannot be fulfilled. Such expectations may well lead to frustration and, in turn, frustration may produce more violence. The advocates of a united Ireland by consent should hammer out the practical details. For instance, how can the pound and the punt and their respective green currencies be brought together? How will, or how would, the very large grants from the British Treasury be replaced? How can welfare and social benefits be harmonised as between the South and the North? What indeed is the future of the Irish constitution? How can the reasonable and very real fears of so many Unionists be allayed? Let those who advocate unity consider the views of Professor Frankel. He, my Lords, is, or was, a distinguished American visiting professor at Queen's University, Belfast, who wrote in a Canadian academic journal:
"The present boundaries in Ireland must be accepted as final if there is to be any hope of peace".
From my own point of view, I suggest that, unless these and other relevant questions receive prompt and practical answers, a united Ireland may prove to have been a chimera of a particularly expensive and divisive sort.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he kindly say why he thinks that the Flags and Emblems Act ought to be repealed when that Act was directed essentially against the flag of a nation which, in its constitution, is making by definition hostile territorial claims against this part of the United Kingdom?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I shall do my best. This Act, so far as I can understand, is a dead letter. Nobody attempts to enforce it. It is really something quite obsolete, regardless of claims or anything else.
9.9 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is, what steps are the Government taking to limit and, if possible, end the spiral of violence? I am certain that most noble Lords will agree that this is not a question that can be answered solely on steps to suppress terrorism. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in his speech, for which we all thank him, went along those lines as well. With the tragedies of Ballykelly, Regent's Park and Hyde Park still in our minds the situation must appear awesome. I want to make it clear that so long as there is one sectarian killing, or one bombing, the tragedy remains with us.
However, all is not as disastrous as it may appear, and I recognise that only those who live in Northern Ireland can really understand the full situation. I was pleased that I was able to make a brief visit to Belfast earlier this year and to contrast the situation with what I saw on my previous visit a few years before. There was far less military presence on the streets. This was apparent. In discussions both with the military command and with the RUC senior officers, including the chief constable, there was a ready acceptance that the authority is with the RUC, with the military as a back-up to be called in by the RUC as necessary.
This is emphasised by the chief constable himself in his recently issued report for 1982. In the course of it he said:
"As the RUC gains in strength and professionalism, and as the level of terrorist violence is more and more diminished, so is the future need for military support reduced".
That development is encouraging. But one of my last engagements before I left Belfast enabled me to see some of the new housing developments in Belfast by the Housing Executive.
Reference was made by the officials with me to various new estates as being "Catholic estates", or as being "Protestant estates". I asked the natural question, "Surely, this is not a question that you ask when you allocate properties?" I was told, "No, but this is how the people themselves prefer to have it". I asked whether I could see housing development near Bombay Street, because I still had recollections of seeing the ghastly burnings in the days of 1939 in that area. When I saw the housing development I was saddened to see—what? A 20 foot wall. A Belfast "Berlin Wall" around the housing estate because of the fears of the community in that estate. On the one hand, there were encouraging developments, and, on the other hand, a saddening position that the division between the communities is still there.
On 7th February a Written Answer was given in Commons' Hansard, columns 237 to 242, which gave statistics of the steady decline in the numbers of shootings, explosions, and similar incidents since the peak of 1972, Much as we deplore a single death or injury arising from terrorist activities, we must welcome that steady decline. I have no doubt that the Minister may wish to refer to these statistics; therefore, I shall just take two figures which I extracted from that Written Answer. Shooting incidents peaked at over 10,000 in 1972, but have fallen steadily each year to 382 last year. There were 1,382 explosions in 1972, which declined steadily to 219 last year. Of course, these figures are still appalling, and the downward

567
trend must not detract from the feeling of any of us about the horrific killings, brutality and violence which still take place.
In contrast to those encouraging figures, although compared with 1972 the numbers of armed robberies have declined, they have stablilised at between 400 and 600 since 1977, and last year the number was 580, almost the same as in 1981. But the amount stolen last year, £1,400,000, was the highest ever recorded since 1971, and I wonder how much of that stolen money was for terrorist activities. A section of the chief constable's report says:
"As a consequence of the resources of the police being deployed principally to combat murder and terroroist acts generally, there was an increase in ordinary crime and a fall in the detection rate. This is yet another manifestation of the fact that terrorism, whether directly or indirectly, is eroding the quality of life in Northern Ireland".
Those final words are of great importance to us all. The ever-increasing rate of unemployment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred, particularly among young persons, with the atmosphere of hopelessness, linked to a lack of community trust, must be an added factor leading to the situation described by the chief constable in that section of his report.
A senior police officer spoke to me with great pride of the work of the police in community relations. I have since noted with interest the chapter in the chief constable's report dealing with that aspect, which begins:
"The main thrust of the community relations programme was directed towards young people—tomorrow's adults. Emphasis was placed on the constructive use of their natural drive and energy, especially in those areas where unemployment is a growing problem, and projects were designed to involve people from different backgrounds in activities which promoted a spirit of understanding and co-operation".
In describing the various activities carried out, the report is heartening, particularly when it refers to the 1,000 blue lamp discos which, in 1982, the chief constable's report states, were attended by nearly 142,000 young people in Northern Ireland.
I was unable to find in the report—perhaps the Minister could tell me—whether participation in these various activities is from both communities; whether they participate jointly or the events tend to be attended only by the persons in the community area where the event is being held. In other words, how much of the work being carried out so excellently by the police develops into community activity; or is there still something to be achieved in that context? The chief constable concludes his introduction to the report by saying:
"Much of the progress achieved in 1982 was due to the public, and this surely points the way forward".
That links with what Mr. Gerry Fitt, whom I am sure we all admire, said in the Commons on 10th February. I am not allowed to quote him but, to paraphrase, he said that irrespective of what might be said in Dublin, Parliament or Washington, the only people who could resolve the differences were the Protestant and Catholic communities of the North. What we can do to help in the supression of terrorism, from whomever it may come, is to create improvement in the economic situation, with a reduction in un-
568
employment—that is imperative—and improvements in the living conditions of many people, particularly in the inner city areas.
I do not know if other noble Lords noticed a short letter which appeared in the Guardian last week from Mr. Charles Brett, Chairman of the Housing Executive, who, in answer to some criticisms about housing allocations, pointed out that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive was established in 1971 with the remit to take out sectarianism from housing administration and allocations, and that in no case during the last 12 years had the Commissioner for Complaints made a finding of discrimination on political or religious grounds against the executive. In other words, among our general dark feelings are some encouraging things to note. It is so easy for us, who do not live in the area, to talk here. Nevertheless, we are all appalled by the inhuman violence that takes place and we must give encouragement to every possible move that may lead to a better understanding.
