Sitting of 2 July 1984

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

    Coal Industry Dispute
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he plans to have an early meeting with the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss the current situation in the mining industry.
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will now take steps to resolve the dispute in the mining industry.
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the coal miners' dispute.
    Mr. Haynesasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last spoke to the chairman of the National Coal Board; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the miners' dispute.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Energy he will make a statement on the current situation in the mining industry.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement about the effects of the miners' strike.
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the dispute in the coal mining industry.
    Mr. Cohenasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the National Coal Board; and what subjects were discussed.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): More than 60,000 people are working in the coalfields, being approximately 30 per cent. of the total work force. The industrial action is obviously having an adverse effect upon the coal industry's substantial investment programme, and is placing expensive investment at risk. It is also having an adverse effect on market prospects for the industry. Substantial export orders are having to be met from continental producers.
    In the past three months the campaign which the Government and the National Coal Board were waging so successfully to persuade industrialists to convert to coal has come to a standstill. In the same three months of last year we persuaded 169 firms to convert to coal. In the three months this year, more firms have cancelled their applications than have put an new ones.
    Stocks of coal at power stations remain at a very high level, and have reduced in recent weeks by only approximately 1·5 per cent. per week.
    To date, those Coal Board employees who have been on strike have lost a total of £350 million in wages.
    In recent months, more than 20,000 miners have expressed an interest in the generous early retirement and voluntary redundancy schemes.
    Concern must be expressed at the potential geological problems in those pits which have not been in operation.
    The chairman of the NCB has expressed his willingness to continue talks with the National Union of Mineworkers, along the lines which took place at the meeting in Edinburgh of Friday 8 June. I hope that the NUM will speedily agree to continue talks with the NCB on that basis.
    Mr. Douglas: Apart from the fact that that is not an answer to the question on the Order Paper, will the Minister cease his puerile pusillanimous posturing about the dispute and recognise that both his actions and those

    3
    of the chairman of the Coal Board, particularly over the weekend, are counter-productive? I speak only for the miners in my area in Fife. The effect is to deepen the miners' resolve to stay out at all costs. They will not be starved into submission. Will the Secretary of State recognise that his role is not to seek political advantage but to call the parties together to see how, in the national interest, this damaging dispute can be resolved?
    Mr. Walker: If, instead of posturing, the hon. Gentleman supported the idea that the NUM should quickly take advantage of continuing in a constructive way the talks which were started in Edinburgh and which the NCB is willing to pursue immediately, that might bring an end to this particular problem.
    Mr. Skeet: It is encouraging to see more people returning to work at Bilston Glen in Scotland, but will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of a loyalty bonus for people who are at work and who are prepared to defy the pickets? Will he also use the secondary picketing machinery under the 1980 and 1982 Acts where suitable?
    Mr. Walker: Bonuses and the use of any civil injunctions are a matter for the management of the NCB.
    Mr. Strang: When will the Government recognise that the strike can be brought to an end only by a negotiated settlement between the NUM and the NCB? Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that his speech and, in particular, that of his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary at the weekend, can serve only to hinder that process? If he has not already done so, will he make it clear to the Prime Minister that there is no way that the miners will be starved back to work?
    Mr. Walker: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's statement that the dispute will be brought to an end only by a negotiated settlement involving both sides. At present, one side is willing to continue the negotiations which were constructively started in Edinburgh. I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports that. As for the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary at the weekend, I hope that all hon. Members will deplore the criminal activities and violence that we have seen in recent weeks.
    Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman knows all about that——
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Since — [Interruption.] — there is now clearly very little trust between the chairman of the NCB and the president of the NUM—[Interruption.]—and since, sadly——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has not yet been called to ask a question, and if he goes on like that he will not be.
    Mr. Skinner: The Secretary of State knows all about crime—Slater Walker crime.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I realise the importance of this question, but I must ask hon. Members to treat it with a degree of calmness.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Since there is clearly very little trust between the chairman of the NCB and the president of the NUM, and since, sadly, the NCB has totally failed to get across to the miners its offer of secure jobs for those who want them, does my right hon. Friend think that there
    4
    is any possibility of the chairman and the president coming to an agreement? Has he given any thought to a third party possibly helping by getting negotiations going?
    Mr. Walker: No. The terms and details of the negotiations are available. A successful conclusion to the dispute would be in the interests of both the miners and the future of the industry.
    Mr. Parry: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when, in his reply to me of 11 June, he said that it was nonsense to suggest that troops were involved in the dispute, he was telling lies to the House, as these photographs show? Will not he now make a statemen——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not say that the Secretary of State was telling the House lies.
    Mr. Parry: I said that only because I have photographs with me which show conclusively that the troops assisted the police. Will the Secretary of State now come clean?
    Mr. Walker: I know of no involvement of troops in the dispute.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents who are in energy-intensive industries, such as the paper industry, depend for the existence of their jobs on the NCB's' programme of investing in new, low-cost sources of fuel and on the phasing out of high-cost sources of fuel? Will my right hon. Friend not lose sight of that in any negotiations? Indeed, will he emphasise that point in any publicity either in the House or outside about the issues at stake?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. The main issue at stake is that of securing a good future for the industry, and that can be achieved only if we obtain the benefits of the enormous investment programme which this Government have sanctioned and if we gain new markets by producing coal efficiently and at low cost.
    Mr. Haynes: When the Secretary of State last met the chairman of the NCB, did he encourage Mr. MacGregor to join him and his Cabinet colleagues on a course of character assassination in respect of the president of the NUM? If the right hon. Gentleman and his Cabinet colleagues believe in democracy, they must accept that the policy pursued by the NUM was carried at the annual conference by the NUM's membership.
    Mr. Walker: I am aware that most of the coalfields that had a ballot are working and that most of those that did not have a ballot are not.
    Mr. Adley: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that all the 60,000 miners who are working took part in a ballot and that miners who are not working were not balloted? Since my right hon. Friend says that Mr. MacGregor is willing to continue the Edinburgh talks, is it not clear that Mr. Scargill and his private army prefer fighting to talking?
    Mr. Walker: I hope that they will talk. The Opposition leadership has urged that such talks should take place and I hope that they will take place soon.
    Mr. Eadie: Did not the Secretary of State say at the weekend that the miners' dispute was the fault of the NUM president? Is he aware that that is absurd, as is his earlier statement that the strike would have no economic

    5
    consequences for the nation? Did Cortonwood or Polmaise really happen? Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that the chairman of the National Coal Board said that the last talks were suspended sine die? Will the Secretary of State now use his office, put action where his mouth was at the weekend and today announce that he will call both parties together and preside over the first meeting?
    Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman knows well, all miners at Cortonwood received a letter from the National Coal Board explaining that normal processes were available to them. The NUM has not taken up that offer.
    The chairman of the NCB has said that he is willing to continue the Edinburgh talks. The NUM must decide whether it is willing to have such talks. I have announced in the House the fact that the talks are available. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his considerable influence to persuade the NUM to attend the talks.
    Mr. Aitken: In my right hon. Friend's search for peace in the dispute, does he see some glimmer of hope in the apparent differences of approach that emerged over the weekend between the hard line of Mr. Scargill and the more constructive line of the NUM's general secretary, Mr. Heathfield? In particular, did my right hon. Friend notice that, whereas Mr. Scargill has always refused to discuss pit closures on any ground other than exhaustion, Mr. Heathfield suggested at the weekend that he was willing to discuss which pits are economic and which are not? Is there not some chance there?
    Mr. Walker: Certainly there is a report of an interview in which Mr. Heathfield is said to have made that clear. He said that he was willing to look at the difference between economic and uneconomic pits. It would be remarkable if any responsible trade union leader were unwilling to consider that.
    Mr. Canavan: Did the Secretary of State and his cronies, the Home Secretary and Mr. MacGregor, collaborate at the weekend in an attempt to conduct a smear campaign against Arthur Scargill and the rest of the NUM leadership? Is it not time that the Secretary of State listened to wiser counsels, such as that offered at the weekend by the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, who called on the Government to use every means at their disposal to achieve reconciliation? When will the Government accept their responsibilities for the dispute, instead of sitting back and doing nothing?
    Mr. Walker: The Government accepted their responsibility when they created the conditions for a record investment programme, a good wage offer and no compulsory redundancies.
    Mr. Hickmet: Does my right hon. Friend not find it astounding that no criticism should come from the Opposition Benches of the NUM's policy to put at risk the future of many thousands of steelworkers? In the light of the steel union decision today, may we have an assurance that all possible steps will be taken to ensure that adequate supplies of coal, ore and coke are moved into the major steelworks at Llanwern, Ravenscraig and Scunthorpe?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. It is clear from the TUC steel committee decision and from the attitudes of those employed at the major steelworks that they consider it totally unreasonable and disastrous that steel industry
    6
    prospects and jobs should be destroyed when the miners have a good pay offer, record investment and no compulsory redundancies.
    Mr. Dormand: Given that neither the NCB nor the NUM wish to move from their present positions—the Secretary of State must surely agree with that—what role should the Government now play?
    Mr. Walker: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. At Edinburgh, both sides were willing to talk and to examine objectively the long-term problems of the industry and "Plan for Coal". I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his powers of persuasion to ensure that the NUM agrees to talk.
    Mr. Rost: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that not one Opposition Member has condemned the intimidation and bullying of the increasing number of miners in Derbyshire and elsewhere who are having to fight their way into the collieries for the right to work? Will he give an assurance that he and the NCB will do everything possible to ensure that there is no victimisation of those who have held a ballot, have shown that they want to work, and are attempting to do so?
    Mr. Walker: The NCB has given that very firm assurance.
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Secretary of State categorically deny the suggestion that troops or military facilities have been used against the miners during the dispute? Has he considered using troops, or asked for them?
    Mr. Walker: I am not considering asking for the use of troops, and I know of no troops that have been involved in the dispute.
    Mr. Michael Morris: As my right hon. Friend has provided the financial conditions of a good wage settlement with no compulsory redundancies, is it not right that only the NUM and the NCB should settle what is or is not an exhausted pit?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. Of course, uneconomic pits have been closed under all Governments during post-war history, including under the last Labour Government. It has always been a matter for sensible and rational decision.
    Mr. Mason: With an estimated cost of £1,000 million to the NCB and the Government, with a forecast of a balance of trade deficit of £1·5 billion if the strike continues, with many pits falling into disrepair, with millions of pounds of coal face machinery being jeopardised and with police costs having risen to £50 million, will the right hon. Gentleman, who is responsible for the industry, now take a new version of "Plan for Coal" to the chairman of the NCB, designed to bring together both sides of the industry, and ask him to get on with it before it is too late?
    Mr. Walker: Of course I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about costs, but costs such as those for the police would have been very different had it not been decided to use the method of the mob for picketing rather than peaceful picketing. "Plan for Coal" is a sensible plan, which I agree is the basis for the solution of the dispute. The NCB is willing and eager to discuss that with the NUM.
    Mr. Ashby: In view of reports of students and professional agitators as well as miners being paid by the

    7
    NUM to mass picket at various sites, will my right hon. Friend ask our right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to investigate the finances of the NUM?
    Mr. Walker: The manner in which the NUM spends its money is a matter for that union.
    Mr. Wallace: The Secretary of State has refused on a number of occasions today to take the initiative and chair a meeting between the NCB and the unions. Bearing in mind that "Plan for Coal" was a tripartite agreement between the union, the NCB and the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman explain his extraordinary abdication of responsibility?
    Mr. Walker: I thought I had always stated that, after the two parties had met and decided on the points in "Plan for Coal" which they wished to put me, I would be prepared to preside over a meeting of all three parties. That has always been my position, and it has been made clear to both sides.
    Mr. Renton: Does my right hon. Friend think that when, yesterday, the leader of the Labour party gave his wholehearted support in public to the miners' strike without any condemnation of the illegality, violence or brutal picketing, he was helping to resolve the dispute or acting in a manner unworthy of the leader of the official Labour Opposition?
    Mr. Walker: I hope that the leader of the Labour party will use his influence and connection with the NUM to endeavour to persuade it to continue the useful talks that were taking place in Edinburgh. I realise that the leader of the Labour party has from time to time condemned violence and some of the intimidation that has taken place. I am only sorry that that condemnation has not had any results.
    Mr. Benn: Has the Minister taken account of the fact that no pits are working normally because there is a national overtime ban in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere; that Mr. MacGregor's letter to 180,000 people produced a few hundred responses; that his attacks on the NUM are consolidating opinion; that the Prime Minister admits in a letter to me that the use of troops has taken place in a supporting role; and that attempts to starve the miners by DHSS pressures have all failed? What contingency plans does the right hon. Gentleman have for after the miners succeed in defending their interests?
    Mr. Walker: All I can say is that they are defending an interest which is very different from the inferior pay and bad redundancy terms that were offered by the right hon. Gentleman, who was responsible for two drops in their pay in real terms and for 17,000 voluntary redundancies on rather bad terms.
    Mr. Hayward: In this distressing dispute, is my right hon. Friend aware of the even more depressing aspect of the picketing that is going on at Selby coalfield today, which is trying to spoil the long-term future of coal miners by stopping contract workers going in to develop that coalfield?
    Mr. Walker: I find it surprising that there should have been a number of instances where the capital investment programme for the future of the industry has been stopped by this sort of picketing.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while he and his colleagues are stomping about the country
    8
    trying to bring discredit on the NUM and its president, personal tragedies are taking place? For example, is he aware that in my constituency a youth and a friend, were attempting to get his grandmother small morsels of coal with which to light the fire, when they saw a police van in the distance, panicked, dived in the river in an attempt to get away and that one of those unfortunate young men drowned? When the right hon. Gentleman next meets Mr. MacGregor, will he draw to his attention the fact that his statement that he would like the strike to continue could result in further tragedies? Will the right hon. Gentleman inform Mr. MacGregor that if he continues to send out stupid letters in an attempt to get the miners to be disloyal to their union, he will be wasting his time? Will he also tell him that it might be advisable for him to keep his silly mouth shut?
    Mr. Walker: I agree that a great deal of human tragedy is taking place in this dispute. If the hon. Gentleman could persuade the NUM to go over to the system of picketing advocated by the TUC, much of this human suffering would stop.
    Mr. Eggar: Further to the supplementary question asked by the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason), will my right hon. Friend confirm that only two things are wrong with the 1974 "Plan for Coal": first, the NUM has signally failed to deliver on its productivity agreements; and, secondly, it has failed to reach the number of closures which it agreed under that plan?
    Mr. Walker: Of the three major ingredients of "Plan for Coal", the one that has been more than fulfilled during the lifetime of the Conservative Administration has been the capital investment programme. The productivity figures and estimated closures of uneconomic pits have not been reached.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a civil war is going on in parts of Britain? Is he further aware that when the Queen asked for a settlement, Queen Thatcher's response was to send the right hon. Gentleman and other Ministers cavorting around the country to discredit the miners' leaders?
    Mr. Walker: If we want to achieve a settlement, the hon. Gentleman should persuade the leaders of the NUM quickly to enter the talks that are now on offer.
    Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the lessons of the dispute so far is that no legislation, not even democracy itself, can survive without a basic respect for the rule of law? What message will he give the House and the brave men who are still at work who are terrified of what may happen to their wives and children?
    Mr. Walker: A great deal of courage has been shown by many of the 60,000 who are at work. I have no doubt that if we returned to normal peaceful picketing, tens of thousands of miners would be returning to work in the next few days.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the overwhelming majority of people want to see the two sides together discussing the issues in the dispute and trying to reach a settlement? Will it not be most regrettable if the chink of light that we saw in the pronouncement of the chairman of the National Coal Board and Mr. Peter Heathfield this weekend come to naught? Will he use his good offices with the chairman of