In my first speech on Northern Ireland, which ,I made some three years ago when I opened a debate on the economic and social problems of Northern Ireland, I referred to the then staggering unemployment rate of 11·1 per cent. Today it is getting near double that figure. With some districts approaching 35 per cent. of male unemployment—in a mainly single-community area—there is every encouragement to sectarian bitterness. I recognise that the religious leaders have condemned violence, but I am certain that there is something more that all the Churches can do to encourage moves towards reconciliation and practical cross-community activity.
It is encouraging to learn that the Secretary of State, with the noble Earl who is to reply to this evening's debate, met the Foreign Affairs Minister of the Republic on 1st February. I do not know whether it is possible for the noble Earl to tell us what transpired, or whether that is confidential. Also welcome is the suggestion made by the noble Earl that there should be a framework of triangular arrangements among London, Dublin, and Belfast. That may fit in with a statement recently made by Garret Fitzgerald, to which I shall refer before I conclude.
The position of the Labour Party has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The Labour Party believes that progress towards unification of Ireland is essential, but that it cannot be brought about by threats, coercion, or force. It can be achieved only by common consent. Anything that helps to build a bridge between the communities in the North as well as between the North and the South must be welcomed and encouraged.
That point leads me on to the decision of the Political Committee of the European Assembly to send an inquiry team to Northern Ireland. I think that many noble Lords would agree that the Community has no right to interfere with the internal affairs of a member state. However, I hope that when the members of the Political Committee of the European Assembly arrive in Northern Ireland they will be given every assistance. Obviously, there should be nothing in the way of negotiations with that body, but it is in everyone's interests that the members of the committee should gain a complete and true picture of the situation in

569
Northern Ireland. I hope that that will be made available to them.
I referred earlier to a statement by Dr. Garret Fitzgerald. His suggestion about a forum for democratic parties from both the North and the South, aimed at a new initiative to solve the Northern Ireland problem, surely ought to be encouraged. Of course care should be exercised. Any discussions in such a forum should not be rushed, and no predetermined solutions should be pushed forward. An editorial in the Guardian today emphasises that
"If there is to be a way out, it will have to be done on that side of the water".
The solution will rest with the people of Ireland as a whole; not only with the people of Northern Ireland. I am certain that we cannot countenance a permanent state of terrorism. Steps to control terrorism must be taken, but they alone will not be enough. The basic issue remains to be dealt with. How can the two communmities in the North move towards reconciliation? How can an understanding of some kind be achieved between the North and the South? Those, I believe, are the essential issues to which we should all direct our thoughts in considering the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Unless we move towards getting answers to those two questions, we may find that terrorism will be with us for many years to come.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, this is a vitally important question, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for his introduction of this debate. I shall listen with interest to what further is said, and I hope that the Minister can reply with some optimism. I was not altogether certain what represents "a spiral of violence", and I am more familiar with the term "vicious circle". In relation to the Irish situation, this term was, unfortunately, already in use more than 60 years ago. Last week I was shown a copy of the New Statesman journal published on 14th June, 1919; that is, before the Province of Northern Ireland existed as such. I read how certain ladies at Killarney sold flags on Labour Day without permits, and how large forces of armed military and police were sent to make house arrests, and a "huge crowd" of sympathisers formed. The soldiers fixed bayonets and pushed back part of the crowd. Having stated the facts, the paper went on to comment:
"When one reads a story like that of the flag-selling ladies of Killarney, it is certainly not an impression of the brutality of the authorities that is made on one. It is an impression rather of the vicious circle in which the Irish situation turns".
The paper concluded:
"In this case, evidently, Sinn Fein won both the glory and the grievance at a very small cost in suffering".
Small beginnings may unfortunately lead to major confrontations.
British Governments (both Labour and Conservative) have made repeated promises that Northern Ireland may remain in the United Kingdom so long as a majority so desires it. Danny Morrison, a Sinn Fein director of information, a non-attending representative from mid-Ulster, wrote in the magazine Fortnight, published in December 1982, defending his party's support for the Provisional IRA's use of armed
570
force as the only way of achieving the goal of British withdrawal. He concludes his article with these words:
"Republicans cannot subscribe to constitutional politics as the sole panacea for Ireland's major ailment or as a substitute for the political effectiveness of force. For this reason, the IRA wages a guerrilla war, aimed at wearing down the will of the British Government to remain in Ireland. And there is no one and no argument that can convince Republicans that Britain, as she so often asserts, cannot eventually be broken".
Tragedy lies in the use of that word, "broken". There is no suggestion of the power of reconciliation, no understanding that the British Government wish the people of Northern Ireland and of the Republic well.
And so the murders go on with all the suffering and fear that they arouse. Mr. Gerry Fitt, speaking in the other place last week, referred to the knee-capping—that terrifyingly brutal torture—inflicted just recently on a young girl of only 16. How brutal, how vicious, can some people become if their aims are persistently frustrated! I regretfully concur with the view that if the British were to withdraw from Ulster, or plan to withdraw in the near future, there would be widespread bloodshed.
In an edition of the Irishman, published in America last October, the Labour MP, Clive Soley, is reported to have said:
"If Labour won tomorrow, the paramilitary groups on both sides would stop fighting".
I am sorry, my Lords, but I think that that is pure moonshine. The noble Earl the Minister once said that, we cannot in a democracy impose a solution. He said, "They have to start sorting this difficulty out among themselves". Hence, the setting up of the Assembly, which my party supported, and the offer of "rolling devolution". We should be delighted if the Northern Irish would get on with the job.
Contrast this with the tragically mistaken view expressed in certain prejudiced papers such as the Boston Irish Echo of November 20th last year, which had the headline:
"Brutal British effort to hold on to one of its last Colonies".
It is difficult to argue with people who really convince themselves that we want to hang on to Ulster as a colony, who are blind to the fact that our efforts are costing us British lives as well as a lot of British taxpayers' money; and who cannot accept that we are committed not to oppressing a subject race but to stabilising a volatile situation according to the wishes of the majority of the people there.
This leads me on to the next point that I wish to make. The European Parliament has decided to prepare a report on the political, economic and social problems of Northern Ireland, and this has been condemned by both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister (and from other parts of the House in the other place) as unwarrantable interference in the internal affairs of a member state. I suspect that we shall hear more of this from the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. My party, however, takes a different standpoint. I believe that such a report, fairly and impartially made out, might well help to lessen the strength of the argument that we are an obdurate colonial power. That, in turn, could weaken the flow of cash from the United States to the IRA and, consequently, weaken their position and enhance stability. As I understand it, the European Parliament has no intention of

571
instructing either the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland in their constitutional affairs. The report is aimed to help constructively rather than to criticise.
Can the noble Earl when he comes to reply remind the House of the total sum of financial aid that has passed from Europe to the people of Ulster? That might help to lessen the feeling that the European Parliament is interfering where it has no right.The Times newspaper has admitted that a successful report might well prove beneficial. Others here will probably have seen the report of an interview with Bishop Daly of Derry, again as reported in an edition of The Irishman in the USA last October. There are a number of encouraging points, such as his condemnation of the provisional IRA. He says:
"It is an evil organisation … The IRA have only succeeded in further dividing the Irish people".