    9
    the Coal Board to ensure that the offer of talks is still on the table? Will he press Labour Members, who probably, through their party resources, have contributed about £2 million to the National Union of Mineworkers during the dispute, to put similar pressure on Mr. Peter Heathfield and his colleagues?
    Mr. Walker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I thought that the Opposition were endeavouring to get the two sides to speak to each other again. I hope that they will succeed in achieving that task. I have made it clear today that the Government favour that approach, and Mr. MacGregor has made it clear that he favours it. I hope that the NUM will accept the challenge.
    Mr. Hardy: The Secretary of State was probably right to refer to the talks at Edinburgh as offering some hope, but does he agree that the other talks since then have been more disappointing and that the talks at which Mr. MacGregor is present seem to be abortive? Is he aware that this has led the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers—it has nothing to do with the NUM—unanimously to call on him to withdraw Mr. MacGregor's appointment? The association recognised the danger to peace and stability in the coalfield, which has been badly threatened by the incompetence and negligence of the Home Secretary, who has yet to reply to letters written to him in March and April.
    Mr. Walker: The progress made at the Edinburgh talks was encouraging, and those talks were conducted by Mr. MacGregor. I hope very much that the constructive discussions that took place at those talks will quickly continue.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proper refusal of the steelworkers to agree to Arthur Scargill's outrageous request that they should co-operate to destroy the steel industry shows a complete lack of union support for Scargill, and that those who are on strike as a consequence of the dispute are those who are intimidated by Arthur Scargill's personal storm-troopers?
    Mr. Walker: Throughout the dispute much coal has been produced and moved and not one power station or steelworks has been closed. That remained the position even with the mass picketing at a small part of Orgreave, alas with the need for the protection of the police.
    Mr. Patchett: Does the right hon. Gentleman still deny that the dispute was created by the Government's policy of union bashing? Will he now declare where he stands on the issue, bearing in mind that the only contribution that he has made to a settlement is to attack the NUM president? As the dispute started with the appointment of Mr. MacGregor, who is renowned for union bashing, can the right hon. Gentleman still deny that it is all the Government's fault and that the dispute is about union bashing rather than the coal industry?
    Mr. Walker: If the provision of record investments, a decent pay offer and a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies is bashing a union, I should think that many other unions would like to be bashed.
    Mr. Ryman: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with two aspects of the dispute that have not been referred to this afternoon? First, while he continues to shirk his responsibilities, will he enlighten the House by explaining why the National Coal Board has not sought to enforce the
    10
    injunctions that it obtained a few weeks ago? Secondly, is he aware that a haemoglobin examination of many miners' families has revealed serious cases of anaemia as a result of malnutrition among striking miners' wives, who are unable to buy basic foodstuffs?
    Mr. Walker: The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question expresses the need to discontinue this unnecessary industrial dispute. The enforcement of injunctions in the civil courts is a matter for the nationalised industries and for the individual employer.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Did my right hon. Friend read the Sunday Telegraph yesterday, in which it was reported that the NCB had said that up to 40 mines would be closed permanently by December? Does he agree that it is the National Union of Mineworkers, and no one else, that is destroying jobs and trying to cripple the industry?
    Mr. Walker: There is a question later on the Order Paper on this point. There is anxiety, plainly, about the geological condition of the pits and the condition of the machinery in them. There is also considerable anxiety about the loss of markets that is occurring.
    Mr. Skinner: Did the Secretary of State also see in the Sunday Telegraph an article that referred to the number of firms that are losing money during the dispute? Does he know, for instance, that Kennings has stated that its profits have fallen from £4·8 million to £1·8 million as a direct result of the miners' strike?
    On the subject of intimidation, despite what he. the Home Secretary and others have said, why does he: not investigate the case of the cripple, Mrs. Mavis Seales, who went out collecting money for striking miners, returned home and found her front door knocked in? Why does he not investigate the case of Malcolm Crane of Hillstown, who reached home on Sunday morning and found that his car had been vandalised? He is on strike. Why does he not investigate the case of the two police officers who went into the soup kitchen at Creswell and were stealing miners' food while masquerading as pickets? Why does he not investigate all those cases? Are they just a smear by MI5?
    Mr. Walker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the cases he has mentioned will be correctly investigated by the police. I hope that at last he might join in deploring the thuggery that is taking place in many villages and on picket lines throughout the country.
    Mr. Orme: After several months of inactivity, why did the Secretary of State make a personal attack upon the president of the NUM? Is that the Secretary of State's contribution to resolving the dispute? Why, after 17 weeks, has he not met the NUM? I know that he has met Mr. MacGregor. Why has he not called them together? The Secretary of State referred to the Edinburgh talks that failed. Will he tell us what happened at Rotherham, and who was responsible for the failure of the talks there? When will he take some action that will help to bring the two sides together and result in a negotiated settlement that is acceptable to the miners and the National Coal Board?
    Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to see that talks have taken place. He is aware that throughout the dispute the chairman of the NCB has always been willing to have discussions on the basis of the Edinburgh talks.
    Mr. Orme: The NUM is willing to go to talks.
    Mr. Walker: In which case, they can get together quickly. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the NCB and the NUM are willing to have discussions on the basis of the Edinburgh talks, the NCB will turn up. Perhaps he will ensure that the NUM does.

    Energy Conservation
    Mr. Nicholas Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Energy what take-up of energy conservation measures there has been among local authorities, local education authorities and other such public bodies as a result of his recent initiatives.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Buchanan-Smith): Local authorities and other public bodies are taking an increasing interest in implementing energy conservation measures as a result of my right hon. Friend's recent initiatives.
    Mr. Baker: Has there been an increase in the number of inquiries by local authorities and other public bodies, because it is my impression that the take-up of energy conservation measures by those bodies is far too slow?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: These inquiries are coordinated by the local authorities' management services and computer committee. I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that since our energy conservation campaign was launched and the energy efficiency office set up last October, there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the number of inquiries going to that body. I welcome that, because I believe that there is tremendous scope for local authorities and other public bodies to enjoy the benefits of energy conservation.
    Mr. Forman: I warmly welcome the energy conservation campaign, which has been reinforced by the Government, but does my right hon. Friend believe that local authorities — many of which are in difficult financial circumstances this year — have enough resources available to them for those desirable purposes? If not, will he consider providing some additional specific help from his Department to that end?
    Mr. Buchanan-
    Smith: Considerable sums are spent — for example, by the Department of the Environment. Many of the measures of energy conservation are extremely cost-effective for the bodies concerned. Therefore, if they are prepared to invest in energy saving measures, there is a direct revenue return for the councils concerned, to their own benefit and the benefit of ratepayers.
    Eadie: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of any other available information, relevant to local authorities, concerning combined heat and power? It has been the subject of discussion for some time. It is all very well to tell people of the advantages of energy conservation, but some finance must be made available as well.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman seems to be slightly behind in his information. The matter of combined heat and power is being examined in different parts of the country and carried forward very satisfactorily.

    Sleipner Gas Contract
    Mr. Ormeasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the Sleipner contract.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: A decision will be taken as soon as possible.
    Mr. Orme: Will the Minister make a statement before the recess, as the Select Committee asked? Will he confirm or deny rumours that the Government will allow North sea gas to be exported, which could affect both stocks and prices?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is an important matter with far-reaching effects throughout the United Kingdom economy. No decision has yet been reached, so at this stage I cannot say whether a statement will be made. Once the decision is reached, we shall inform the House.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Public Galleries (Access)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will ask the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) to consider the matter of access to the public galleries.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I know of no general desire of hon. Members for a change in the present arrangements.
    Mr. Janner: In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman go to the Upper Committee Corridor and look at the brilliant caricature by P. C. Ian Nuttall of the long line of supplicant Members queueing up at the Admission Order Office, led by myself on my knees, seeking tickets for the Gallery? Will he look around the Galleries in this Chamber and see the number of empty seats that are allocated to the other place and to distinguished strangers and are never taken up? Will he seek some way to make those seats available, if not to the public, to guests of hon. Members?
    Mr. Biffen: I find the prospect of the hon. and learned Gentleman on his knees somewhat improbable. I shall, of course, draw his points to the attention of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-committee.
    Mr. Dykes: Now that we have a newly elected European Parliament, will my right hon. Friend perhaps look again at the question of access——
    Mr. Skinner: An Assembly, not a Parliament.
    Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend consider the question of access—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has as much right as anyone else to ask questions.
    Mr. Dykes: Despite the fact that there are now more Labour Members in the European Parliament than before, will my right hon. Friend consider the question of access to the Public Gallery and to other public and semi-public places by MEPs?
    Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend's question raises fairly wide-ranging and somewhat controversial issues which have already been considered by the House, but I shall draw his points to the attention of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-committee.
    Mr. Bermingham: Now that the Lord Privy Seal has, as an experimental gesture, granted access to the Gallery

    13
    by the blind and their accompanying guide dogs, will he extend the experiment to include those with other forms of physical handicap? It is disgraceful that handicapped people should have such difficulty in gaining access to the Public Galleries in this place.
    Mr. Biffen: Arrangements exist for handicapped other than the blind. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind other forms of handicap, perhaps he will get in touch with me.

    Summer Recess (Dates)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will announce the proposed dates of the summer parliamentary Adjournment.
    Mr. Biffen: The timing of the summer recess is dependent upon the satisfactory progress of parliamentary business. I shall be making an announcement at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Leader of the House consider the possibility of the House rising a little earlier this year, even if it means coming back a little earlier, bearing in mind that the Scottish school holidays have already started and may in some cases be almost over by the time that Parliament goes into recess?
    Is it not an absolute insult to family life that the dates of the parliamentary recess are treated almost like a state secret and seem to be more influenced by the grouse-shooting season than by children's holidays?
    Mr. Biffen: When this House was dominated by the land-owning classes before 1914, it usually sat well beyond the opening of the grouse season in August.
    The question of Scottish holidays is, of course, one of those taken into account by anyone determining the Adjournment date. I shall do my best to avoid the precedent created in recent times by the Labour Government in 1966, when we sat until 12 August.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most Conservative Members would also prefer the House to rise at a date closer to the time when our children leave school than when the grouse leave the moors?
    Mr. Biffen: I quite understand that point.

    Privy Council Office (Staff)
    Mr. Leighasked the Lord Privy Seal what has been the increase in Civil Service staff in the Privy Council Office handling the traditional functions of the office since 1954.
    Mr. Biffen: The number of senior officials, namely five, is the same as in 1954. There has been a reduction in the number of support staff from 28 to 22 over the past 30 years.
    Mr. Leigh: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the diaries of Sir Charles Greville, which show that when he retired as Clerk to the Privy Council in 1860, 29 people were employed there. They have increased by 6 per cent., while in the same period the numbers employed at the Home Office have increased from 39 to 36,446 — an increase of 93,351 per cent? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows that the taxpayers are given value for money in at least one Department of State, because it is not increasing its functions unduly, and does he further agree that some credit should go to successive Clerks to the Privy Council?
    Mr. Biffen: Yes. In Whitehall terms, that is an illustration of Schumacher's point that "Small is Beautiful".

    Table Office (Access)
    Sir David Priceasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will implement the recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure (Sessional Committee) in its third report of the 1975–76 Session that, in respect of tabling questions, access to the Table Office should be limited to Members only.
    Mr. Biffen: The imposition of any such rule would be a matter for decision by the House, and not by me.
    Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recommendation of the Select Committee an Procedure should be a modest discipline on colleagues in relation to the Table Office, and that even the most timorous of hon. Members do not need to be nannied by their personal assistants, secretaries and others and can jolly well table their own questions, as the older of us have always done?
    Mr. Biffen: Those are admirable sentiments, but I must point out that when the matter was investigated in 1975–76, it was discovered that only 6 per cent. of questions were tabled by secretaries and assistants to Members of Parliament. In the light of that finding, no subsequent action was taken.

    Public Gallery (Access)
    Mr. Hannamasked the Lord Privy Seal if he is yet able to confirm access arrangements for blind persons and their guide dogs when they visit the Gallery of the House.
    Mr. Biffen: The Services Committee agreed earlier this month that part of the space behind the partition at the rear of the Strangers' Gallery should be made available as a small partitioned area for two guide dogs, with suitable accommodation for each dog to sit beside its owner.
    Mr. Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend extend the thanks of the House to the Services Committee for at last finding an answer to this difficult problem, but accept that it should not have taken so long? Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Committee on the ingenious method that it has found for ensuring that guide dogs can stay close to their owners?
    Mr. Biffen: I shall, of course, pass on my hon. Friend's expression of gratitude to the Services Committee. I agree that considerable ingenuity has been shown in creating a special area for guide dogs.
    Mr. Wigley: I welcome this step forward, but is it not a disgrace that it has taken so long for blind people to have access to the Gallery without discrimination? Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that blind people, with their dogs, will also be able to go to Committee and other Rooms, to which people can go without dogs, without discrimination being shown against them?
    Mr. Biffen: One should put into context the circumstances in which blind people have access to the House, as it is only in the Galleries hitherto that they have not been accompanied by their guide dogs. But I shall consider the other matters raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the helpfulness of the police and the staff in the Palace to our blind and other disabled constituents who visit us here is worthy of praise?
    Mr. Biffen: Absolutely. I am delighted that my hon. Friend raised that matter. The whole House will endorse the courtesy with which the staff of the House greet the blind and disabled and make them feel as at home as possible.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend now confirm, with the welcome news that he has just given to the House, that every category of disabled person may now be admitted to the Galleries, subject to the availability of space and other such limitations?
    Mr. Biffen: I should like to consider that in the context of the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham).

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Trade Unions (Meeting)
    Mr. Parryasked the Minister for the Civil Service what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the Civil Service unions.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I shall be meeting representatives of the Council of Civil Service Unions on 12 July to discuss at their request the decisions about the pay of higher civil servants and their effect on pensions.

    Staffing Arrangements
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received on staffing arrangements in the Civil Service.
    Mr. Hayhoe: I regularly receive comments and views on matters affecting the staffing of the Civil Service.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Now that there is clear evidence that the Government are losing some of their most brilliant people from the Treasury, what does the Minister intend to do to stop this outflow of people who are necessary for government?
    Mr. Hayhoe: It is good that there should be a flow two ways, both of people coming into the Civil Service with experience of commerce and industry, and of people leaving the Civil Service and going to commerce and industry. With regard to career prospects for the high fliers in the Treasury and elsewhere, if that is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, I can assure him that careful attention is being given to career planning and training opportunities for them.
    Mr. Forman: What representations has my hon. Friend received from civil servants in the Customs and Excise Department, particularly in relation to the possibility that there might not be enough of them at the sharp end to deal with the serious drug importation problem?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The union concerned has certainly made representations, put forward a paper, and claimed for 500 additional Customs and Excise staff. The matter is being carefully considered. Sixty additional staff have been
    16
    allocated this year to enhance preventive controls. I pay tribute to the remarkable success rate of the Customs and Excise in seizing heroin. Five times as much heroin was seized last year as five years ago.
    Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister agree that unless there is a substantial increase in staffing in Customs and Excise to tackle the growing problem of drug smuggling, much of the other work done by the Minister's right hon. and hon. Friends to control drug abuse will be seriously undermined?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's claim. The numbers involved in the special investigation branch to deal with drugs have been increased significantly in recent years. The record of Customs and Excise on this issue is very good. The advice that comes to me is that the capabilities of our Customs and Excise compare favourably with those of other countries in the world.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Since the success rate is the ratio of detection to total imports, how does my hon. Friend know what the rate of total imports of drugs is, so that he can express his satisfaction with the proportion of detections to total imports?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I work on the advice of the professional managers of Customs and Excise, who I think will be regarded all round the world, certainly within the House, as having great expertise. On that advice, I make the assertion to the House that we are not complacent about this matter. The new committee under my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, which was recently announced, makes that clear. The Customs effort is being kept under review and, as I said, 60 extra staff have been allocated for this year.
    Dr. McDonald: Is not the Government's reply entirely complacent, in view of the epidemic proportions of heroin addiction, when a fix is available on the street at £5? Does the Minister admit that the Government are partly responsible for the situation because they have axed 600 staff from the "sharp end" of baggage control since 1979? Is he aware that the Civil Service unions have asked for 500 extra staff at that level and that the 60 staff of whom he is so proud are concerned not with baggage control but with investigative activities? Does he appreciate that, however important those investigative activities may be, heroin smugglers know that they can bring in heroin in baggage at airports and ports without any serious difficulty? Is it not time that the Government faced their responsibilities?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Lady seems to be arguing in favour of the static, predictable, uniformed staff checks of the past, whereas far greater emphasis is now placed on mobile and flexible controls at ports and airports, targeting mobile teams on high-risk areas. The great improvement in the seizing of drugs is a tribute to those staff and to the new and highly professional techniques that they use. We do not want a return to large numbers of uniformed staff making predictable checks on people coming in.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the whole series of replies from the Minister, I shall wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Financial Management Initiative
    Mr. Eggarasked the Minister for the Civil Service what responsibility the new head of the Government accounting service will have for implementation of the financial management initiative.
    Mr. Hayhoe: One of Mr. Wilson's responsibilities will be to advise on accounting aspects of the financial management initiative. He will be particularly concerned with the management accounting work on developing budgetary and information systems. He will also supervise the arrangements for developing and deploying the accountancy expertise needed for such work across Departments.
    Mr. Eggar: Will Mr. Wilson be able to insist that Departments publish their FMI plans in detail, and what action will he be able to take if Departments fail to implement those plans?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Mr. Wilson is not a supremo with powers of executive direction over Departments of State, responsibility for which remains with the Secretaries of State and Ministers in charge. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government believe that the plans should be published as widely as possible, bearing in mind problems of security and sometimes of commercial confidentiality.

    Trade Unions (Meeting)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister for the Civil Service if, when he next meets representatives of the Civil Service unions, he will discuss the effect of the reduction of the number of civil servants on recruitment.
    Mr. Hayhoe: As I have said, my next meeting with representatives of the Civil Service unions will be about the pay and pensions of senior civil servants.
    Mr. Chapman: Despite the reduction in the total number of civil servants and in the numbers recruited, will my hon. Friend confirm that about 30,000 new recruits are
    18
    still taken on each year? Does he agree that in those circumstances there should be no inhibition on obtaining the best people for the variety of important jobs carried cut by the Civil Service?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Yes, I confirm that recruitment to the non-industrial Civil Service is running at about 30,000 per year — in 1983, it was 29,300 — although I should emphasise in passing that that is less than half the 1978 figure of 64,700. I assure my hon. Friend that the standard of applicants is high and that there is certainly demand for the places available.
    Mr. Madden: What redress will civil servants have if they refuse to transfer and are threatened with suspension without pay?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The code of practice and the terms and conditions of employment are all set out in the Civil Service regulations, copies of which are in the Library.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Will my hon. Friend bring us up to date on the recruitment of graduates into the Civil Service?
    Mr. Hayhoe: A substantial number of graduates are being recruited, often into grades which 20 years ago attracted very few. For example, graduates now form a high percentage of entrants into the executive officer grade.
    Dr. McDonald: The Minister referred to an interdepartmental committee being set up to consider the necessity to recruit staff into the Customs and Excise, and elsewhere in the Civil Service, to deal with heroin addiction. The committee is not at the moment inviting any outside views on this important and serious matter. Will the Minister make every effort to ensure that the committee invites the views of interested bodies, to stress the need to control this type of addiction?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I shall pass on the hon. Lady's comments to my hon. Friend.

Enterprise Oil
3.30 pm
Mr. Stanley Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week the Secretary of State for Energy made a statement on Enterprise Oil. He assured the House that no company would be allowed to purchase more than 10 per cent. of the shares. On the stock market this morning, Rio Tinto-Zinc has purchased just under 30 per cent. I ask for a statement to be made to the House at the earliest possible opportunity. This turn of events shows once again that Government policy is in a shambles. Will the Secretary of State now make a statement on what is to happen and what action the Government will take?
The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker)rose——
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What point of order arises from that question?
Mr. Speaker: Absolutely none, but I believe that the Secretary of State is about to respond.
Mr. Walker: In view of the inaccuracy of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), and in view of the fact that the next question on the Order Paper is on this subject, I would like to answer it, if you will give your permission, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) to ask it.
Mr. Speaker: We have reached the end of Question Time. I had to make a judgment on question 1, with which eight other questions were answered. It seemed to me that this was a major matter facing the House today.
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister has indicated, uncharacteristically, a willingness to reply to the question, would it not be for the convenience of the House if he did so?
Mr. Dick Douglas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We recognise that you are in difficulty because of the strictures in relation to extending Question Time, but very important matters of public probity and responsibility are at issue. On behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House, I crave your indulgence in allowing the Secretary of State to reply to the question put down by my hon. Friend for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill).
Mr. Speaker: In view of the importance of the matter, have I the leave of the House to allow the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) to put his question?
Hon. Members: Aye.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No.
Mr. Speaker: I believe that the consensus of the House is that the hon. Gentleman should be allowed to ask his question.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Whether you should allow a question after the end of Question Time and whether wholly spurious points should be permitted to masquerade as points of order are wholly different matters.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that, if a point which is in no way a point of order is allowed to progress, there will be no end to the spurious points of order that will be raised.
20
Furthermore, if something requires the leave of the House and an hon. Member shouts "No", that is the end of the matter.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to dispose of this matter. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is a constitutional expert and I am most grateful for his views on the matter. However, I must take into account the fact that the calling of questions today was in my hands. I allowed question 1 to run rather longer than usual because of the importance of the matter. I am in the hands of the House. The hon. Member for Tiverton is right —there are no rules that allow me to do this—but if the House wishes the question to be asked I am prepared to allow it. I believe that it is the wish of the House that question 7 be asked.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not need any more points of order on this matter.
Mr. Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the point of order after question 7 has been asked.
Mr. O'Neill: I ask the Secretary of State for Energy question 7—whether he will make a statement on the sale of Enterprise Oil.
Mr. Peter Walker: The sale of Enterprise Oil for £392·2 million was completed last week. Dealings in the shares commenced this morning and prices have varied from a small discount to a small premium.
RTZ has announced that it intends to purchase further shares in the market. However, as a result of the decision taken by the Government last week that no individual company should obtain more than 10 per cent. of the equity as a result of the flotation, any further purchase of shares by RTZ, or any other company, will be subject to the normal rules of the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers and the Council for Securities Industries. These rules apply progressively to holdings of 15 per cent. or more.
The Government stated clearly in the prospectus that in its early years, this company would be free from outside control. I would reaffirm that it is the Government's firm intention to use the powers available to them, including the use of the special share, to secure this end.
Mr. O'Neill: Is not the Secretary of State's statement yet another humiliation for the Government? Does it not mean that the 10 per cent. figure has moved to 15 per cent.? Does it not mean that the flotation is thoroughly disreputable and should be withdrawn at the earliest possible opportunity?
Mr. Walker: Like the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), the hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that I clearly referred in my statement to 10 per cent. of the issue. There has never been any concealment from the market or anyone else that, after the issue was made, there would be perfectly free dealings in the company's shares and that if they took place the provisions of the special share would come into operation. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, like the right hon. Member for Salford, East, did not read my statement.
Several hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have let the question be asked, and we must move on.

BILL PRESENTED
  FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (No. 2)
  Mr. David Steel, supported by Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Clement Freud, Mr. Bruce George, Dr. David Owen, Mr. Richard Wainwright, Mr. Kenneth Warren, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. David Young, presented a Bill to establish a general right of access to official information for members of the public subject to certain exemptions; to establish the machinery for enabling the right of access to be excercised by members of the public; to make new provision for the protection of official information and articles; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to printed. [Bill 205.1]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, & c.
Ordered,
That the draft Education Support Grants Regulations 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Pedal Bicycles (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Companies Acts (Pre-Consolidation Amendments) (No. 2) Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Motor Vehicle Tyres (Safety) Regulations 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Donald Thomspon.]

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES
Ordered,
That the Estimates set out hereunder be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:

Class XV, Vote 1, Agricultural support, Scotland.

Class XV, Vote 2, Agricultural services and fisheries, Scotland.

Class XV, Vote 6, Roads transport and environmental services, Scotland.

Class XV, Vote 7, Local transport services, Scotland.

Class XV, Vote 24, Scottish Office administration. —[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

New Ireland Forum
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
3.37 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior)rose——
Mr. Dennis Skinner: This is the Secretary of State's swansong—the executioner is by his side.
Mr. Prior: Just because I put the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in order the other day, there is no need for him to try to get his own back today.
I strongly welcome this debate, and I am glad that it is on the New Ireland Forum report and several other documents, which are of great use and interest to the House. The New Ireland Forum report was published some time ago. Most people recognise that parts of it were disappointing and unacceptable to the British Government or British people. However, I recognise that there was positive value in its serious examination of nationalist aspirations, its emphasis on the importance of consent, its unequivocal condemnation of violence, its attempt to understand the Unionist identity and its openness to discuss other views. Above all, the tone of the document, its language and what has been said about it since are a very important part of all that has taken place over the past few months.
Much the same can be said about the Unionist document "The Way Forward". Its tone, its recognition of an Irish nationalist identity, its openness and its language are all an important contribution. When the rhetoric of the election campaign or, for that matter, the rhetoric of the divide itself is discounted, I think that there is much more hope of a positive climate than there has been for some while. Surely no one doubts that we should seek to build on the opportunity that now presents itself. In doing so, we all have to be well aware of the present circumstances in Northern Ireland.
I shall now say something about the security situation, and, in doing so, pay tribute on behalf of the House to the work of the police and the Army. There has been a great improvement over the past few years in the security situation, yet still the toll of terror and murder is present. Every incident divides society more, and no one knows that better than the terrorists themselves. They seek to undermine democratic politics, and because they seek to do that we must in turn find a strong and effective political response. Unless we do so, terrorism will go on, as it may even if we do so.
I have to tell the House that I have changed my view over the years. At one time, I felt that a major, strong and effective political response would in itself prevent terror. Now I am of the belief that in the short run political progress may increase terrorism, for a short time before things improve. I have to remember as well that many terrorists are so deeply enmeshed in crime and criminality of all sorts that it would be very difficult to wean them away from it.
We still face a very difficult security situation, and we have to couple that with an equally bad economic position. We have unemployment of just over 20 per cent. We have a very young work force with more young people coming on to the labour market than anywhere else in the United Kingdom or in most countries of Western Europe. We
24
have more women wishing to return to the labour force. All this means that, even given that there is no deterioration from the present position, over the next four years the number of unemployed is likely to rise to some 25 per cent.
The difficulties of attracting inward investment on which so much of the future employment of the Province depends are, of course, made far greater by the terrorist activity that still takes place. Nor do I believe that it is healthy for a society to be as dependent on public expenditure as Northern Ireland has been in recent years. Again, that poses a serious problem for Northern Ireland.
It is against that background of violence and economic deprivation that we look today at these reports. If I feel a sense of urgency, it is born of an intense desire to find a way to help a very remarkable people — a people of immense courage. Today, in a ceremony at the Cenotaph in Belfast, people will be paying tribute to the Ulster division which took part in the battle of the Somme. Throughout its history, the people of Ulster have found occasion to show quite extraordinary courage. We should all pay recognition to that fact.
There is great resilience in the Province. When one considers the setbacks of the past few years it is little more than a miracle that Northern Ireland has maintained as great a degree of normality as it has. The Province is an extraordinarily friendly place. Despite all that in historical terms—some would have said even in modern terms—the Northern Irish have suffered at the hands of the British, they hold out the hand of friendship in a way that would do credit to any other part of the world. For all those reasons, it is not surprising that as Secretary of State I feel a sense of urgency and an enormous desire to do what one can to help the Province forward.
There have been some notable improvements over the past few years. Housing in Northern Ireland is now improving dramatically, particularly in Belfast. Leisure facilities and health and social services have all prospered. That is of credit to both Governments. We should not be ashamed of taking credit for it. Nor should we underestimate the much greater fairness that there is in society now compared with 15 years ago. There is the ombudsman, the Fair Employment Agency and the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. In his 1983 report the ombudsman said that he has not received one complaint of political or religious discrimination. However, despite that, the minority still feel that they have fewer opportunities and do suffer discrimination. They feel it in jobs and in contact with the police and the Army. I hope that the news of the last few days that Shorts is contemplating an additional factory to occupy part of the old De Lorean factory will come about. That is another sign of the need to spread jobs as widely as we possibly can.
Mr. Martin Flannery: When the Secretary of State says that there have been no complaints of religious discrimination to the ombudsman, surely he realises that that is because people feel that it is hopeless to complain. That is why, among other reasons, this struggle is going on.
Mr. Prior: That sort of comment does not help at all. I am trying to speak in as conciliatory and reasonable a way as I can. There is nothing to stop people from

25
complaining. They complain to me if they want to, and I am certain that they are capable of complaining to the ombudsman as well.
It is true that we have tried, as did our predecessors in government, to encourage political understanding within the communities. The way that we chose was to set up an Assembly through the Northern Ireland Act 1982. The Assembly has done valuable work and its committees have been of considerable importance. It is equally true, as in this House, that sometimes the plenary sessions have been less successful, but that is nothing particularly marked in modern chambers of Parliament. The Assembly was designed to ensure that the difficult problems did not have to be taken head on in the early days of the Assembly. John Morley, Mr. Gladstone's Ireland Secretary, said:
"The best guarantee of justice in public dealings is the participation in their own government of the people most likely to suffer from injustice".
That is another reason why I want to see the whole community represented in an assembly in Northern Ireland.
That, then, is the background against which to judge the prospect for movement. Burke once said:
"nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little".
The dangers for the people of Northern Ireland of sitting back and doing nothing are greater than the obvious risks of seeking to make some political advance. There are several documents before us, and there is much common ground between the Unionist document "The Way Forward" and the report of the New Ireland Forum. In an interesting article in the Belfast Telegraph on Friday, Dr. Garret FitzGerald wrote;
"Reading the two reports"
—that is, the forum Report and "The Way Forward"—
"as objectively as a committed participant in the preparation of one of them can do, I am struck by the extent to which they together provide a basis for dialogue. This is true despite the fact that the principal thrust of each is different, and that the gap between the nationalist and unionist approaches in the two documents remains, naturally enough, very wide."
Indeed, "The Way Forward" says:
"The time is now ripe for both communities in Northern Ireland to realise that, essentially, their problems will have to be solved in Northern Ireland by their political representatives and that any future prospect for them and their children is best provided for within the Northern Ireland context. This will require a mutual recognition of each other's hopes and fears. Only rights can be guaranteed, not aspirations, but it is the responsibility of the majority to persuade the minority that the Province is also theirs."
In trying to plot a way forward, that gives us a good deal to work on.
However, the forum report was much less than fair to what successive British Governments have sought to do during the past 15 years. There has been much discussion about the realities, which are contained in the first part of chapter 5 of the report. But there is one overriding and abiding reality from which we cannot escape, and that is that consent is simply not forthcoming for any formulation that denies the Unionists their night not only to belong to the United Kingdom but to be apart from the Republic. That consent must be free and cannot be coerced. I do not think that any hon. Member believes that coerced consent could possibly work.
This is where the report's difficulties begin to show. It outlines three models. The first is a unitary state, the second a form of federation, and the third is called "joint authority". The report makes it clear that each is to be
26
achieved by "agreement and consent". Inasmuch as any of the models significantly alters the sovereignty of Northern Ireland, it is a dangerous fallacy to imagine that the Unionist majority will agree. It is equally false to imagine that the Government or anyone else can engineer or induce such agreement. I do not know how those who seek a unitary state by consent imagine that they can secure it in the foreseeable future.
But it would be unfair to the tone of the report and to the way in which it has been presented by the Irish Government to concentrate only on those detailed points. The report leaves room for other views. As it says:
"The parties to the Forum also remain open to discuss other views which may contribute to political development."
Indeed, Dr. FitzGerald described the report as an agenda and not a blueprint. He put particular emphasis on the realities and principles set out in the first paragraphs of chapter 5. Recognising our different perspectives, he suggested that we give our own understanding of the realities in Northern Ireland I agree that that would be helpful, and I have already mentioned consent. It is a fact that the majority of people in Northern Ireland are totally committed to maintaining it as part of the United Kingdom and are firmly opposed to becoming part of a united Ireland on any terms. Unionists utterly reject incorporation into an Irish state with what they see as its Roman Catholic ethos, its tradition of neutrality and political parties from a very different background.
At the same time, there is a substantial and significant minority of people in the Province who are strong]Ly committed to Northern Ireland sooner or later becoming part of a united Ireland. They feel no sense of identification with many aspects of government nor with those whose job it is to uphold law and order in Northern Ireland. They resent the fact that there is so little scope for expression of their Irish identity. They see themselves as excluded from any effective exercise of political power over the affairs of the Province. That increases the suspicion with which they view the actions and motivations of both Unionists and the Government of the United Kingdom.
Fifteen years of violence have deepened suspicions and mistrust in both communities. To that extent, agreement is now harder to achieve. To suggest that there is some simple and quick solution that can somehow overcome those fundamental differences only arouses false expectations and fears, and so leads to greater instability and violence. Therefore, we must be realistic about our objectives and difficulties.
The second reality is that, whatever views may be taken about the merits of partition, now, more than 60 years on, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and is recognised internationally as such. Indeed, Northern Ireland has been part of the United Kingdom for more than 180 years and Protestants have been part of its society for much longer than that. It is right, therefore, both in principle and in practice, that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland should be amended only by the freely given consent of its people. That has been recognised—and, I think, is still recognised—by successive Irish Governments.
For our part, that is, of course, set out in section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. However, I do not believe that enshrining it in legislation is of very great importance. I have always felt that what mattered was not what was written in the Act but the consent of the