There is the frank admission:
"I have to say that I feel much safer walking around Belfast or Derry than I feel walking around most American cities late at night".
There is the happy affirmation:
"I was born in the North. I have spent all my life there as priest and bishop. I love the people. I love the place".
Which leaves me with a sense of unreality as to what is really going on in Northern Ireland today.
Less encouraging is the fact that in response to a direct question: "Would you care to offer some suggestions for solving Northern Ireland's miseries?", the bishop appears to have made no constructive suggestions, resting on the belief that:
"Within 50 years there will be a Catholic majority in the North".
So we are left with the old double minority problem unresolved.
The Earl of Longford: May I interrupt the noble Lord? My Lords, I do not know why the noble Lord should seek support for whatever his point of view is from an interview attributed to Bishop Daly in America in October. Bishop Daly is known to many of us perfectly well, and is much admired by many of us. He comes to London quite often. Why has one got to pick out one particular article in America? From where did it reach the noble Lord?
Lord Hampton: It reached me, my Lords, from the Library. But it seems to me relevant to the subject that we are discussing. I refer to getting the opinions of someone who might be sympathetic to the IRA.
The Earl of Longford: That I must repudiate. Bishop Daly has repudiated the IRA much more effectively and much more vigorously than it will ever fall to the lot of the noble Lord to accomplish.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his intervention. So we are left with the old double minority problem unresolved: the present Catholic minority in the North and the Protestant minority in the whole of Ireland.
I here pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who works so hard for Christian unity as opposed to uniformity. He has pointed out on a number of occasions that would-be Christians are prevented from understanding and hence believing in
572
the truth of the Gospel when they read of or experience the bitter hostility of so-called Christian groups to each other in Northern Ireland. It is important at the same time that we should not forget some remarkable people who are quietly beavering away for a better way of life, often with great courage in circumstances of great distress.
In my home town we have an Anglican, a Catholic and a Baptist Church, all of whom are concerned at the troubles in Ulster. Over the weekend I read an article in our parish magazine about the work for reconciliation going on at Corrymeela. This ended with these words:
"And on the dark days when the warclouds gather and darkness overshadows the humanity of man and the faith even of believers is stretched almost beyond endurance, there are still the rich revealing and quiet moments when the motto of Corrymeela shines through: 'It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness'."
How can we best help to light a candle? The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has mentioned the Churches. Perhaps after the debating, the politicising and the reasoning are over, we can join with the people of the whole of Ireland in praying that happier days may lie ahead. Divine intervention could succeed where human efforts fail.
9.34 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, very much indeed for introducing this debate and giving us a chance to add more to our debate on Northern Ireland today than hitherto. He covered the subject very well, as did previous noble Lords who have spoken; therefore I feel that there is not very much more to say. As the hour is very late I should like simply and briefly to support two of the points which have already been brought out in this debate. The first is about the Government's policy of imprisoning Northern Irish prisoners far from home. I have never really completely understood why the Government wish particularly to penalise and punish families of prisoners. I find it difficult to understand, both from an humanitarian and also from a practical point of view.
Like other noble Lords, I am sure, I have received many letters from families with relatives imprisoned far from home on the mainland and they talk about the problems of maintaining contact, problems arising through lack of funds and through illness, through the age of certain members of the family, and all the things which prevent them from travelling very often. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has already remarked on the number of times people can visit their relatives, and it is very low. Reading these letters is indeed a heartbreaking experience. I know that this subject is also under consideration by the European Parliament, this policy of making Northern Irish prisoners serve long sentences in prisons far from their families, which really does constitute inhuman treatment. Grandmothers, grandfathers, mothers, fathers and children—all such relatives really suffer hardship as a result.
I find it also difficult to understand from a practical point of view. Surely this policy must alienate the Catholic community more and more from British policies. At the same time it must make the reintegration of the prisoner concerned into his family and his community at the end of his sentence even

573
more difficult. That has something to do with the subject of this debate, the spiral of violence.
Since this debate is concerned with the spiral of violence, I feel justified in adding a little more to what previous speakers have mentioned about that verymuch-protested-against European Community initiative to examine the economic and social situation in Northern Ireland and the internal political crisis. As I understand it, that survey, which has caused so much stir, would exclude any reference to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. I must admit to having been really amazed at the vehemence of the Prime Minister's denunciation of this initiative. I still find it difficult to understand exactly on what grounds she bases this deep displeasure, unless it could be on grounds of chauvinism, and I am sure that could not be the case.
Having accepted that membership of the European Community is unlikely to bring Britain all the economic benefits which were hoped for. I, for one, have looked for other advantages of membership. The idea that the European Community could act as a catalyst for healing internal divisions within the individual member states has always been of very great interest, to my mind. I believe that the more frameworks which exist as a means of increasing understanding, the better. Surely it must be agreed that the limited Anglo-Irish framework to create that understanding up till now has not totally succeeded.
On another point, I feel that the Government are showing inconsistency in viewing this initiative as an interference. After all, the Government certainly do not view economic intervention as interference. They welcome the grants made by the European social and regional funds with open arms, and often they have accepted them with so much pleasure that they have kept them within their own Exchequer and not treated them as additional funds. So I think the Government should accept that the European Community has every right to examine whether those funds have been applied to the best advantage.
Also I do not think that there should be any concern as to the calibre of that very serious and cautious Dane, Mr. Niels Haagerup, in whose hands the inquiry will lie. As Danish representative for the Institute of Strategic Studies and indeed as no stranger to Ulster, he will fully recognsie that the tactical success of the inquiry is very strictly limited and that although his report will concern itself with political as well as social and economic conditions, it will, as I said before, exclude an examination of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. So what is really so threatening about this initiative? The report will also serve to inform the European countries, from whom we often get very adverse publicity.
Surely, the more people in Europe who are aware of the complexities which face the British Government regarding Northern Ireland the better, not the worse, for Britain. They may even become a little more sympathetic about it. Again, the Northern Ireland Office already spends a lot of money in Europe and America to promote that awareness. So whatever the pros and cons of British membership of the Community, surely in this case the European framework could be used to remove some of the heat and to advance greater understanding and
574
reconciliation, which is what I understand this debate is all about.
Finally, it would be almost impossible to talk about such a subject without mentioning the great admiration that so many of us have for the work which the people of Northern Ireland are themselves doing towards working out their own problems in the fields of special understanding and reconciliation. As I said, I should very much like to take the opportunity of this debate to express my renewed admiration for all that they do.
9.41 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the admirable way in which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, put his Unstarred Question will, I think, arouse in us a great amount of curiosity and interest to hear the replies of my noble friend when he answers at the end of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, clearly shows a very great detailed and personal knowledge of events in Northern Ireland which one can only admire. I am sure that my noble friend will be giving very full and detailed replies to those questions.