27
people. All sorts of things could be overturned in an Act, but without the consent of the people such changes could not be made. If the implications of that reality are fully accepted, they should open up the possibility of dialogue without fear of misunderstanding or misrepresentation. The more the demand for repeal, the greater perhaps the suspicion. But I personally do not believe that that is all that important.
The third reality is that, as long as Northern Ireland is a sovereign part of the United Kingdom, its government and administration must ultimately remain a matter for this Parliament. It is for Parliament to decide. Parliament rightly has to take account not just of the wishes and strongly held principles of the majority but the strongly held views and principles of the minority. It must be satisfied that there is the necessary degree of acceptance, since without that no democracy can be made to work. It must also recognise the interests, values and standards of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. This does not necessarily mean that the Province will be governed in exactly the same way as other parts of the United Kingdom or that it must be governed exactly as the majority wish. We shall take account of all views.
The fourth reality is that the government and administration of Northern Ireland must be undertaken in the light of the needs and responses of the people there and of the resources available to the United Kingdom as a whole. We believe that these needs are best met in a devolved administration which has the support of both sides of the community. When it comes to the government and administration of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, there is no Unionist veto, just as there is no nationalist veto.
We recognise the sense of grievance and frustration which history has created in the minority community. So, as we are committed to the support of the majority in their right to self-determination, we are equally committed to the minority. Arrangements should be directed at recognising the Irish identity, and at developing the minority's participation and confidence in all the structures and processes of Northern Ireland. Some aspects of our practices and administration are not sensitive enough to those requirements. We are ready to talk with the constitutional representatives of the minority community to identify what these are and to see what we can do to help. But while the Government are prepared to recognise and accommodate the sense of Irish identity among the minority in this way, they cannot accommodate any identity, whether Unionist or nationalist, expressed through violence or through rejection of the law and institutions of the country.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State says that neither the nationalists nor the Unionists will have a veto in the consideration of what is acceptable and important to this House. Given that both in London and in Dublin there are large areas of common interest which are vital and which are seen through similar eyes, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there will be no veto from Northern Ireland when there is a large measure of agreement between Westminster and Dublin?
Mr. Prior: That will be so, where changes in the Northern Ireland constitution are not involved. Of course, we are prepared to consider all views, but implicit in
28
everything is obtaining the consent of the people of Northern Ireland if any change in the constitution is to be made.
The fifth reality is that geography, as well as the fact that many people in Northern Ireland feel an allegiance to Dublin and to the Irish state, calls for a close relationship between the United Kingdom Government and the Republic. We have much in common. Much of our history is shared. We have a cultural heritage which is distinctive but intertwined. Family ties bind many of us together. We share many of the same concerns in society, in our economies, in our relations with other parts of the world, in our parliamentary traditions and our democratic values. We are major trading partners in the European Community. We share a common border and we have a joint and abiding concern for the peace, stability and prosperity of these islands. We have a terrorist problem, the political creed of which knows no boundaries and which is a problem and threat to us both. These are the realities of our relationship.
Recognising all the realities—both those which affect Unionists and Nationalists in the north and those which derive from the position of the Irish state and the Government — how should we proceed? A degree of institutional co-operation already exists. Ideas in many areas — security, economic and parliamentary — are worth exploring for the benefits that they will bring to all sides.
A parliamentary body drawn chiefly from Westminster and the Dail could be of value and could strengthen further the good will of the Anglo-Irish parliamentary group. But, however beneficial such ideas might be, not least for security arrangements, they are unlikely to be accepted and therefore they are unlikely to be workable, so long as the suspicion is that they are directed, not at reflecting the interest of the minority and or common concerns, but at advancing the Republic's constitutional claim against the wishes and consent of the majority of the people.
The need for assurance and countering alienation is not all one way. That is why I think that Dr. FitzGerald's recent interviews on radio and television and in the press have been valuable.
The purpose of comparing our realities with those set out in the forum report is to gauge what our relationship could and should be, so that it gives greater confidence to both communities that they can fulfil their traditional roles within Northern Ireland.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Secretary of State used the word "chiefly" a few moments ago in relation to the parliamentary tier. He said that the body would be "drawn chiefly from Westminster and the Dail". Where else?
Mr. Prior: I hope that representatives might also come from the Northern Ireland Assembly. I think that the body has importance without that. That is why I do not want to push that issue too far at this stage.
Mr. Julian Amery: Many of us are in favour of representation from Westminster and the Dail, but we have strong reservations about representation from the Assembly.
Mr. Prior: That is one view. People must work out what is acceptable for themselves. I think that a number of people from the Assembly would wish to come to such

29
a parliamentary institution. If they do not wish to come, they will not. They will boycott the body. That is an old Irish custom with which I am familiar.
Summing up, the present situation is not satisfactory. It is not satisfactory for the Government who face the continued drain on our political, economic and human resources. It is not satisfactory for nationalists in Northern Ireland, who feel cut off from decision making and from a proper recognition of their Irish identity. It is not satisfactory for Unionists, who are blamed for their intransigence and who are as cut off from decision making as the nationalists, particularly at local government level, which they value so much. It is not satisfactory for the Irish Government, who are challenged to propound and justify nationalist aspirations and who are menaced themselves by terrorist violence. It is not satisfactory for our two countries, knowing Northern Ireland can remain a source of friction and ill will between us.
If we are to find ways of taking things forward, we must each be convinced that they will lead to real improvement. The Government are not prepared to introduce measures which are designed simply to enhance the interests of one group or the other and which are guaranteed to lead to further turmoil.
We have in the next few months the opportunity to find some better ways, following from the forum report, "The Way Forward" and the other documents produced by the political parties and the Assembly. I want to see careful, detailed and substantive discussions taking place between the parties. I hope that each political party in Northern Ireland will be ready to talk to each other, without commitment other than to finding some better way forward. They have not always been prepared to do that. I hope that they might do so without great publicity or damaging speculation. We must have patience and allow things to be taken quietly and steadily.
I am convinced that it is better for the parties themselves to find common ground than for us to try to force it upon them. However, I have no illusions that this will be easy. The Government could not possibly stand idly by. For their part, the Government will want to have talks with each of the parties involved and with the Irish Government. In addition, the Prime Minister will meet the Taoiseach before the end of the year. We want that to be a useful and constructive meeting.
Throughout all our talks, we shall test whether, and, if so, in what way, those we meet wish to be involved with the arrangements that might develop. Unionists can take part in the knowledge that the position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom is secure. Nationalists can do so knowing that we want to find an acceptable way to involve them and that we are concerned about the views that the Irish Government have expressed on their behalf.
There are many possibilities. I have stated my preference for a devolved administration. It has much to offer both Unionists and nationalists. It would complement well the development of normal Anglo-Irish relations. Within the various levels of administration, it should be possible fully to reflect the width of interest within both communities and to safeguard the concern of each, while recognising the British and Irish aspects.
I do not rule out any of the schemes now being tentatively discussed in the Assembly's Report Committee. I do not wish this afternoon to mention specific proposals. What is important today is to open the debate, to start people thinking about how to respond and
30
to drive home once more the dreadful penalty of failure. The aim is to move towards agreement or, at least, towards acquiescence which could then lead to a shared perception of what is acceptable. It is mainly a matter for the political parties in Northern Ireland, for their constituents and for their leaders. It will require from them both flexibility and imagination.
In the past, we have been too preoccupied with the search for the ideal. People have been too ready to hold out for their ideal. Any new arrangements must, almost by definition, fall short of everyone's basic ideal. But accommodation and agreement provide by far the best basis for the future. I warn against dramatic or hasty gestures and the constant cry for new initiatives. Only by steady, quiet progress and confidence-building can we achieve results. The coming months are, therefore, crucial. We have a real opportunity to take matters forward. No doubt there will be much rumour, a good deal of apprehension and many attempts at misrepresentation. We expect the terrorists to try to upset the prospects for progress, as they have tried to do for some time.
I have tried to set out the economic and security worries that beset us. Within Northern Ireland the people have an overwhelming desire for peace and employment. Whether a Catholic in New Barnsley or the Bogside or a Protestant in South Armagh or the Shankill, they are the people of Northern Ireland and they deserve better than they have had these past 15 years. We are in politics in this House to further the welfare of the people. Never was that a more worthy objective than in Northern Ireland, and that is why today should be a further step along that difficult path.
4.13 pm
Mr. Peter Archer: In a debate of this sort, there are two possible roles for the Opposition. We may believe that the Government are fundamentally wrong, that vital principles are at stake and that unless the Government can be turned aside from their course it will inevitably lead to disaster. Then, the task of Opposition speakers is to urge the Minister to think again, if he will listen, and, if he will not, to rally resistance. That is an easy speech to make. If the issue is plain and important enough, if the folly of the Government's course is obvious to everyone other than the Prime Minister, the Opposition can have a great time at the Dispatch Box evoking cheers on the one side and catcalls on the other. The Government have presented us with no shortage of such issues—divisive, confrontational and disastrous.
But if the Opposition believe that the Minister is confronted by problems that are not of his own making, that he is anxious to avert a tragedy, that he is not without compassion, and I believe all those of this Secretary of State—although he will not thank me for saying so, I am not sure that he is entirely at home in the Cabinet—it may be that the Opposition can best serve those immediately affected by encouraging the Minister to persevere and by stiffening his back. Of course, the task then of Opposition speakers is less dramatic. They have not to evoke cheers but to encourage serious thought. The price is that the debate will be low key and less entertaining.
I have my differences with the Secretary of State; there is little accord between us on economic issues. Indeed, if anyone doubts that, they should read the report of our debate on industrial training last week. Some of the Secretary of State's remarks in his opening speech might

31
lead me to join issue with him, but our differences can be debated on another occasion. Unless he succeeds in his major objective to initiate a discussion, and unless the parties are interested in discussing the nature and extent of the issues, debating our differences does not matter.
If the political leaders in Northern Ireland say, "We do not want to discuss; we prefer slogans to ideas; we want the waste and the alienation and the frustration to continue; we want to underline our differences in human blood; we want to leave behind as our political testament a trail of alienation and violation," then the real nature of the issues does not matter. All of us in the House care for the people of Northern Ireland. The Opposition have no other concern. There is no practical advantage and no political mileage in one outcome rather than another. We are concerned only to plead with the parties to rest their cases not on the repetition of slogans, but on rational discussion and to explore how the interests of everyone can be fairly and effectively protected.
The Secretary of State has urged the parties to undertake a dialogue. If ever I was blessed with the gift of persuasion, I hope today to persuade them to try. Democratic politics and constitutional processes are about exploring differences and saying how they can be resolved. But if each side is content to blame the other for refusing to discuss, while the misery slides into tragedy and the tragedy into chaos, nothing would be more pointless than for the Secretary of State and me to debate the constitutional details of our differences.
I do not propose to rehearse the cost of the troubles in human life or the economic resources that are vitally needed for other purposes. The tariff is too well known. If the price is not obvious, it cannot become more so by my reciting statistics. I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about terrorism. We shall have an opportunity to discuss that on Thursday, and I am content to leave it there. If it is not obvious that every section of the community, from all the traditions, would benefit if the future could become certain rather than have hanging over their heads a chronic uncertainty, I doubt whether I could make it more obvious by spelling it out.
I wish to make clear where the Opposition stand. We believe that political parties in Great Britain should level with the people of Northern Ireland. They are entitled to an honest statement. I believe that much of the anxiety and mistrust arises because British Governments have not always made their position clear. The United Kingdom Government cannot accept the role of a silent traffic policeman; they are necessarily involved. If there is to be any way forward, we must tender a view with which the various parties can express their agreement or disagreement.
The Opposition believe that the interests of the people of Northern Ireland will be best served by the unification of Ireland. My hon. Friends and I have given our reasons for believing that many times, and they are well known. I should be happy to debate them on any proper occasion. Perhaps, if some of my hon. Friends catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, they may wish to deploy them again today. There are right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber who disagree. I have heard their reasons and I respect them.
We believe in unification, but by consent, and there is no hedging or fudging on either part of that proposition. I have been asked to confirm that consent means consent
32
freely given. It does. That is not an announcement of policy but a statement of the dictionary definition of the word. Of course, consenting to something is making a decision, and no decision is ever wholly free; it is always made within certain constraints. — [Interruption.] Making a decision entails taking account of the consequences of doing something or of not doing it. When we talk about consent, we mean consent, and that is only to recognise the practicalities.
I agree with the Secretary of State that it is not what is in an Act that is important. The shotgun wedding of 1 million with 3 million people without their consent would simply not be workable. I am sure that there are those who cannot wait to speak in the debate to declare that that is an idle policy because that consent, they say, will never be forthcoming. I disagree. I will do my best to persuade the people of the Loyalist tradition that, given appropriate conditions, agreement would be the voice of wisdom.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Put up candidates.
Mr. Archer: How we resolve our differences is a matter that I do not intend to debate with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) today. I believe that agreement would be the voice of wisdom and that future generations of Northern Ireland Protestants would agree with that. I believe there will come a time when they will see that, but I may be wrong. If there is to be any peace for the people of Northern Ireland, we should all consider it possible that we may be wrong. Time will decide which of us is right. History will adjudicate on who can say, "I told you so."
But today we are not discussing unification. Nobody in his right mind would ask the Loyalist parties to come forward today and declare their consent to unification. If I were in their position, I should want to be much clearer as to what was on offer and much more specific as to the conditions on which, no doubt, they would insist.
All that is being asked today is that the parties should agree to talk. Right hon. and hon. Members from the Loyalist tradition should accept that we in the Opposition want to talk to them as friends. There is no purpose in that unless we talk to them as honest friends, and there are things that they should know. It will not do to say that if there is no agreement on the ultimate constitutional solution, we cannot change the status quo.
The status quo is not neutral. It is seen by the Nationalist people as a victory for the Unionists, and one third of the population of Northern Ireland will say that nobody asked their consent to the present arrangements, and they will say that they did not consent to them. The requirement of consent cannot be construed as a veto over any initiative, any experiments or any political developments. A province cannot be governed by opinion polls or referendums.
I know that the Unionist people are not happy with the status quo, either. Those of us who have taken part in debates in this House late at night on unamendable orders know that direct rule is not a sensible way of governing Northern Ireland, if there can be any agreement on an alternative. We shall be discussing that later today.
Those who are content to rest indefinitely with the status quo, if such there be, have completely failed to grasp the sense of frustration, the degree of alienation, that exists among normally decent, law-abiding people who