I should also like, before I go any further, to say how much I agreed with very much of what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said, about the spirit of Christianity and the need for conciliation among the peoples of Northern Ireland, because this is something which politicians are very often afraid of saying. If I may say so, I admire the way in which he expressed those feelings with great sensitivity, and I am sure that they are supported by all noble Lords listening to this debate.
I should like to deal with one or two aspects which are not concerned in detail with the internal events of Northern Ireland, except to say that I think it is perfectly clear to everyone, including the IRA, that the people of Northern Ireland are not going to change their political beliefs or aspirations as a result of continued intimidation, violence and acts of terrorism. That must be made perfectly clear. On the contrary, it appears to the observer to reinforce and strengthen their determination.
The people of Northern Ireland have, after all, the right, both under a British Act of Parliament and under the United Nations Charter, to self-determination and to determine their own future. However, too many people outside the United Kingdom, and indeed many inside it, have not understood or appreciated these political realities, so in that way giving moral assistance and encouragement to terrorism.
In the United States, which has already been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and as is well-known to your Lordships, the considerable financial assistance given through Noraid, the public parades and the demonstrations, particularly that coming up on St. Patrick's Day, constitute in themselves a formidable encouragement for violence in Ulster. I was happy to see today that President Reagan himself—well aware of the situation in Ulster—is calling on the Irish Ambassador, and he discourages very strongly such demonstrations and financial assistance to terrorism.

575
However, perhaps some pressure could be put on the United States Government by our Government to ensure closer and tighter control of the sale and export of arms from the United States, to say nothing of declaring Noraid an illegal organisation, which it should surely be in a country which believes in peace, liberty and democracy. Indeed, information to American citizens on the true objectives of Sinn Fein would also be beneficial. I know, of course, that it is impossible for Government to be solely responsible for communication to other countries throughout the world. But I am quite certain that the vast majority of the citizens of the United States are not aware that Ulster is the last bulwark for the Republic of Ireland against becoming a socialist democratic state on the same lines as Eastern European countries. Indeed, not long ago I heard a broadcast in Italy, given by a member of Sinn Fein, spelling out exactly what were the objectives of their party: that once Ulster became part of the Republic of Ireland the whole constitution of Ireland would disappear and they would turn it into a socialist democratic state on the lines of Eastern Europe.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Baroness is far too intelligent to suppose for a moment that, whatever happened in Northern Ireland, the 26 counties of Southern Ireland would turn into an Eastern European state. If the noble Baroness is suggesting that, she is falling a long way below her usual standard of good sense.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl did not quite hear what I said, or perhaps I did not put it clearly—in which case I apologise. I am saying that the objective of Sinn Fein is to turn the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland into an Irish socialist democratic state. This they have always said, and they go on repeating it. Whatever the noble Earl may say, these are the facts, as I understand them. I am merely saying that not very long ago I happened to hear this on the radio in Italy. Whether or not the noble Earl likes to argue with me, that is what I heard and that is what Sinn Fein are saying. I am not saying that what happens in Ulster will mean that this will happen if there should be unity of Ireland. I am saying that this is the objective of Sinn Fein and that this is the objective behind terrorism in Northern Ireland.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, a phrase slipped from the lips of the noble Baroness, perhaps inadvertently. She said that something which is being done in Northern Ireland today is the last bulwark against Southern Ireland turning into an Eastern European state. How did the phrase "the last bulwark" come into it?
Baroness Elles: The fact that Ulster remains Ulster and part of the United Kingdom means that a unified Ireland, which some people wish to see, is protected at least from becoming a socialist democratic state under Sinn Fein. I hope I have now made myself a little clearer, if not totally clear to the noble Earl. Nevertheless, because of the kind of broadcasts which are taking place in Europe and the kind of information that is being spread in Europe—as noble Lords know
576
and as has been referred to by several speakers—there was a proposal, due to three resolutions being tabled by Irish MEPs as well as by John Hume of Northern Ireland, to discuss the question of Northern Ireland: not only the political, social and economic affairs, which have been referred to by certain noble Lords, but also a basis for negotiations between the Irish and British Governments as to the future of Northern Ireland. This is also in the resolution tabled by John Hume who demanded a formal hearing on the future of Northern Ireland.
I do not hesitate to say in this House that that is precisely why I and five colleagues from the European Democratic Group (that is, the British Conservatives) voted against a report being drawn up on the subject of Northern Ireland. It is, first, a breach of the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a member state. This principle is adhered to not only by member states of the Community. It is in the United Nations Charter and applies to all member states of the United Nations. When I raised this question in the Bureau of the European Parliament, I pointed out that, if you start having formal inquiries, as proposed in these resolutions, to look into the political affairs of part of a member state of the European Community, you are opening a Pandora's box. A whole series of precedents will be created which, whether people like it or not, will create immense problems and political difficulties for Members of the European Parliament. I only have to tell your Lordships that on Friday a new resolution was tabled on the subject of the internal affairs of Greece to which the socialist group are, understandably, already objecting. This was one reason why we very strongly objected to this particular set of resolutions being the basis of a report on Northern Ireland. I should also like to add that no consideration was given to the sensitivity and resentment of the people of Northern Ireland.
Neither do I believe that anybody wants their internal affairs to be discussed in any other international forum. I quite understand that feeling and I support them. Thirdly, there is the risk we have to recognise, that—subject to what has been said, and on the basis of this report and of what has taken place in the European Parliament—it could in the end cause an escalation of support for some forms of violence and terrorism. I do not say that it will but it is a risk that I had a duty to consider, and I therefore thought it my duty to vote against such a report; and I maintain that we were right to do so.
It is worth recalling that the basis of these resolutions does not bind the rapporteur to what he will put in that report. If such a report is to be written, I have every confidence that the rapporteur—who has not yet been appointed but we hope very much it will be Mr. Niels Haagerup, a Danish Liberal—will do it with fairness, balance and impartiality, so that at the end of the day, the people of Europe will perhaps know the truth about Northern Ireland and not be subjected to the longstanding and continuing propaganda from the IRA which has filled the minds of so many people whether they wanted it to or not.
I should like to state here and now in your Lordships' House that, if this report is to be written and if there are discussions in the Political Affairs Committee, I shall consider it a dereliction of duty not

577
to take part in that discussion and give all the facts and knowledge available to me on the state of the United Kingdom for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland, in order to contribute to a report that will be balanced and fair and which would put the case for the people of Northern Ireland, which otherwise would go by default. If I may be allowed as a Member of the European Parliament to use a French phrase, les absents ont toujours tort, and, if we were not there, I believe that the report would be lacking some substance.
Nevertheless, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, has said, of course the European Community can contribute to certain aspects of life in Northern Ireland as it does to all parts of the European Community—all those parts of the European Community where there is economic and social instability, or where there is more poverty than in other parts of the Community. It is the duty of the Community to raise the living standards of the people of Europe and to make them more equal in terms of economic growth.
Again, last year we debated a report by a Liberal, Mrs. Martin, on regional aspects of Northern Ireland. Altogether, I understand that something like £600 million has come from the Community to Northern Ireland since our membership. Perhaps my noble friend will confirm that figure but it is something of that order—although it appears very small when compared with the £2 billion approximately which is the net transfer from this country to Northern Ireland to support its economic and social life.