33
find that they perish because there is no vision. At stake today is their confidence in constitutional politics. Not the Ombudsman, not even the courts, can restore that until they see some hope of a constitutional solution.
Mr. David Winnnick: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that while, of course, there are no simple solutions—only a fool would believe that there are simple solutions to the tragedy in Northern Ireland — it is a fact that not only was the minority community in Northern Ireland never asked for its consent over partition but that part of the whole argument is that the consent of the Irish people as a whole was never sought? Partition was imposed for one reason only, and that was to provide an in-built majority for the Unionists, and hence the six rather than the nine traditional counties of Ulster.
Mr. Archer: My hon. Friend knows the history of Ireland well, as I do, but my purpose today is not to be divisive. Subsequent contributions may deploy those arguments. But we should not spent too much time concentrating on the history of Northern Ireland. We might do better for a change to concentrate on the future.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that the present boundary of Northern Ireland was discussed in and ratified by the Dail, was ratified by this House and Stormont and was lodged at the League of Nations? Therefore, it had acceptance by the elected representatives of the whole of Ireland.
Mr. Archer: If we embark on a discussion of the history of the matter, I suspect that we shall debate nothing else today. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) had grasped the fact that the one thing that I did not wish to do was to open historic sores. We should concentrate on the future. If the hon. Gentleman prefers not to do that, then that is a matter between him and his conscience.
Our message to the Government is that we cannot adopt the role of a passive observer. If there is a tide in the affairs of men, it may be at the flood. If ever there was a moment when dialogue seemed possible and when only the most callous and blind remained wholly intransigent, that moment is now.
We do not expect the Loyalist people to announce their complete agreement with every proposition in the forum report. That report is essentially an invitation to talk, as Dr. FitzGerald has repeatedly reminded us and as the Secretary of State reminded us today. What is new about it is a recognition by the parties on the Nationalist side that the Unionist people have an identity that they are entitled to cherish and protect, and that they can legitimately ask that any solution should recognise their interests.
It has evoked a response from the Unionist side. "The Way Forward" is not likely to provide a definitive solution to all the differences. Those on the Nationalist side will say that it does not go far enough to meet their aspirations, but it demonstrates that on the Unionist side, too, there is recognition of the Nationalist identity and a willingness to discuss how that can be given effect.
Those two documents are the product of a generation which has learnt, and learnt the hard way. It is inconceivable that they would have been produced 20 years ago. So we call on the Government to invite the parties to the table. It may have to take the form of a formal
34
conference. It may require defensive opening statements with the television cameras concentrating on personalities seen entering and leaving. If it must have a dramatic launch, so be it, but, like the Secretary of State, I envisage it being an on-going discussion that gets down to business when the tumult and the shouting dies, and that it may last for a long time.
The issues will not be solved quickly and easily. There will be tough talking. I will settle for that if they are talking to one another and not past one another. Of course, neither side will offer its most tempting concessions at the outset. Each side will keep its bargaining factors until the end.
Mr. James Molyneaux: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have noticed that there is currently a little dispute taking place in this larger island about the future of the mining industry. Does he feel that it might be helpful if the Prime Minister were to invite the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal party, the Leader of the SDP — together perhaps, with Mr. Scargill providing the secretariat—to settle this little matter?
Mr. Archer: As the right hon. Gentleman asks me, one of my complaints about the Prime Minister is that she has abdicated responsibility for the settlement of that dispute. I should like the parties to be brought together for talks because I believe that that is what democratic constitutional politics is all about.
We do not want a conference with a spotlight, film crews and television cameras. We want the parties to be in a position in which they can talk quietly and get down to the serious issues between them. The leader in today's edition of The Guardian — which I consider to be a thoughtful piece— suggested that we should attempt in this debate to establish where the Unionists draw their bottom line. I shall be amazed if that is spelt out in this debate. There may be differences within the traditions as well as between them. Whether the rational elements or the hardliners on either side prevail may depend on whether the other side seems ready to respond with reason. Hysteria on one side of the divide is necessarily nurtured by hysteria on the other.
If I am asked what the agenda is to be, I have a problem — [Interruption.] Surely even Conservative Members can see what the problem is. Any attempt to spell out an agenda in the first place will be thought to be too limiting. I hope that nothing that the Secretary of State said today was intended to limit the agenda. I know what I should like the parties to agree on, but what I want to see does not matter and what Conservative Members want does not matter either. Let us recognise our limitations. Let nothing be excluded from the agenda. Let everything be on the table. Let there be a rolling agenda that unfolds as the talks proceed and as the parties come to understand one another.
Part of the problem will be the vocabulary itself. Some words are highly emotive, but when they are analysed the beast in the cage turns out to be a pussy cat. We find that certain words have no rigid single meaning. We may find that the problems are not so intractable as it is fashionable to think. I have invited friends in both traditions to List the elements in their identity which they fear may be in danger, and the list is not usually a long one. At the end of the day it usually resolves itself into one factor on each side on which the two traditions appear to be

35
irreconcilable. There is the link with the United Kingdom on the Loyalist side, and on the Nationalist side it is the reunification of Ireland.
I am not persuaded that those two aspirations are irreconcilable. National sovereignty is a concept that in our generation is becoming more flexible in a hundred ways. Peoples in different territories find that their economies, their protection from pollution, their security and their prospects of peace are dependent upon arrangements with more than one Government. Some communities find no difficulty in claiming protection and offering their loyalty to more than one nation state.
The Secretary of State referred to the sacrifice and the heroism of the people of Northern Ireland in successive wars. I endorse that and I pay my full tribute to it. There are many churchyards in the Republic where tombstones bear witness to the sacrifices that were made voluntarily by people on the other side of the divide. The tragedy of the Loyalist community is its growing conviction that its history and collective sacrifice have not gained it acceptance as an integral part of the United Kingdom by the 50 million inhabitants on this side of the water.
In Great Britain, Northern Ireland is seen all too often as a problem. It has never been treated as an integral part of the United Kingdom. Its relationship with London has been clouded over the years by anxiety and mistrust. Every tragedy has its comic side. The salvation of the people of Northern Ireland is that just when we come to think that the river of tears will never cease, their sense of humour breaks through.
Many years ago, one of my Loyalist friends gave me a copy of Robert Harbenson's book entitled "No Surrender". The younger generation will regard the book as rather dated, but in a perceptive account of his childhood and youth in Belfast is Robert Harbenson's description of the reaction in Sandy row to the coronation of King George VI. There was a complete outpouring of loyalty and the children at school were duly presented with a magnificent coronation book, which they greatly prized. It contained photographs of the Royal family. Unfortunately, their beliefs were shattered. One of the pictures showed the then Princess Elizabeth, who is now our Queen, being received by the Duke of Norfolk, and they had discovered that the Duke of Norfolk was a Catholic "So it was all a con. We cannot trust the English. There was King Billy's successor shaking the hand of a Mick." It is an example of the tragic and chronic sense of imminent betrayal. If Northern Ireland were no longer seen as a problem, if the occasions for contention were removed, if the future were certain and if the relationship were seen as an opportunity and not a running sore, I believe that its links with this side of the water could possibly be happier and more relaxed.
Now we come to the hard bit. I have been asked what the Opposition will do if there are parties who are so afraid of the transformed and unknown world in which they will be living when the problems are solved, political leaders who are so uncertain about their own positions when people have no more need to fear, that they will not embark on discussions—people who are prisoners of old habits and old ways of thinking. I am asked what the Opposition would be urging the Government to do in those circumstances.
36
This is where I cannot win. If I decline to spell out the Opposition's view, it will be said that we have not thought the issue through. If I explain what we would do, I shall be accused of threatening. We have no wish to threaten. The tragedy of politics in Northern Ireland is that there have been too many threats. To indicate what we would do if there were no solution is not to threaten reasonable people who want a solution, any more than the Theft Act is a threat to honest people who do not propose to steal.
Of course we have contemplated the possibility that our appeal may fall on deaf ears. We have considered what we would do in that unattractive situation and we shall do no service to anyone by concealing our position. If it transpired that some parties were completely intransigent and that there was no prospect of breaking the deadlock by the people of Northern Ireland, we would urge the Government to initiate Government-to-Government discussions with the Republic. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has told us that he has that in mind in any event.
There are matters which common sense demands should be discussed. I could spell them out in detail but we have not reached the stage when it is necessary to do so. If I do spell them out, I shall be thought to be restricting the agenda for the talks that I really want to see take place —talks between the parties in Northern Ireland. But if I am pressed to give an example of areas of administration and policy where it does not make sense for the people in different parts of one island to treat one another as rivals, or even as enemies, and where the two Governments can offer their people a better future by working in partnership, I shall do so. I find it hard to see advantages in having two competing authorities concerned with attracting overseas investment into Ireland. I fail to see the sense of having two agricultural policies and two seats at the EC. Any dairy farmer will confirm that the force of my argument was strengthened a month ago. In a former incarnation I was involved in trying to resolve the problems that arise for those who have to enforce law and order in two separate jurisdictions.
As the Secretary of State said, I see nothing but sense in trying to establish an all-Ireland chamber in which members of this place and members of the Dail can meet for structured discussions. If I am asked whether I would include members of the Assembly, the answer is that I would leave that to the discussions. I do not want to preempt what is said, but I would be rather in favour of their inclusion.
Dr. Brian Mawhinney: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has left me genuinely confused. Did he say that he sees no point in having two seats at the EC? Does he mean that my right hon. Friend should represent Irish interests or that the Taoiseach should represent United Kingdom interests? What precisely did he mean by that statement?
Mr. Archer: Again, the danger is of being too rigid. What matters is being discussed at the EC. If agriculture is being discussed I should have thought it not beyond the wit of man to arrive at arrangements which would enable the voice of northern and southern Ireland to be heard as one. It has been done at the United Nations in the context of members of the EC. One does not have to believe that words have one inflexible meaning and that no analysis can ever change it.

37
Those are only examples. Discussion of all those possibilities could lead to a substantial change inpeople's lives. Let us not speculate where they would lead. Let them, at least, be discussed on their merits. What matters is that national boundaries are seen—if I could have the attention of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) who kindly asked a question — as the artificial things that they are. Of course, I should hope that Governments would invite the representatives of the Northern Ireland people to their discussions. No one would want to settle these matters in the absence of the political leaders from Northern Ireland, but the choice would have to be theirs. No one can compel people to attend free discussions.
We ask the Government to make it clear that abstention will not veto the discussions. Those who choose to be absent can hardly complain afterwards that they were not present when the decisions were made.
It is significant how many people in Northern Ireland, from both traditions, are working for reconciliation. They believe that everyone in Northern Ireland should be working together to restore the economy and alleviate the economic distress of which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken. I believe that history will record their contributions more dramatically than they are reported today.
It must be in everyone's interest— with the possible exception of a few characters whose position and status depend upon human misery— that the conflict should be resolved. Everyone would be better off in a safer and more law-abiding society. Everyone would benefit if the wasted resources were directed to where everyone agrees they are needed. Everyone could face the future with greater assurance if the uncertainties were resolved.
I was brought up to believe that a blessing awaits the peacemakers. Our heartfelt wish today for the Secretary of State is that it may rest upon his efforts.
4.41 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: The view that I wish to put to the House was massively endorsed at the recent European elections. Unlike other candidates, I submitted to the electorate my view on the New Ireland Forum and my view of the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. Therefore, the view that I put before the House today has been massively mandated by the people of Northern Ireland, unlike the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who was also a candidate at that election and who made it clear that he was campaigning only on European matters, and that the response to the forum was a matter not for the Northern Ireland people but for the British Government. So much for the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. I shall return to the matter of consent in a moment.
I am glad that in his opening remarks the Secretary of State stated that he had changed his view about a political initiative and settlement as a means of doing away with terrorism in Northern Ireland. For a long time representatives from Northern Ireland have continually stated in the House that no political initiative or political compromise — if one can use the term — will rid Northern Ireland of the Provisional IRA and the INLA and their acts of terrorism.
Political developments in themselves will not bring peace to Northern Ireland. The wanton terrorism of the Provisional IRA denies peace to Northern Ireland. The
38
logic of that belief is that the Provisional IRA's campaign of terrorism can be assuaged or in some way defeated by some magical, political formula. Those of us who know something of the agony of Northern Ireland and its citizens know that that is dangerous nonsense.
We must face the fact that Government have a responsibility to deal with terrorism, because terrorism must be eradicated and not accommodated. Political advantage must be won by argument and not by blackmail. I am constrained to point out that, if and when any political settlement is arrived at, that moment will be when the IRA will unleash an even greater and more horrific campaign of terrorism against the people of Northern Ireland and against those engaged in a political settlement there. Her Majesty's Government will need to prepare long and hard if that day is to arrive. These are political realities that the House must face.
It is essential that any new Northern Ireland Administration should not conduct their business in isolation or excluded from interest in security. Arrangements must be made to ensure that the elected representatives of Northern Ireland have some voice in security matters. I welcome the fact that in Cmnd 7950 the Government recognise that need.
Dr. Garret FitzGerald appealed to the people of Northern Ireland and to the Unionists of Northern Ireland in his message printed in the Belfast Telegraph on Friday night. I should like to make a couple of comments on that appeal. His argument is spurious when he says that Unionists have rejected the forum because they have not had the opportunity, or, in many instances, the inclination, to read and study the text. Unionists in Northern Ireland have read and studied carefully the text of the New Ireland Forum report.
Dr. FitzGerald realised something of the gut reaction of Unionists when such proposals are put before them. When he spoke at a Trinity college law society seminar in February 1978, the present Taoiseach—it was not said by some Unionist or Paisleyite—the leader of the Fine Gael party said:
"Northern Protestants"—
you will pardon my reading as he said it, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
"would be bloody fools to join the Republic under its present Constitution."
He went on to say that when addressing Protestants from the Shankill road he had said that as a half northern Protestant himself he would not be happy about unification with people who had not shown themselves to be open-minded. The hon. Member for Foyle cannot object to my saying that we do not want to go down the forum road when the Prime Minister of the country had that comment to make. [Interruption.] I have read the report and I shall deal with it in a minute or two. It is a pity that some of those who are interrupting me did not read the whole report. [Interruption.] Well, if they have read it, I trust that they will continue to read it and that they will get enlightenment upon it.
Dr. FitzGerald was right when he said that the Republic and its Governments have not been open-minded in regard to the northern Protestants. I am concerned about the maintenance of the Protestant way of life on the island of Ireland. To some people, that is something that one is not supposed to do. In some places, one is not supposed to offer any criticism whatever of the politics of the Vatican or any criticism of the Roman Catholic Church.

39
I was castigated by the hon. Member for Foyle because, during the European election, I issued a leaflet dealing with that issue. But when a Roman Catholic Member of this House tells the people of Northern Ireland that they should enjoy going into Europe because Roman Catholic social doctrine will dominate the European Community, I can only say that I do not want to live under any system that is dominated by Roman Catholic social dogma. I shall continue, as an Ulster Protestant, to declare where I stand on these issues, whether this House likes it or whether anybody else likes it or not. If criticisms are made about my stand, I shall be happy to hear and to answer them.
I want to see the Protestant way of life continued and maintained on the island of Ireland. We are told in the forum that our Britishness will be respected. That is the joke of the century. We have already seen the respect for Britishness in the controversy over the name of Londonderry, the very city from which the hon. Member for Foyle comes. If on that issue the people of that city, led by the SDLP, could not allow the name "London" to remain as part of the name of the council, one wonders how much Britishness will be maintained in any united Ireland.
"'Will you walk into my parlour?' said a spider to a fly".
Ulster people are too dead fly to go into Haughey's parlour or to go into the parlour of Garret FitzGerald.
How has the Protestant ethos been maintained in the south of Ireland? How has the Protestant population been maintained in the Irish Republic? The answer is that 7 per cent. of it has been taken away. When the partition came about, approximately 10 per cent. of the people were Protestants. Today only 3 per cent. are Protestants. In other words, 200,000 Protestants have disappeared from the Irish Republic. The Protestant churches in the south of Ireland are always highlighting their concern over that issue. We have a rapidly diminishing Protestant population in the south. If it is the beautiful country that we are told it is, and if it is the country in which everybody prospers, is it not strange that the Protestant population should be almost eliminated from it?
In the report of the New Ireland Forum, some very interesting statements are made about the blessings that Protestants have experienced in the south of Ireland. I refer to chapter 3, headed "Origins of the Problem", on page 8, for those who have a copy of that interesting document. Paragraph 3.2 reads:
"However, the constitutional, electoral and parliamentary arrangements in the South specifically sought to cater for the minority status of Southern unionists and did so with considerable, if not total, success."
It is a wonderful degree of success. The Protestants numbered 10 per cent. when partition came about and are now only 3 per cent. of the population.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose——
Rev. Ian Paisley: It is that attitude to the south that I want to highlight.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Rev. Ian Paisley: No. I shall not give way. I want to keep within a limited time so that other hon. Members may have the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Corbyn rose——
Rev. Ian Paisley: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Member comment on the statements made by Mr. Seabright, as a member of the Belfast city council, towards Catholics in Northern Ireland and in the rest of Ireland? I do not hear the hon. Member condemning any of the disgraceful, terrible and shocking remarks that that person made.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to nail the lie that the hon. Member has just—[Interruption.] I should like to say to him—[Interruption.] If he had read——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) knows that he must not attribute a lie to another hon. Member. He should withdraw his remark.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I will put it in another way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and say that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is a stranger to the truth in regard to the matter that he raised. [Interruption.] Statements have been made by members of the party to which the hon. Member belongs and no action has been taken.
Immediately the statement was made to which the hon. Member referred, I, as leader of the Democratic Unionist party, saw the councillor concerned. I pointed out to him —[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman has anything to say, I will give way to him.
Mr. Corbyn: Before the election?
Rev. Ian Paisley: Before the election. I met the gentleman concerned and pointed out to him that his statement was entirely contrary to the basis and constitution of the party of which he was a member, and could not be reconciled with it. He told me that he agreed with the constitution of the party to which he belonged. I said, "How could you when you have made a statement contrary to it?" Immediately the Assembly party of which he was a member met and expelled him from the Assembly party. [Interruption.] The Whip was taken from him and he was expelled from the Assembly party. Hon. Members should get their facts right. At an Executive meeting, he was suspended from membership until such time as the Executive shall deal further with him. I want to make that perfectly clear, and I unreservedly condemn—as I have already condemned—the statement that he made.
If there are hon. Members who want to push the Democratic Unionist party along a certain road, on their heads be it.
Mr. Corbyn rose——
Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall not give way again. [Interruption.] It was before the election. [Interruption.] Before and after he was suspended, as everybody in Northern Ireland knows. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the people who voted for me did so because of that statement, he knows nothing whatever about the Protestant people of Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's party should put up candidates in Northern Ireland and see how well they fare. They would need to insure themselves against lost deposits.
Before the intervention, I had referred to paragraph 3.2 of chapter 3 of the report. I will bring the House up to date about what is happening in Northern Ireland. A judge of the High Court in Northern Ireland, Lord Justice Gibson, had before him three police officers who were charged in regard to the shooting of an IRA man. He found them not