Finally, I should like to ask one or two questions of my noble friend Lord Gowrie. I wonder whether he will give the view of the Government on the All Ireland Peace Forum which we understand is being set up by Doctor Garret FitzGerald? If he is setting up this peace forum, will every encouragement be given to him, since he obviously believes in the maintenance of peace in Ulster as well as in the Republic, to ratify the European convention on the suppression of terrorism and the Dublin Agreement, which has not yet been done?
Another point I should like to raise in connection with terrorism is to ask my noble friend how far there is now closer co-operation with Interpol in identifying terrorists throughout the European Community. It is quite clear that, in view of the systems being used, for
578
example, in West Germany and Italy, terrorism as such has declined very considerably over the past two or three years by the capture of members of the Baader-Meinhof gang and the Red Brigade. It is quite remarkable that there has been a considerable decline in terrorism and I wonder whether my noble friend would be prepared to comment?
Also, I believe that no one has yet paid tribute to the courage, and the continuing courage—which is quite another matter—of our troops in Northern Ireland who daily and every night go out at the risk of their lives in order to maintain peace. This cannot be stressed too strongly. I hope that from this House there will be a strong tribute to the troops who contribute to the suppression of terrorism and to the maintenance of peace in what are undoubtedly extremely difficult conditions.
Finally, I would like to comment on the two days that I spent in Northern Ireland. Many of us who do not live there will have gone over for visits for various reasons and we all get a very rapid impression, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who went over and saw officials and so on; we all have to do this in the course of our work. Two things struck me very forcibly. One was the beauty and peace of the countryside compared with the terrible fears of intimidation and violence which one encounters when talking to officials who are having to deal with these problems. The differentiation is really and truly striking.
What was perhaps of most concern was the fear of intimidation and violence which is being bred among the chidren of Northern Ireland. Only the other day I heard a story of a young child who came over with his parents to the mainland, Great Britain, for the first time. His father left his car unlocked in a street and they went off shopping. The little boy was quite frightened: he tugged at his father, and said, "How can you leave your car; you have not locked it and there is nobody there to guard it"; and the father replied, "You forget, we are not in Northern Ireland any more". I think this brings out the horror of the effect on the minds of children, who, after all, are the next generation, that fear breeds violence and violence breeds terrorism. I am sure my noble friend will make some comment on the very great efforts being made by voluntary organisations as well as the efforts being made by Her Majesty's Government.
9.57 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, whom I have not heard in this House since several years ago when she used to give me a lot of trouble when I was on the other side. I am going to follow the main point that she has been making in a moment, but I should like to say a couple of things first. Incidentally I am going to be very careful not to say anything to offend my noble friend Lord Longford, because I do not think I have ever taken part in a Northern Ireland debate without getting a letter of apology from him the next morning.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made one or two very interesting points that I want to deal with. First of all, he used a phrase which is very important as describing part of the trouble of Northern Ireland; he spoke of a sneaking or half admitted tolerance of violence. It was an interesting thing to say and it made me think. I think it is true of a large number of very good people on both sides of the House, sneaking and half admitted tolerance.
Several people have talked about the prisons, including the noble Lord who opened the debate and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I was in post in Northern Ireland at the time of the Price sisters crisis. Noble Lords will remember that they committed a fairly violent crime; I cannot remember exactly what. They were in prison for life over here, and they went on hunger strike in order to get back to Northern Ireland. The position in the North at that time was that if my right honourable friend Mr. Roy Jenkins, who was then Home Secretary, had given way at all quickly to that, there would have been riots in Northern Ireland. So the situation is not an absolutely clear one. I do not believe that that is the situation today. But I think one must not try to force this kind of generosity on people who are responsible for law and order; one has to wait until they think it possible. The fact that NIACRO recommends this puts it in my favour. I am in favour of it because of that. I was the first speaker that it ever had 15 years ago at its first meeting. I am glad that it is holding such sensible views.
The second thing that the noble Lord said, and which is what I want to talk about, is that one must beware of arousing expectations if one is talking about a united Ireland. This is extremely important. I have said it to the Labour Party every time I have spoken in this House. To arouse such expectations is a very dangerous thing indeed to do. Three new initiatives have been reported in the newspapers in the last week or two. The first is the one that the noble Baroness and others have talked about—the MEP initiative; the second is what we call the Gowrie triad; and the third is the Fitzgerald—SDLP proposal. All these three initiatives are new. They are all in the direction of a united Ireland, or at least slight steps in that direction. The noble Lord shakes his head, but we will deal with that later if we have time. All I am saying is that they all want to be watched very carefully. On the whole I am in favour of all three.
580
I differ from the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, about MEP initiative. It has come about the wrong way. I should have liked us to do what my right honourable friend David Owen suggested two years ago: approach the EEC and see whether it could give us useful advice. In making that suggestion he said:
"It would be easier for both Governments to think afresh within the wider context of the EEC, but neither Government would have to give up any of their sovereignty or independence. There are no votes if there is no agreement."
I would have totally supported that. It seems to me that the present situation is rather more difficult, because it is, in a sense, rather out of line for the EEC to approach us in this way. But, as it has done so, in general I would give it as much information as I could, simply because I believe our case is cast iron when one really looks at it. One cannot do much more than the British Government, through the noble Earl and his colleagues, are trying to do at the moment. If one tried to do much more one would probably make things worse.
The second is the Gowrie initiative which the noble Earl suggests is nothing to do with Northern Ireland. I agree with him and it should certainly not have anything to do with the constitution. But, of course, the harder side of the Protestant world will take a lot of convincing that that is the case. There is so much to discuss about extradition, about crime this side of the Border and on that side of the Border, about the regular smuggling of cattle and sheep, and so on, that there ought to be far more tri-party discussion, and I am fully in favour of that. But I warn the noble Earl that, whatever he says, certain people will not believe that he is not selling the past. That is the awkwardness of his particular position.
The third is the Garret Fitzgerald—SDLP initiative. Dr Fitzgerald is probably the most hopeful man we shall ever have as Taoiseach. I think he is first-class and that he does not wish to do anything which is in any way even awkward for the Protestant majority. He wants to obtain a better arrangement. Although the Protestants may say that they cannot even discuss this, it is not a bad thing to clarify what one will not even discuss. It seems to me that if Dr Fitzgerald, with his colleagues, and the SDLP, with John Hume and the rest of them, decide on the best possible terms that they could offer if the situation ever arose, then at least the Reverend Paisley and others would know what they are prepared to discuss, which at the moment they simply do not. I am in favour of all these three initiatives, but it is very important not to raise false hopes, as the noble Lord said.