41
guilty, and he made a statement from the bench. As a result of that statement, Dublin interfered— the Roman Catholic hierarchy interfered. I have no objection to the hon. Member for Foyle, who is an elected representative —or any of the elected representatives of the national community—interfering. That is their prerogative and I make no objection to that. Outside people interfere. What happened? His holiday house in Donegal was burned and when the telephone message went through to the fire station it was not answered until the house was well ablaze. That is the sort of thing that is happening today in the Irish Republic. I do not want to go along that road, but if the hon. Member for Foyle wants to discuss that with me at any time, I shall take him down that road and he will see how dark and how bloody it is.
The statement from the New Ireland Forum immediately raises questions in the mind of every Unionist. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West, the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, was lecturing the Loyalists for not wanting to talk. I am ready to talk at any time with the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. It was not my party that boycotted the Atkins conference. I was at the table. I shall not talk with Dublin, but I shall be talking with the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland.
In Northern Ireland, there is an Assembly that was set up by the House as an elected body. It has a Report Committee which is now taking evidence from everyone who wants to give evidence about a way forward for Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Foyle and the members of his party should be in that Assembly. They should be arguing with their own fellow Ulstermen on the Floor of the Assembly. If they cannot persuade their fellow Ulstermen, so be it. They have an opportunity. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Foyle laughs. If he thinks that he cannot persuade us, there is no consent and we should all go home and not bother about this document. That is what we shall be doing anyway, at the end of the debate.
I shall not be talking to a man who says that he will be murdering my kith and kin. I have just been castigated by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for my remarks about Councillor Seabright. Now he turns on me, after I have condemned those remarks, and says that I should put my arms round Gerry Adams, who is as much a murderer as any of the people who have done deeds of violence. I shall not be sitting down with Danny Morrison or Gerry Adams or any other Sinn Fein IRA members. Let me make that clear. That is where we draw the line.
The forum——
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am not a right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Rees: I should have known better, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would the hon. Gentleman ever sit down, or has he ever sat down, with anybody from the Red Hand Commandos or the UVF during the Ulster workers' strike?
Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes. There is a difference between what the right hon. Gentleman has said and what he did. At one time, if my memory serves me right, he was the man who saw to it that they were no longer outlawed. He will remember that. He had better be very careful about his facts. I want to make it clear that, during the Ulster
42
workers' strike, both Official and Democratic Unionists were involved. It is a pity that there were not more men on the hillside.
Mr. Michael McGuire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Rev. Ian Paisley: Time is short, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. McGuire: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I know that he is pressed for time. He said when referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), that he was prepared to sit down with elected representatives who were fellow Ulstermen. Why does he draw the line at Adams? After all, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, he is an elected member of the Assembly.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I have made my position clear. The Government have taken that stand, as have members of the Opposition Front Bench. I think that the hon. Gentleman should realise that example is better than precept. When he converts the Members on his own Benches, he can start preaching his gospel to me and perhaps I shall hear him.
Paragraph 4.4 of the forum's report reads:
"various measures were introduced on the basis that they were essential to defeat terrorism and violent subversion, but they have failed to address the causes of violence and have often produced further violence."
The report simply says, "Let us deal with the causes of violence." But is violence justified? That is the question that northern Unionists must ask.
The report goes on, in paragraph 4.5, to say:
"Nationalists, for the most part, do not identify with the police and the security forces. It is clear that the police will not be accepted, as they are in a normal democratic society, by the nationalist section of the community nor will they themselves feel confident in their relations with nationalists, until there is a change in the political context in which they have to operate."
The Eire Government are supposed to be friendly. In fact, they have the Presidency of the EC and Peter Barry is the President of the Council of Ministers. Yet the report says that, until there is a change in the political context, the nationalist people are justified in their attitude to the forces of the Crown and the forces of law and order.
Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I cannot give way any more.
That is the sort of statement that keeps the nationalist people from identifying themselves.
Ms. Clare Short: But it is true.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Lady says that it is true, but who protects the nationalist community and goes to its aid? Who gives them the necessary cover? Is it not the police? In one case, the IRA was prepared to surrender to the police but not to the British Army. We know the IRA's attitude to the police, yet we find that type of statement in the document.
Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman should read out paragraph 3.19.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman can read the whole document if he likes in his speech. At the moment I am making my speech.
Before I come to the matter of consent, I must say that I am glad that the hon. Gentleman defines his idea of consent, because that is not the same as the idea of consent

43
put forward by the forum or by Charles Haughey. When Mr. Haughey pronounced upon the forum report he said that nobody had the right to impede or to deny the unity of Ireland, which is a natural, logical thing. The people who voted for me and sent me to the House have the right to impede, and I shall do everything in my power to impede, any road to a united Ireland, as will the vast majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland. Mr. Haughey made it clear that the only thing that the Protestants would have a right to discuss were the structures within that united Ireland. That is not consent at all. That consent is not forthcoming. If it had been forthcoming, the hon. Member for Foyle could have put it to his people, come to the House and said, "I have the consent." However, no one in the House really believes that consent to this document is forthcoming.
What does the document hold out? It holds out a unitary state and joint sovereignty or some sort of confederaion, which would take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and put it into some all-Ireland settlement. That is anathema to the people who sent me to the House. They want no part or lot in it, and they will not have it. I am surprised that there are Members of the House who would deny us the democratic right to impede progress towards the unity of Ireland. The unity of Ireland is not a natural, logical thing anyway, for Ireland never was united except when it was under the United Kingdom. "Ireland a nation, is Ireland a notion." Everyone knows that who has read history. All sorts of myths are thrown out about this issue and about a united Ireland. We should come down to the stark reality.
I refer again to the report. It states on page 28, paragraph 5.3:
"However, Britain must help to create the conditions which will allow this process to begin."
The arm-twisting must start. The report continues:
"The British Government have a duty"—
the House is being told what its duty is—
"to join in developing the necessary process that will recognise these realities and give effect to these requirements and thus promote reconciliation between the two major traditions in Ireland, and to make the required investment of political will and resources."
We should leave our cheque book behind when we go. The report further states:
"The British and Irish Governments should enter into discussions to create the framework and atmosphere necessary for this purpose."
With such statements, the forum talks about consent. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) says that if the people of Northern Ireland do not consent, the two Governments should go ahead on their own. I thought that the whole basis was of consent, but it seems that, if the people do not consent, in their absence the two Governments should go down this particular road.
Mr. Archer: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening carefully to what I said. Does he accept that there is a clear distinction between consent to unification and consent to any initiative of any sort whatsoever?
Rev. Ian Paisley: As long as the initiative is not to reach the goal, but if the goal is a united Ireland Unionists will oppose it vigorously. This is a matter of life and death to the Unionists. If any attempt is made to push the Unionist population down that road, it will be resisted unto death. Let no one be under any illusion about that.
44
The New Ireland Forum must be answered from a Unionist point of view, but I should like to refer to "The Way Forward". Do we just stay where we are, or do we move forward? There is a lobby for peace among the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. Why should there not be a lobby? I have followed too many funeral processions, I have held too many widows' hands and I have patted too many orphans' heads not to know the agony that my people have gone through. They are not only Protestant but Roman Catholic bereaved ones. I have received a lot of stick from Unionists for even going to their homes.
I know what I am talking about. There is a desire for peace. That peace can come only within Northern Ireland. It is up to the elected representatives of the Northern Ireland people to get together and seek a way forward out of this impasse, for an impasse it is, and there is no doubt about it. It is said that some people want violence. The happiest day for me will be when Northern Ireland returns to peace and my stay in politics is concluded. I never wanted to be in politics. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh; I do not mind. The call of the people forced me into it. I have always made it clear that, if we return to peace and have a Government for Northern Ireland who bring stability, I shall be happy to bow out. Who would not be happy? A politician's life in Northern Ireland is no easy road. It is no easy road for the politician's wife or his family. That goes right across the religious and political divide. Who wants to choose a life like that?
We are at an impasse. The only way forward is for the elected representatives of the Northern Ireland people to come together. I regret that the SDLP has not seen its way to come into the Assembly. I have said that publicly and personally, and I shall continue to say it. However, I am prepared to talk to the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland and to try to find some way whereby we can bring hope for a future when there will be something for our kids and young ones growing up, and some sort of political and economic stability. I say that not because I need to say it but because it comes from my heart.
While I must answer the New Ireland Forum report and deal with the things that are said against the Unionist people, let me say that there is a real desire for peace. If the two parts of Ireland are to live in peace, they will do so only when there is mutual respect. If the Dublin Government are really sincere, there are two things that they can do. First, they can enter into an extradition treaty. They can ensure that those who commit crimes in Northern Ireland find no safety or sanctuary in their territory. If they are not prepared to send them back to Northern Ireland, why not send them back to some other part of the United Kingdom? I believe that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. If that is the Irish Government's grave objection, let those people be sent to some other part of the United Kingdom. The Dublin Government must do something about that.
Secondly, the Dublin Government must do something about their claim over Northern Ireland territory. They say that we are not really part of the United Kingdom. They say that their laws, if we could enforce them, are really made for us as well. We say that the 1937 constitution is not acceptable to any Protestant, for it is embedded in the moral theology of the Church of Rome on divorce and other matters. I do not care what constitution the South has. I do not care how they develop. I do not care what

45
they do. I make no claims on their territory. Ulster is saying to the South, "Please let us alone and let us remain within the United Kingdom. Let us develop in the way that we wish and you can develop in the way that you wish."
I believe that if both parts of Ireland took that road the time would come again when Government Departments in both North and South could get together as they did in the old Stormont days on matters from which both could benefit. That is the only way. It may be a tiny step, but it is the right one. I hope that we shall take a step down that road today.
5.29 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: Contrary to general belief, those of us who represent Northern Ireland constituencies have never resented participation in our debates by Members representing constituencies in Great Britain. Indeed, as representatives of an integral part of the United Kingdom, we welcome contributions to these debates from other parts of the kingdom. To assist other hon. Members, I shall speak on behalf of all my colleagues, none of whom intends to take up further time in today's debate. It is possible, of course, that more speeches from Ulster Members might make the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) less keen to chair his proposed all-party conference, but that may be the price that we have to pay.
Each year, around midsummer, Parliament has the opportunity to take stock of the part of the kingdom that we represent. That survey usually takes place in a debate on a motion to renew the Northern Ireland Act 1974 and the mechanisms whereby the Government and the House govern Northern Ireland for a further year. On this occasion, that motion will come later in the day, but the present debate on the Adjournment is a paving operation for that motion and allows the House to advise the Government on how to govern and administer our part of the United Kingdom for the next 12 months.
Last Thursday, the Leader of the House listed various documents which he believed might be relevant to today's business. An Irishman might be tempted to say that some of them were more equal than others. Certainly some are more relevant than others. In terms of the coming 12 months, the report of the New Ireland Forum is the least relevant of all. Before I am accused of rejecting that report without reading it, I should make it clear that we have indeed read it. We take the same realistic view as was expressed by the Government in their statement on the day of publication, when they said:
"The Government stands by its undertaking that Northern Ireland shall not cease to be part of the United Kingdom without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland and reamins willing to give effect to any majority wish which might be expressed in favour of unity. But Unionist opposition to Irish unity is to the principle rather than the form. As the Report acknowledges, consent has to be freely given."
The Government then added this further comment, which was reflected in the words of the Secretary of State today:
"And there is no reason to expect such consent to a change in sovereignty in Northern Ireland in any of the three forms suggested in the Report."
That statement did not attempt to conceal the Government's disappointment at the forum's failure to achieve its main objective of providing a new approach. As the Government have stated, three options were listed, all designed to break up the United Kingdom and all requiring the consent of the greater number of people in Northern Ireland.
46
The report, and, perhaps more significantly, the subsequent clarifying statements, however, are shot through with unspoken admissions that such consent will not be given in the foreseeable future. That central weakness was spotted immediately by the outside world. The reaction was perhaps typified by the anti-Unionist Member of this House who, on the very day of publication, lamented that the authors of the report had made it impossible for any section of the House to help them.
If the prospect was bleak on the day of publication, sympathetic souls have been plunged into despair by the emerging revelation that the three options are not, and never were, real alternatives. Mr. Haughey and his party, which is the largest party in the Irish Republic and which, but for proportional representation, would form the Government of the Republic, reasserted as recently as last Friday that for them there is only one solution: a unitary state—by consent, of course. As the Secretary of State has pointed out, paragraph 5.10 shows willingness to discuss other views, but we must ask ourselves what is the value of that willingness if we are always to be brought back to Mr. Haughey's insistence on that one solution—a unitary state. The time for dialogue, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West referred, might also be thrown away.
At this point, it may be appropriate to explain the difference between the English and the Irish meaning of the word "consent." I cannot help feeling that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West did less than justice to his own party. He was far too modest, so I shall use the British Labour party to illustrate my point. When that party, with all its integrity, talks about consent, it means the free, cheerful and, to coin a phrase, full-hearted consent of the Ulster people to leaving this nation and joining another. Mr. Haughey and perhaps all the other parties in the Republic, however, interpret consent as something quite different—as agreement resulting from pressure and coercion. I do not suggest that they would contemplate using the same methods as the terrorists, but their problem is that they share the same objective. To attain their objective of a united Ireland, they must use or benefit from pressure in other forms, which take the shape of constitutional devices and economic measures.
Before any realistic co-operation can evolve, the forum parties must be convinced that free consent will not be achieved in their lifetime and that forced consent is repugnant to the British people. Until the English meaning of the word "consent" is fully accepted on both sides of the Irish sea, the limited progress possible must be confined to Northern Ireland. There can be no experimenting with institutional structures at any international level, for the simple reason that these would be seen as—and would, indeed, become—thumbscrews to compel consent.
On Saturday, the Irish Foreign Minister, Mr. Barry, during a visit to Belfast, repeated his declaration that the Irish Government accepted that they had a responsibility to make arrangements with the British Government to give recognition to Irish aspirations. At times, he has been even more explicit and proclaimed that he has a duty to protect the interests of Irish nationalists living under British rule. To be fair to the man, I must say that he has shown that concern by visits not just to Northern Ireland but to large centres of Irish population in England.