I am glad to see that my old friend Gerry Fitt has been quoted by two or three speakers. I want to quote him again, naturally in paraphrase. He said the day before yesterday, I think, that no EEC or other Army would be as acceptable on the Northern Ireland streets as the British. That is rather nice. The second thing that he said was that, in spite of anything that Mr. Ken Livingstone may say, Sinn Fein has no policy to attack unemployment. In association with the IRA, its policy is to destroy jobs with bombs.

581
The absolute barrenness of the Sinn Fein and IRA approach is shown by their very hatred. If they want the troops out they have only to go away themselves and the troops will be out tomorrow. If this happened they would be no nearer a United Socialist Ireland—this was the point that the noble Baroness was making: the North will not have unity and the South will not have Socialism. So really all this is about nothing, and that is the tragic thing. But it must be a good thing for outsiders to understand this—to understand that we do not want to cling on to our hold on the North but that we certainly will not abandon those British citizens who live there. In fact if we did abandon them, which is unthinkable, they would fight and almost certainly win unless there was foreign intervention. My instinct is to let any delegation from the European Parliament see everything that they want to see and talk to everyone they want to talk to. The truth is nothing to be ashamed of.
I have supported a bipartisan policy for the last 10 years and I support it still. I think that it is very important that we should support the efforts which the Government are making to make the Assembly work, with all its great difficulties. The future peace, which I believe is not within two generations' sight, in my opinion can come only through some form of power sharing. The first attempt at power sharing at Sunningdale was wrecked by the hard Protestants. The second attempt, which is the Assembly now, has really been spoilt by the SDLP refusing to take part. I think that the Government have to go on trying. I do not think that there is anything else that they can do. I think that what they are doing is something which they need not be ashamed of. The more people who understand it fully the better.
10.7 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I would take this opportunity in the debate to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for his continuing and thoughtful interest in Irish affairs. I also wish to express my appreciation of his introduction of this debate. I welcome and support the speech of my noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord Underhill, who dealt in some detail with the practical political and social problems in connection with Northern Ireland and violence.
It is my opinion that the debate has indicated forcefully that there can be no simple solution to the problems of on-going violence in the Province. One reason for this is that there is no common agreement on the root cause of the problem. It is often overlooked that if Ireland were to be united tomorrow, or indeed if Northern Ireland became a separate political entity, the violence would not be halted because the terrorists' aims and methods are in direct conflict with the basic constitutional principles of parliamentary democracy as we know it in these islands. North and South in the United Kingdom as a whole will suffer from any upturn or any giving way to the methods of the terrorists.
Appeals to the conscience of the terrorists fail because they operate within an inexplicable standard of morality and inhuman disregard for life itself. In
582
this respect I would wish to join with the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in her commendations of the dedication and the continuing work of the security forces and especially of the steadfastness of their families. They are continually working under terrible circumstances.
The people of Northern Ireland must themselves discover such a hatred of violence and of those who perpetrate such bad deeds that they will be isolated or, indeed, may perhaps see the error of their ways and turn with the same vigour to promote the ways of peace. The more we hate violence, the more we must have a personal and a community will to work together for conciliation, if not agreement—the will of individuals and of the community to undertake practical approaches towards conciliation and compassionate caring, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, outlined in his speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and other noble Peers in the House will know of the quiet efforts towards bridge building across the community divide that is continuing in Northern Ireland. I warmly welcome the support for the efforts expressed by noble Lords and especially by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. These are not the kind of efforts and issues that have made the headlines. Indeed, perhaps it is best that these efforts are not given headlines.
10.11 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has addressed to the Government today the question of how to end the "spiral of violence", as he calls it, in Northern Ireland. He has at the same time raised a number of specific points—and other noble Lords have taken up some of these and sometimes added to them— which relate to various aspects of the Government's policy in the Province. I will deal with these specific points in just one moment.
At the beginning, perhaps I may say that, while I am at one with the noble Lord on the need to reduce violence and at one with all noble Lords who have spoken in praise of the way in which the noble Lord made his points, I part company with him only on one thing, and only just a little, and that is on the use of the term "spiral".
I should like to make it clear to the noble Lord that I do not believe that, in the ordinary definition, violence in Northern Ireland is exactly spiralling. Figures on violence in a situation like that in Northern Ireland, must, of course, be used with the very greatest care. Behind any given figure lie tragedy and heartache for some, whatever the precise nature of the incident. Each figure reminds us forcibly of the callous disregard of men of violence for others.
As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, wisely reminded us, one murder or one injury is one too many. But I do not think that we need be guilty of lack of sympathy or feeling if occasionally we take the opportunity to look at the figures as dispassionately as we can. These show us that since the dreadful years of the early 1970s violence has indeed fallen and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for making that point. Violence has not gone down smoothly, but it has gone down. For instance, last year saw 97 deaths as a result of terrorist incidents, which was fewer than the year

583
before—1981—or 1979, although it was slightly higher than 1978 and 1980. Last year's figures of injuries and shooting incidents were the lowest ever. As a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, I am, of course, among the first to appreciate that violence remains a dominating element in the lives and thinking of many in Northern Ireland. As Finance Minister and also as Minister with responsibility for police and prison matters, I am acutely aware of the damaging cost.
So one should never be complacent, and I certainly am not in a position to be complacent or to underestimate the impact of suffering on individuals and on the community as a whole. But I think that we may mislead ourselves and others if we think that we are in a ever-worsening situation, which is what I would take to be a spiralling situation. We are not, and we must not base our approach to other matters in the belief that we are, not least because that would be to denigrate the sterling efforts of the security forces, to whom my noble friend Lady Elles and others paid tribute.
As the House will be aware, successive Governments in recent years have based their security policy on just one principle—that of the primacy of the rule of law. Violent crime in pursuit of political aims is not qualitatively or morally different from any other violent crime. War is of course indeed horrible wherever or whenever it occurs, but wars can only be conducted by states, they cannot be waged by individuals or organisations. Violence by individuals is crime, and the same standards of evidence apply to prosecution. If convicted, perpetrators serve their sentences in the same way. The simple issue in a democracy is that all are subject to the same laws and the same constraints, and all are treated accordingly.
The police are, of course, in the front line in the enforcement of law, but they are also themselves subject to laws. In the last 10 years the number of police in the Province has risen from about 4,000 to over 12,000. The army are engaged in security duties in the Province in support of the police, and only in their support. At the end of last year 10,000 or so troops were in the Province. Of course, that is still too many, but it is less than half the number who were there only 10 years before. Once more I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for underscoring that fact.
It is important to recognise that this approach is a matter on which we are all ecumenical, on which all the major parties are agreed. I do not believe that it requires much justification. It seems to me that it is up to those who would take a different approach, and use unfamiliar measures, who need to justify themselves and those measures. I would draw your Lordships' attention to an excellent article by Mr Stan Gebler Davies in today's Daily Telegraph and to the view reinforced here this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that any precipitate withdrawal by British troops would lead to violence on a terrifying scale compared with that which we have known.
Within the approach I have outlined, the Government of course use all the vigour they can to support the enforcement of the law. For instance, we announced last November that additional resources
584
were being made available for an increase of 800 in the strength of the RUC and the full-time reserve. And, again without suggesting any element of complacency, there have been successes. Last year 686 people were charged with offences of the terrorist type (including 50 of murder and 96 of attempted murder). Last year 709 people were convicted of such offences. In the same period more than 300 firearms and nearly 4,500 rounds of ammunition and over 5,000 pounds of explosives were safely recovered by the security forces.
We have concentrated today on violence, but I emphasise to the noble Lord, and indeed with the noble Lord, that violence in Northern Ireland cannot be satisfactorily considered in isolation. The Government do not pretend that the enforcement of the law on its own can end terrorism. Nor is the ending of terrorism our sole goal, vital though it is. The scene is wider than that, and the search for answers has to go deeper. All the various aspects of Northern Ireland affairs—the political instability we have witnessed in recent years, the violence and the economic decline, affect each other.
The Government are firmly committed to the policy they have embarked on. We want, as the House knows, to encourage the people of Northern Ireland themselves, through their elected representatives in the first place, to seek accommodations and ways of working together which will allow the whole community to move forward constructively.
This policy is based on a number of principles. No detailed blueprint designed to encourage or embody political movement can be imposed from London. Nor can things be done against an unrealistic London or British electoral timescale which allows people in Northern Ireland insufficient time to try to find ways of starting to come to grips with the difficulties of their special situation. We also believe there must be full recognition of the roots and significance of the two historic traditions in Northern Ireland. They are a fact, not an invention, and they must be recognised as such. The movement we are seeking to generate must thus come from within the historical context of Northern Ireland and must reflect the true nature of society there.
In the first instance, constructive local political activity, rather than sloganising, has to be encouraged, however slowly or painfully, and there are clear signs that in this respect the Assembly is having an impact. Its six committees concerned with the work of the Northern Ireland departments are hard at work. They are doing the things that people in Northern Ireland want their representatives to do, examining local issues and seeking to advance the interests of the Province. Their work shows a deep common concern for the well-being of the people in the Province.
The task now— and it is an inordinately difficult one, but the difficulties in Northern Ireland have been a long time in the making and they will be a long time in the solving—is to translate this kind of work into an effort to tackle the deeper-seated political problems which beset Northern Ireland, so that, in the longer term, a lasting stability can be achieved, and I am delighted to pay tribute to the work of individuals and voluntary bodies, not simply the work of politicians, as my noble friend Lady Elles encouraged me to do.

585
The Government have often said that answers to Northern Ireland's difficulties must come principally from the people of Northern Ireland. They are committed to the view that there can be no change to the general constitutional position of the Province as part of the United Kingdom, save with the consent of the majority of the people. But equally, you cannot make progress towards political stability by pretending that the interest of the Republic of Ireland in Northern Ireland affairs simply does not exist. The Republic is the focus of the aspirations, and indeed the loyalty, of many, perhaps most, of the minority community. It therefore has an interest unique among foreign Governments in the affairs of a substantial part of the population of Northern Ireland.
I am able to tell my noble friend Lady Elles that it is no surprise that the legitimate constitutional Nationalist political party in Northern Ireland is proposing to confer with the political parties who support them in the South, and of course they now have, as a result of our policy, the electoral authority to do so. I hope, however, that as they confer they will not fail to recognise that the primary loyalty of Unionists is to the Crown and to being administered by the Crown in Parliament. I do not see that changing, just as I do not see the fundamental allegiance of Nationalists changing, and I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, with his experience of Northern Ireland, said on that. The attempt to recognise the permanent feature of these two identities, loyalties and allegiances is what I mean by triangularity, and what I mean by triangularity is not a new initiative but is inherent in the Government's White Paper, our principal policy document.
Then, of course, the people of the Republic have a unique association not just with Northern Ireland but with this country, Great Britain. No other country has exchanged populations with us in the same way over such a long time. Our history and demography are inextricably linked. It is, in my view, a wholly blinkered view not to recognise this interest of the Republic and the strength of the connection—and of course the physical fact of the border cannot be ignored, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, drew our attention to that.
So our policy is to encourage political movement within Northern Ireland because stability, security and the economy depend on it. Of course, it is one thing to encourage this movement; it is quite another to see it achieved. As I have often said, it will take a long time. We are at present facing the undoubted setback of the abstention of the SDLP from the internal deliberations of the Assembly. I believe that this is unfortunate for the Province as a whole, as I think it is inimical to the long-term interests of the Nationalist community. It should be no surprise to the SDLP that in the same dog-in-the-manger spirit (if I may put it that way) it seems likely that Unionist Assembly members will boycott any conference with parties in the South.
However, I am glad to be able to say that as the major constitutional nationalist party, the SDLP resisted pressure to abstain from the elections, and as a Government we treat its representatives as having the full authority of elected positions. We have always
586
emphasised the need for legitimate electoral authority, which we recognise that it now plans to use, as it is wholly its right to use, in the course of its forthcoming deliberations with parties in the Republic.
The Government make no pretence to have found solutions. Indeed, I believe that in this context the word "solution" is misconceived, as the Unionist and Nationalist positions are impossible formally to reconcile one with another. What the Government are seeking to produce is a framework within which not solutions, but accommodations, can be made and understandings advanced between two communities, neither of which proposes to change its position in the foreseeable future. They are accommodations within which the people of Northern Ireland can start to find ways out of the tragic impasse in which they have existed for so long.
Against this background of the need for general political movement and accommodations, I should like quickly to turn to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and others who spoke in the debate, put to me. The noble Lord started by mentioning discrimination in the public sector, including the Civil Service. We are totally committed to equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland, and we have supported the development of safeguards and remedies against discrimination in employment on religious or political grounds, whether that is in the public or the private sector. The Fair Employment Agency is currently conducting an investigation into the religious composition of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, and I certainly look forward to seeing its report in due course. A small number of additional posts have been authorised in principle to enable the staffing of the Fair Employment Agency to be improved and to expand its activities, and discussions continue to determine the precise nature and grading of these posts.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, kindly said that he did not expect me to trespass into the field of my noble and learned field the Lord Chancellor on the question of coroners' inquests, and I understand that my noble and learned friend has written to the noble Lord. However, on the issue of delays in the holding of inquests in Northern Ireland, the noble Lord will I think recognise the need for the possibility of criminal proceedings to be fully examined before an inquest hearing, and in the Province such investigations can be long and complex. I would remind the noble Lord that often delays are a result of requests by the defence, for instance, for an opportunity to gain information.
On the issue of joyriding, the Department of Health and Social Services and the Northern Ireland Office are together funding two experimental projects in West Belfast, which are run by a voluntary organisation, and which seek to divert young people from joyriding and to encourage a more responsible attitude towards the use of cars and motorcycles. I cannot yet say how effective this will be, but we are certainly trying. I would point out that in Northern Ireland the current rate of car theft and taking cars without consent is, proportionately, a third less than it is in England and Wales. Nevertheless, it is a serious problem, and we take it seriously.