47
Before considering the type of safeguard required and, presumably, the kind of safeguard in Mr. Barry's mind, the House must consider exactly what disadvantages are experienced by the nationalist minority of much less than half a million people in Northern Ireland. For 12 long years they have been ruled directly by this House and by British Governments — for seven of those years by Conservative Governments and for five by Labour Governments. Do they somehow feel oppressed by British rule and British parliamentary government in a way in which their fellow Irish co-religionists in Great Britain do not? Over 60 years ago, Carson, who was then the leader of the Ulster Unionists, begged the House of Commons not to force Protestants to govern Roman Catholics. The House ignored Carson's plea. The forum ignores the fact that Protestants have not governed anybody for the past 12 years. Parliament now holds the Secretary of State and his Ministers accountable for all legislative, executive and administrative acts and decisions. Indeed, Parliament controls those functions in Northern Ireland far more closely than in England, Scotland and Wales. The forum has not told us where and how Parliament has failed in its duty.
In the absence of any valid answers, we can only assume that the desire for some Anglo-Irish institutional arrangements represents a fall-back position of some kind, now that the three original options are seen to be nonstarters. As a fall-back position, they are far from harmless. They will be recognised for what they are—for devices for obtaining indirectly what cannot be won by frontal assault. Any such experiments will make it impossible to encourage co-operation and participation within Northern Ireland itself. That would be the price to be paid for international structures such as were hinted at by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West. The price would be the destruction of the improved political climate to which the Secretary of State referred this afternoon; and the tragedy would be that the same international arrangements would bring no practical benefit whatever to the nationalist people in Northern Ireland.
I turn to the possibilities for co-operation and participation in Northern Ireland. This is perhaps the most important aspect of our deliberations today. Both the Dublin Government and the British Government should rid themselves of the notion that the restoration of limited powers to elected representatives would be a bonus only for the Unionists, and that a balancing concession would have to be made to the nationalists. The truth is that limited powers, under strict supervision by the Secretary of State, would benefit both Unionists and nationalists equally, whereas anything seen as a concession for one side would perpetuate suspicion and distrust.
We are now in the real world of the subject of the business on today's Order Paper. The forum report has told us mainly what cannot be done. I point to a more promising path. On the occasion of the tenth renewal of the 1974 Act, we recognise that we have a duty to be positive and constructive. In "The Way Forward", the Official Unionist party has sketched out a practical outline plan which should at least start the process of enabling elected representatives, Unionist and nationalist, to deliver a real service to those who elect them. The tenor and terms of our document offer the nationalist minority in Ulster
48
guarantees far superior to anything that the Republic could offer to Unionists in a united Ireland. A key phrase, of which the Secretary of State has taken note and repeated today, declares that
"it is the responsibility of the majority to persuade the minority that the Province is also theirs."
Our paper has outlined a strategy for participation without abandonment of principle. In contrast to the forum report, the proposals in "The Way Forward" could be realised and implemented in the immediate future. It seemed to us that, with the Assembly in being, it might make sense to give that body the task of administering the Macrory-type powers. The Report Committee of the Assembly has at last got down to considering that possibility, and others.
I recognise the obstacles. There is a school of thought that maintains that the Assembly ought to remain in its present powerless state in the hope that Parliament will change its mind and, in one way or another, give Stormont powers to the three pro-union parties in the Assembly without power sharing.
Realistically, I have also to recognise that this Parliament would be reluctant, to say the least, to grant powers to the Assembly without the participation of constitutional nationalism. While it is all very well to urge the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party to take his party into the Assembly, we have to be fair to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and recognise that he and his party were elected on the basis of a pledge to stay out of the Assembly on the ground of its unworkability. I took the same view on unworkability and, two years on, the hon. Member for Foyle and I have both been proved correct in our assessment.
However, I should not like to think that we need wait any longer for some forward movement. We cannot afford to sit still and ignore the local government elections, which are only 10 months away. Councillors are already considering whether to stand for re-election. Other public-spirited persons are being invited to stand for the new wards just created by the local government boundary commissioners. Both groups will be deciding in the near future whether it is worth occupying council seats, in view of the very limited powers retained by district councils. Until now, hope of the return of worthwhile powers has enabled us to retain many councillors of real ability. There is little prospect of their remaining for another term without the prospect of an increased role in serving the local communities by which they are elected.
In the final paragraph of our discussion paper, we say:
"The Ulster Unionist Party recognises that its proposal may be considered by some to be too modest, but it has watched while grander and more ambitious schemes have failed. The Party's objective is to find a level at which consensus may be obtained to effect a beginning in the reconciliation of the divided communities."
For the past 15 years we have suffered from repeated mistaken attempts to find so-called solutions, and to seek solutions on far too ambitious a scale. High-level initiatives by British Governments are just as futile as interference by Dublin Governments. I beg both to read and heed the final sentence of the paragraph from which I have quoted:
"Roads owe no allegiance to those who travel upon them and, for the traveller, such roads are neither green nor orange but only good or bad. It would be a start if the travellers were given a chance to repair them."
That is in line with what I have said about making a modest start, but it has a wider symbolic meaning. All the

49
people of Northern Ireland are the travellers. I believe that they are now in the mood to begin the work of repair. I ask the Government and Parliament to give us the opportunity to do so. I say to other parties, particularly those of another tradition, that we are more than willing —we are eager—to join them in getting down to work.
5.39 pm
Sir John Biggs-Davison: We are debating the Adjournment of the House, yet it is strange that this discussion of the future of a part of the United Kingdom is concentrated around a document that emanates from another state. I shall not make too much of that as I took a small part in the New Ireland Forum, as did the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley).
The New Ireland Forum was in large measure intended to benefit the SDLP and to aid the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), whom we are delighted to see in his place, in competing with Sinn Fein for the Nationalist vote in the European Assembly election. It is understandable, therefore, that no Unionist party took part in the forum. The same was true for the Alliance party in Northern Ireland. For my Back-Bench part, I thought that the Unionist case ought not to go unheard. I made my written submission, which the Forum did not publish. I am not sure why and wish that it had. I was the only mainland Member of Parliament to appear in Dublin castle for questioning by the leaders of the three Southern and one Northern Ireland parties. I do not think that the hon. Member for Hammersmith appeared in person.
Mr. Clive Soley: I did, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is asking.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. From such sketchy records as I have received, I thought that he had not. I am delighted that he did. I went in my individual capacity. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am not a spokesman with responsibilities.
With reason, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State praised the tone of the forum report. By the standards of Irish and Anglo-Irish political controversy, it is emollient. It is possible to read good will, at least between the lines. It attempts to understand and allow for Unionist fears and aspirations. Unfortunately, however, all three of the options proposed—a unitary state, a federation or confederation or a joint British and Irish authority for the North—are options that Unionists, by definition, cannot accept. Nor are the options new. Indeed, there is not much new about the New Ireland Forum report. Those options have been in circulation at least since the days of de Valera.
Much has been made of the forum's acknowledgement in its report of the principle that there can be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without popular consent. That, too, is nothing new. In a communiqu· that was issued in December 1972 after the Sunningdale conference, the Dublin Government said that they
"fully accepted and solemnly declared that there would be no change in the status of Northern Ireland until a majority of the people of Northern Ireland desired a change in that status".
The majority who do not desire such a change are by no means all Protestant. There is neither theological nor historical warrant for equating the religio-ethnic with the political divide. Leaving aside the border poll of 1973, in which there was much intimidation of a section of the
50
community by the Provisional IRA, from 1921 onwards, elections and opinion polls have shown that rather fewer than 40 per cent. of northern Catholics are opposed to the link with Great Britain.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the Irish identity. There is much mention of it in the report. I hope that my right hon. Friend understands that there are people who consider themselves Irish rather than British except that they are loyal British subjects. Not all people who consider themselves Irish consider themselves Nationalist. There is the old story of a lady who complained to a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland saying, "The trouble with you English is that you do not want us Irish to remain British."
The forum report contradicts itself. It asserts:
"the new Ireland which the Forum seeks can come about only through agreement and must have a democratic basis"
and then it chides the British Government for
"the guarantee contained in section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973".
Was not that guarantee underwritten at Sunningdale by the Irish Government in their full acceptance and solemn declaration of the will of the majority as the prerequisite to any change in the constitution of Northern Ireland? The report says:
"Britain must help to create the conditions which will allow this process"—
the building of a new Ireland—
"to begin."
The implication is, although the Opposition who take a like view would probably deny it, that the loyal majority should be cajoled or coerced into the "new Ireland". The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) spoke of thumbscrews, but when we take Unionist opinion for what it is and when we think of the huge vote scored by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in the European Assembly election — that itself a reaction to the forum—we must conclude that anyone who wanted to achieve the dishonourable end of expelling loyal subjects from the United Kingdom would exert immense political, probably military and economic, pressure to do so.
The economics of a new Ireland were the subject of a document that accompanied the forum report. It is entitled, "The Macroeconomic Consequences of Integrated Economic Policy, Planning and Co-ordination in Ireland." It was prepared by a Dublin firm of economic consultants and includes a commentary by Professor Norman Gibson of the New University of Ulster and Professor Dermot McAleese of Trinity college, Dublin. They concluded that the withdrawal of "the British subvention" to Northern Ireland would
"require what can only be described as catastrophic economic adjustments".
If Northern Ireland is not to be part of the United Kingdom, the whole subvention comes into question. The immediate result would be a
"loss of income equivalent to about 8 per cent. of the GDP of the combined economies".
That could produce,
"as a first-round effect … a fall in disposable income of around £2,000 million".
Continuing losses and higher unemployment—as if it were not high enough already in both parts of Ireland—could not be offset by foreign borrowing as it would be
"doubtful whether foreigners would be prepared to lend even if the authorities were willing to borrow".

51
Those people who wrongly style Northern Ireland as Britain's last colony can cite cases of the United Kingdom being more generous to former colonies than to dependencies. We often feel guilty about rewarding loyalty. However, few people will agree to the impudent suggestion that is implicit or explicit in the reported statements of some Irish politicians to the effect that the abandonment of Northern Ireland should be financed by the British taxpayer. I do not believe that there is any chance of that, and I gained that impression from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. So much in this report is Utopian. I sometimes wonder whether a united Ireland is very much more than a political gambit. In the Republic, proportional representation makes for precarious Governments ever looking over their shoulders to small extremist factions, and there is a lesson there for us.
Mr. John Hume: Can the hon. Gentleman point to the evidence that would suggest that a united Northern Ireland is more possible than a united Ireland?
Sir John Biggs-Davison: A united Northern Ireland is most attainable if Northern Ireland is fully integrated with Great Britain, for the reasons that were so eloquently given by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley. The way forward was shown by the right hon. Member when he referred to the discussion paper of that name published by Ulster Unionist Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out that the Taoiseach recognised the importance of this paper. The paper asks that the problems of the Province should be solved within it, with "mutual recognition" by "the two communities" of
"each other's hopes and fears".
The authors of the report propose a more democratic system of local government. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said that it was necessary, for the morale and standard of those coming forward to be elected to the local authorities, to have an enlargement of council powers.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State praised the work of the Assembly, and no one wishes to decry that. When I compare the concept of devolution to a new Stormont with the concept in the document "The Way Forward", I look at the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who is willing to discuss these matters with Unionists here in the House of Commons but is not willing to discuss them with Unionists in the Northern Ireland Assembly. As the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley reminded us, my Roman Catholic co-religionists are far safer under this sovereign House than under a devolved Assembly across the water. That, according to those who have always attacked Stormont, is the lesson that should be drawn from Stormont.
As for the Republic, article 2 of the 1937 constitution—referred to by the hon. Member for Antrim, North—claiming all Ireland, is the major stumbling block in North-South co-operation. I pointed this out in my submission to the New Ireland Forum. Article 2 is an encouragement to those who pursue the same irredentist claim by physical force and terror. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State disclaimed any intention of having a new initiative. So many have been lethal and futile. If we want an initiative anywhere, this is it. The Irish
52
Republic has shown that it is perfectly able, after a referendum, to change its constitution, and this is the necessary change.
Suppose that we were going to give ourselves a written constitution in the United Kingdom — the Lord Chancellor for one favours it — it might be thought provocative if such a constitution enshrined a claim to that part of Ireland that departed from the United Kingdom, thus partitioning the island of Ireland. However, that would be more preposterous than article 2 of the Irish constitution.
At the forum, I cited the late Professor Lyons's 1978 Ford lecture at Oxford, in which he said:
"the recognition of difference, especially among Irishmen, is a pre-requisite for peaceful co-existence."
I went on to say that there is the partition of maps and minds. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said that frontiers were unimportant. Kevin O'Higgins did not think so. He said:
"It is useless to seek to abolish the Boundary in law until we have abolished it in our hearts."
Which, then, is more perverse—to seek to haul down the Union flag on Stormont castle or to aspire to raise it again over Dublin castle?
We hear it contended that Ireland is only one small island, naturally intended to be a single political unit. It is also said that Unionists, with or without a capital U, are but a minority in this island of Ireland. That is to argue geography against history, maps against chaps, that Spain should re-occupy Portugal, and that American Republicans should be third time lucky and annex the kingdom of Canada, while meanwhile Canada should have Alaska.
The forum did not take that position, and its report is full of the principle of consent. When self-determination—this is the answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—disrupts an imperial unity such as was imposed from England upon Ireland, there are bound to be those who are left under uncongenial rule, on the wrong side of the border. What power sharing was ever offered to those forgotten southern Irish Loyalists? An attempt was made in 1925 to draw a more generally acceptable border. It failed. There are some who would try again, but it takes two to repartition.
There was one great omission from the report. It failed to propound another option—the option of Irish unity through the unity of these islands. Perhaps a British Isles forum could propose forms of confederacy, if not a joint authority in Dublin, as a possible alternative. My submission to the forum contained examples of what the Prime Minister has called our "unique relationship", which is closer than the former Commonwealth relationship and our present relationship within the Community. We have a common travel area, we now have reciprocal voting rights and we have a virtual common citizenship. How many Irish citizens and Irish passport holders are there living within the United Kingdom, happily and of their own free will?
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke of the commemoration in Belfast of the battle of the Somme. Beside the Ulster Division there was the Irish Division, and it so happens that Major Redmond, brother of John Redmond the Nationalist leader, and himself a Nationalist, fell on the Somme, close to the Ulstermen. These are things that we remember as links that survive the partition of Ireland and the separation of a part of the former United