587
On the issue of the flags and emblems, the Flags and Emblems Display Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 makes it an offence to interfere with the display of the Union flag and confers on a police officer the power to remove any emblem or flag if he believes that its display is likely to cause a breach of the peace. The Act does not make illegal the flying of the Irish Tricolour. It is used solely and infrequently to enable the RUC to take action to prevent a breach of the peace. I am aware that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights have several times recommended that the Act should be repealed. I am, as I have to be, also aware of the strength of conflicting feeling on this issue on both sides of the community. I will keep the use of, and the need for, the Act under close review.
In relation to the transfer of prisoners between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of course, I am sharply aware, as Prison Minister there, of the difficulties and hardships that are faced in Northern Ireland by families of prisoners serving sentences—in many cases, very long sentences—in Great Britain. Any prison administration tries to take into account the convenience of visiting for the families. These considerations are the reason why we have, in the relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, arrangements under which prisoners may be transferred from one country to another within the United Kingdom to serve their sentences. All applications by prisoners in Great Britain for permanent transfer to Northern Ireland are considered on their own facts and merits; and our general approach to Northern Ireland is to accept prisoners who are normally domiciled in the Province and whom the Home Secretary is disposed to transfer. Sixteen prisoners have been transferred to Northern Ireland since 1973.
But the Northern Ireland Office is not, in general, prepared to accept prisoners whose current behaviour and attitude, taken with their history and background, suggest that they could not be relied on to co-operate fully with the normal prison régime. It has been our painful experience over a long period that prisoners who have not formally severed their links with paramilitary organisations tend to operate in cohesive groups in prison and are unwilling to accept the constraints of ordinary prison routine, however advanced and enlightened that routine may be. But again these are issues that we shall have to continue to keep under review, and I will bring the points made to the attention of my noble friend Lord Elton. I think the House will recognise that this issue is primarily one where the responsibilities are with the Home Office.
On the subject of assistance with the cost of visits, assistance is provided to prisoners' wives and other close relatives who receive supplementary benefits or whose part-time earnings are close to the supplementary benefits qualifying limit. This assistance normally comprises the full cost of visiting once a month by public transport and, where required, a payment in respect of bed and breakfast. But I do recognise, as I have said, the hardships which can be involved and I would like to use my efforts and energies to improve them if I can.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke about police projects with young people. The difficulty in Northern
588
Ireland about cross-community activities, as he knows, is the issue of geography; the communities are fiercely segregated geographically. Therefore, how much cross-community activity there is depends rather upon area; but I understand that the police are very keen to foster it and will go on seeking to do so.
The meeting with Mr. Barry was just that. A new Administration came into being in the Republic. Neither the Secretary of State nor myself knew Mr. Barry. We sought to do so, we had an agreeable and fruitful meeting, enjoyed his company and I hope that he enjoyed ours. I certainly believe that these meetings should be as overt and above board as possible and I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Donaldson, that we cannot be too careful in raising expectations. I myself do not have a breath of criticism for the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, from his Front Bench this afternoon, but I rather wish that his sensitivity was echoed in the Front Bench of another place more frequently.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and my noble friend Lady Elles raised the vexed question of the European Parliament's self-designated interest in the affairs of the Province. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, talked about the vehemence of the Prime Minister's reaction. Perhaps I can give my own reaction. I would ask the House to accept that I am quoting myself because this is from an interview in a newspaper. And perhaps the House will further accept that I made this reaction before I knew about the vehemence of my right honourable friend's reaction. In response to an interviewer's question I said that I thought it a retrogressive move of the parliament and I continued:
"Those of us, like myself, who are very much in favour of the Community, and the participation of Britain and, indeed, the Republic in the Community, do find our advocacy of the Community made very difficult if people are not clearer about the nature of the Community and its ground rules. Rightly or wrongly, it is not a Community of Monnets. It is a Community much nearer the ideas of De Gaulle, who was certainly the dominating figure in Europe, politically, during its formative years. It is a Community of national sovereignties, not a body which exists to try and create one Continental Sovereignty. It is not, as it were, the USA 150 years ago. In my view, the realities of European life and history are such that it will indefinitely retain that character. Therefore, when a useful and valuable body dealing with Community matters, scrutinising the budgets and the work of the Commission, starts floundering around in matters of great sensitivity and difficulty within the sovereignties in question, I think it puts progress right back. I would think that this present exercise, particularly at this sensitive moment when we want to improve Anglo-Irish relations and see the development of Northern Ireland politics, is disturbing the chance of progress for Northern Ireland, of the very kind which most of the people in the European Parliament want to see."
We have made our position quite clear. I hope that we can make it clear in as favourable a way as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked me what aid the Province had received from European Community funds. From the time we joined until the end of last year Northern Ireland received £120 million from the European social fund; £78 million from the European regional funds; and £30 million from the guidance section of the European agricultural fund, making a total of £228 million.
My noble friend Lady Elles talked about the importance of the Government's views and indeed the views of men in the Province being put across in

589
America. I have visited America, as have all my colleagues. I shall be visiting again very shortly indeed. If I may dare stray into the controversy between my noble friend Lady Elles and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, my fellow Anglo-Irish Peer if I may associate myself with him in that way, Sinn Fein does indeed attack the Dublin Government in terms no less virulent than the terms in which they attack the Westminster Government. As a regular reader of their newspaper, I can indeed confirm what my noble friend said there.
The reactions of a number of leading people in the United States to this year's St. Patrick's Day parade is I believe a welcome indication of a growing understanding in that country of the true nature of terrorism and those who support it. It is again the aim of the Government to encourage that understanding. I must add also that the Irish Government have been at the forefront of making this understanding known and achievable in the United States.
I think my noble friend will understand if I do not wish to comment on operational security matters, INTERPOL and the like. But as police Minister, I take the European experience in counter-terrorist activity very seriously and I know from the RUC that both they and the Garda Siochana do so as well.
In sum, as I said earlier, the need for the political recognition of the two identities is paramount if there is to be any prospect of achieving lasting stability. It is against that wider background that I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to judge the Question before us today. We have to direct our attention to ways in which the kind of accommodations can be promoted. The spiral that Northern Ireland is faced with is not, it seems to me, one of ever-increasing violence but one of political intransigence feeding on terrorism, terrorism feeding on economic decline and each on the other. That is the spiral from which we all want to break loose. The Government believe that the framework they have established provides all the people of Northern Ireland with a chance at least to escape from the prison of their history.

British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  PRISONS: DOGS AND DRUG DETECTION
  PRISONS: DOGS AND DRUG DETECTION
  FEMALE LIFE AND CATEGORY A PRISONERS
  FEMALE LIFE AND CATEGORY A PRISONERS
  School Books: Expenditure
  School Books: Expenditure
  CARE IN THE COMMUNITY
  CARE IN THE COMMUNITY
  TADWORTH COURT CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: FUTURE
  TADWORTH COURT CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: FUTURE