53
Kingdom from the rest. Let us build an ever closer association between the two sovereign powers and the commingled cognate people in these islands. The only conceivable united Ireland is one that is part of islands united once again.
5.58 pm
Mr. John Hume: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the one Member of the House who was a member of the New Ireland Forum and a proud author of that report, that you have called me early in the debate.
Reference was made earlier to the recent election in the North which took place on 14 June. As the Secretary of State outlined at the beginning, the reason for the debate today and for the New Ireland Forum report is the urgency of the situation in the north of Ireland. On that day, around the close of poll, I was in my house in Derry when I heard a commotion in the street. I looked out of the window and saw a group of youths in masks filling bottles with petrol. I was not sure whether, in the heat and emotion at the end of election day, the target was my home or a passing military vehicle. Such occurrences are not unusual in front of my house.
There are 650 Members in the House. If I ventured to ask them what they would do in such circumstances, 649 of them would tell me that they would pick up the telephone and ring the police. I did not do that. I knew that had I done so I would simply have made a bad situation worse. That is a stark reality of life in areas of Northern Ireland that do not give their allegiance to the union.
That situation is described by different people in different ways. I am the only political leader in the north of Ireland who does not go around with a gun in his pocket and who is not driven around by armed policemen. That is because, apart fom my objection to the trappings of violence when I am preaching non-violence, any policeman who would drive me where I live or stand outside my door would be signing his death warrant.
That lack of order in the society that I represent has been described with fancy words. The most recent is "alienation". The search for peace and order on the streets, which the people of those areas want more than anything else, will not be achieved by force. It will not be achieved by armed soldiers or police. We have had all that. We have had 20,000 troops on our streets, armed policemen and the toughest emergency legislation in any civilised country in western Europe. The result has not been order on our streets. The search for order must be based on what order is based on in every civilised democratic society — political consensus.
What I am saying is underlined by the fact that in Northern Ireland today we have a generation of 18-yearolds who have lived through the past 15 years who know nothing except violence and soldiers on the streets, and who, having built up resentment to that type of society, have nothing but unemployment staring them in the face in our desperate economic situation, making them easy meat for recruitment by paramilitary organisations. That in turn makes a bad situation even worse. That is what makes the problem urgent and that is what gives urgency to the report of the New Ireland Forum.
My colleagues from other parts of Northern Ireland from the other tradition have concerns as well. Their constituents are being murdered because they wear a uniform which people, claiming to be Irish Republicans,
54
say makes them legitimate targets. Members of the UDR and RUC are seen as defenders of their tradition. Therefore, their murder is rightly seen as sectarian murder.
If one goes to the city of Belfast one finds a massive brick wall built by the Housing Executive to separate Protestant from Catholic and to protect them from one another. That reality does not just represent the sense of urgency but is a major challenge to everybody involved in that problem. That major challenge is to recognise, above all, that all attitudes, whether unionist, nationalist or British, have brought us where we are today. If we are to get anywhere there must be reassessment.
The purpose of the New Ireland Forum is to begin a reassessment of nationalist attitudes, not, as was so contemptuously suggested by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), to throw out a lifeline to my party or to any other party. We do not need such a lifeline. The New Ireland Forum is a serious attempt to face up to a serious problem in Ireland. When the representatives —the democratic voice of three quarters of the people of Ireland — speak about a serious problem in that island, the House had better listen. It will be giving another message to Ireland if it rejects the democratic voice of nationalist Ireland and does not give serious attention to what it has to say.
I do not claim that everybody in the nationalist tradition in Ireland is all virtue and that everybody else is to blame. We have only to look at our past approach to recognise the mistakes. We have only to look at the narrowness of Irish nationalism, its definition, its sectionalism, and its exclusionism, tied solely to the Gaelic and Catholic traditions and exclusive of other traditions represented in the House from Northern Ireland, to recognise that that narrowness of itself is divisive. It is pushed to its extremes by those who tell us that the height of Irish patriotism is the right not only to die for it but to kill fellow Irishmen for it as well. It is clear that there is need for a massive rethink in that tradition, and that was what the forum was all about.
It is long past the time when Irish nationalist attitudes should be rooted in the attitudes of the 1920s or earlier. That applies to everybody in the House. Nobody would run a shop on the corner of a street on the methods of 1920. Nobody would run the economy of a country on the methods of 1920. Nobody should run the politics of Ireland or anywhere else in 1984 on the attitudes of 1920, to say nothing of the attitudes of the 1690s.
The unionist tradition is represented strongly in the House. My tradition is under-represented because of the undemocratic voting system that elects people to this House. The unionist tradition in Ireland, as we have heard again today, has always stood for the integrity of Irish Protestantism and for the protection of that tradition within Ireland. That is a noble and laudable objective that deserves the support of everyone in Ireland because any country is richer for its diversity. Any country that does not recognise that the basis of unity is diversity recognises nothing.
My quarrel with the political leadership of that tradition, is simply that the methods used to protect that integrity have been the wrong methods—that of holding all power in their own hands without surrendering an inch. Again, the mirror image is ourselves alone: all power in our hands. That is an inherently violent attitude that can lead only to conflict. There must be a reassessment and a recognition that that tradition is best protected by

55
examining how best to share the island of Ireland with those with whom they share that piece of earth, and what structures, agreements and arrangements can bring real unity based on agreement and acceptance of diversity.
Of course, there are two documents in that tradition that are mentioned on the Order Paper as "other documents". Indeed, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) referred to "The Way Forward", whose contents are not particularly exciting. However, its tone is new, in the sense that it is completely different from any other document from a Unionist party. Some have said that it is a tactical document that is designed to offset the impact of the New Ireland Forum. But I am prepared to recognise it as a genuine document, because I believe that any movement—even only a centimetre—out of the trenches in Northern Ireland should be encouraged. If that party's leaders believe what they say when they claim that they want to accommodate the different loyalties in Ireland, I am ready to talk to them.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is not in the Chamber. But the document entitled "The Unionist Case" would have been better entitled "The Way Backwards" or "Towards 1690", because it has absolutely nothing to offer. As I expected, we heard about the size of the hon. Gentleman's vote in the recent European elections and about how it must govern the British Government's thinking. But we have heard all that before. This problem came in with the playing of the Orange card in 1912. The political representatives of Unionism threatened that they would resist by violence if the British Government did not do as they wished. That overthrew a democratic decision in 1912, and taught Unionists the lesson that if they defied and threatened a British Government, that Government would back down. It also taught others in the nationalist tradition a lesson — that if hon. Members win by democratic means in this House, that decision will be overturned anyway. That lesson gave birth to those who believe in violence and force.
Those two attitudes lie at the heart of the Northern Ireland problem and its intractability today, and were both repeated in 1974 in the Ulster Workers' Council strike. Every time a British Government move towards change, they are faced with the same threats from the same sources. The hon. Member for Antrim, North says that the Government do not have the consent of the Unionists. Many people talk about consent, but consent cannot be unqualified. We are told that people voted on the basis of opposition to the New Ireland Forum report. The Democratic Unionist party put an election advertisement in the Northern Ireland press, which was turned down by the Belfast Telegraph as being too sectarian. This is how votes were sought:
"Do you know that the Pope has appointed Mary as the 'Madonna' of the Common Market and views the EEC as the work of Divine Providence."
That is what the hon. Member for Antrim, North said. Indeed, the Prime Minister will be interested in the next few lines of the advertisement, which state:
"Do you know … that Mr. John Gummer the Chairman of the Conservative Party has stated that the Common Market will help to take the Protestants back into the Church of Rome. (See copy of Gummer's letter in 'The EEC and the Vatican' available from 256 Ravenhill Road, Belfast)."
56
Furthermore, the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) was said to be a member of the British Conservative group in the European Parliament and so associated with "Gummer's pro-Vatican stance". The hon. Member for Antrim, North said that people should vote for him instead of the right hon. Gentleman for that reason. That is the sort of thing that people voted for.
If consent is refused because of prejudice, we cannot allow prejudice to determine political change. I could cite further examples of such prejudice. For example, Lisburn council is run by the Democratic Unionist party. It does not have many powers, but one of them is to collect the dustbins. However, it refuses to collect them on the Poleglass housing estate because it will not collect Catholic bins. The council will not give its consent to that. Under public health legislation, the Minister has to force the council to collect them. If that council will not collect Catholic bins, who can ask me to sit in an assembly with such people when its purpose is to achieve power sharing? Does the Secretary of State think that I have lost my marbles, or that my electorate would think anything of me if I did that?
If consent is refused, reasonable reasons must be given, and they must not be based on prejudice. The veto handed over in the British guarantee to Unionism has been extended to a veto against all change, and has thus paralysed political development in the north of Ireland. There has been some complaint today that the forum report is too harsh on previous British attempts to solve the Irish problem. That may or may not be so, but it is true that all previous attempts have failed. That is the harsh reality. Consequently, the British Government, no less than the rest of us, must start making some reassessment.
The position of successive British Governments has not changed since 1920, because they have only one position and that is the guarantee to Ulster Unionism that there will be no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland without the majority's consent. There is no other policy. The policies on power sharing and security have not been implemented because of the veto, thus making a bad situation worse.
Because that guarantee was given to a population that was created on the basis of a sectarian head count—that is how Northern Ireland was created — solidified sectarianism in Northern Ireland has encouraged the majority who want to protect their rights to maintain sectarian solidarity. Consequently, sectarianism has remained the motive force of politics in the north of Ireland, and every election proves that. Until that is changed, there will be no movement.
Dr. Mawhinney: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's speech closely. He began with a story about petrol bombers outside his house, and said that he did not call the police as it would have made things worse. He has just said that the implementation of the security policy made things worse. Earlier, he spoke about the wall dividing Protestants and Catholics. He has given the impression that some other security policy would be better and more effective. Perhaps he could help us to understand his point by explaining that security policy.
Mr. Hume: I have already done so, and if the hon. Gentleman reads my speech he may understand that policy. However, in brief, I said that any security policy or system of order must be based on political consensus.

57
The absence of that political consensus in the north of Ireland is the Achilles' heel that has been exploited by every terrorist. Those who live there know that. There will be wholehearted community backing for the forces of law and order only if that community gives its loyalty to the institutions of the state. One must create the political situation to allow that.
Today, the Secretary of State said that the three options in the forum Report were not on, because they did not have the consent of the Unionist population. What is the British Government's view? Let us hear what they think of those proposals. Let us not hide behind the Unionists. I am sick and tired of people representing Irish unity as something that should not even be talked about. In 1984, we are talking about 5 million people within a Europe made up of countries that have twice this century slaughtered one another by the million, with a savagery far worse than anything that I have ever seen. Yet that Europe held its second direct elections to the European Parliament some 40 years after the end of the second world war. It has been able to build institutions that allow those countries to grow together at their own pace. Is there something wrong with that being an objective for Ireland? Is there something wrong with the people of Ireland finding a way of building institutions that allow them to grow together at their own speed, in peace, harmony and unity — and a unity that accepts the essential diversity?
That brings me to the New Ireland Forum itself, about which much has been written and said. A major consensus within Ireland, within a democratic nationalist Ireland, should be heeded. Any rejection of it should be carefully considered, because of the massive advantage given to other people.
We are not talking about an extremist document. The document says clearly and honestly that the narrow ground on which we have concentrated for a solution up to now — the narrow ground of Northern Ireland — does not deal with the whole problem. Relationships between the communities in Northern Ireland are only part of the problem. The relationships within Ireland and between Ireland and Britain are the problem. Northern Ireland illustrates the failure to solve that problem. No attention was paid to that problem by the House from 1920 to 1969.
Only within a British-Irish framework can the solution be found. The most important aspect of the report is not the three options, but the views of Irish Nationalists about the ways in which realities must be faced if there is to be a solution. We also say that we are willing to examine other ways of accommodating those realities and requirements. If we are praised by the Government for being willing to look at all options, it ill behoves the Government to start dealing out options themselves.
I invite the House to read chapter 5 of the report carefully. It contains a list of realities which must be faced if we are to solve the problem. Hon. Members should say with which realities they disagree. If they agree with the realities, surely they must agree that the only major proposal in the forum report is to get the Governments together to create the framework and atmosphere in which the realities can be discussed to bring about an end to the Irish problem.
All options and all points of view must be considered. Nothing should be ruled out and nothing should be ruled in. There should be no preconditions to allow people to stay away. That should be the beginning of the real dialogue if we are to find solutions to our problems.
58
I end where I began, in my own city. This House of Commons was elected on 9 June last year. Those with an interest in such matters know that 9 June is the feast of Columba, the founder of Derry. In his early days, he was regarded as a rather turbulent priest who caused conflict between the clans in the north-east of Ireland. He thought that stubbornness and pride were the causes of conflict. He went into exile in Iona, where he became a substantial influence in determining the culture and civilisation of most of Scotland. When he was there, he crowned a Scottish chieftain on the stone of destiny, which subsequently became the stone of Scone and which now lies in Westminster Abbey. It was taken back to Ireland once because of the trouble between the clans. He called a convention because he believed that negotiation and discussion without preconditions were the better way to solve the problems than going to war. There was a difference of opinion between the Dalriada, a clan from the area represented by the hon. Member for Antrim, North — the people of the Antrim coast and the people of south-east Scotland — and the people of the clans in the area covered by my constituency. The problem was to whom should the Dalriada pay tribute— the Irish high king or the king of Argyll. The solution was simple. Columba said, "Let them pay tribute to both." In that way he solved the complex identity problem and preserved the unity of the Irish clans. Since then, he has been known in Irish history as a dove of peace. There should be a dove of peace in Government today.
6.25 pm
Dr. Brian Mawhinney: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who has made a considerable contribution to our debate. Some months ago, members of the All-Ireland Forum came to the House to talk to Back Benchers of various parties. Some of us said that the report would be judged on the extent to which it was realistic. I welcomed the dialogue over many months, but I have to say in honesty that I regret the report. The debate examined the problems in the Republic with a new determination which had not existed previously. It was reflected in the forum report in terms of the difference of attitude that it portrayed in relation to the northern Unionists.
The report also portrayed a new attitude towards the United Kingdom Government. It is interesting that one of the three options mentioned—that of a joint authority—flies in the face of the traditional cries from the Republic. Those cries have always been, "Brits out". By definition, the term "joint authority" involves "Brits in". That change of attitude in the Republic is welcome, but it has not been as much commented upon as it should have been. I understand the problems encountered when it became necessary to write the report. The report had to span a considerable expanse of Irish thought.
I declare an interest. I was invited to go to Dublin by the Irish Government, at their expense, for 24 hours to meet the leaders of the various political parties after the forum report had been produced. I was invited to talk to them and to try to ascertain for myself some of the thinking behind the report. This evening I reflect not only my views, but my assessments based upon those discussions. I thank the Irish Government, Mr. Spring, Mr. Lenihan and Mr. Barry for their courtesy at the meetings.
I came back with the impression that a new realisation of what was possible in the island of Ireland had developed. Of

59
course, the aspiration was still for a united Ireland. That is made clear in the report. Yet I detected an undercurrent of realisation that such an option was simply not viable. To the extent that the Irish Government have changed their opinion, it is because they have understood in a real and new way what has been said here this evening—that 1 million Protestants cannot be coerced into a united Ireland. The hon. Member for Foyle pointed to the problems of alienation in the Province, which is crucial to the current debate. However, he must realise that, whether he likes it or not, there are another 1 million people who will not be forced into alliances of which they disapprove.
The second thing that changed thinking in Dublin was, strangely enough, the Falklands war. From that an understanding arose that, if the Prime Minister felt so strongly about the concept of British citizenship that she would mount such an operation, there was no way in which the British Government would simply hand over people in a negotiated settlement with the Dublin Government.
The third aspect making an impression is, as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said, the Government's initial reaction in reminding everyone that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and will remain so while the majority want that. What has not been mentioned, but should be, is that that statement came from a Minister who is a member not merely of the Conservative party, but of the Conservative and Unionist party. That might help the hon. Member for Foyle in his quest for a British Government view of the current position.
One of the things that impressed me most during my visit to Dublin and my discussions there was something that Dr. FitzGerald wrote in the Belfast Telegraph last Friday. He said:
"The fact is that the horrors of violence in Northern Ireland cast a dark shadow over this entire island."
The hon. Member for Foyle is right in saying that there is alienation in the Province. There must be a certain sense of deja vu every time this House meets to discuss the problems of Northern Ireland. We spend our time arguing about the reality of the constitution and the border. Perhaps a window of opportunity has come for us to stop discussing the constitution and to accept it as it is, and that, in the foreseeable future, it will not change. If we could persuade unionists and nationalists simply to stop debating the constitution and to accept it as it is, that would open all sorts of possibilities and a framework for future discussion.
I immediately accept that such a proposition would not commend itself to the hon. Member for Foyle. Yet he has shown a commendable desire this evening to open discussion about Northern Ireland on a Dublin-London axis and to start addressing the problem of alienation. That alienation is incontrovertible. Whether it be 90,000 or 150,000 people—which is roughly the range of those who voted for Sinn Fein in elections during the past 20 or 30 years — it is a substantial core. That core is not simply motivated by a different political aspiration. The hon. Member for Foyle has a different political aspiration, but he does not behave in the way that characterises the leaders of Sinn Fein. This House must understand that those people are disaffected with the state. It must also understand that, whether we like it or not, they provide a cover for violence, which not only kills constituents of
60
right hon. and hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland — and the remainder of the United Kingdom through the persons in the security forces—but kills jobs and investment.
There is no doubt that the threat of violence spilling into the Republic is having a profound influence on the views of the Irish Government. In fact, the hon. Member for Foyle—a member of the forum—made it clear that that was part of the urgency of the problem that brought the forum into being. Dr. FitzGerald also wrote in that same article last Friday:
"If we do not find and support a solution we too could be overwhelmed by the problem."
The time has come for people to react to the world as it is and for sterile debate about constitutional issues to be set to one side so that we can devote our energy to trying to find ways to come to terms with that alienation before it swamps not only the North but the South and makes its way across to the mainland. I welcome the new sense of realism in the Irish Government, as represented by Dr. FitzGerald's remarks in the newspaper. It takes a big man to set aside his ultimate aspirations and to realise that they are not achievable and that the pressure being brought to bear makes it imperative that something lesser should be negotiated and accepted.
My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench have an important role to play in trying to persuade the Irish Government that the alienation in the North cannot effectively be tackled while they are holding out some political hope that a united Ireland is a possibility in the forseeable future. If the consequence of the forum discussion, and the knock-on effect that it has had in the Province and in Britain, is to lay to rest once and for all debate about the constitution in the immediate and foreseeable future so that we can address ourselves to the real issues and to finding mechanisms in Northern Ireland that will command some support from the minority community and help slowly to dissipate the alienation, the House will feel that it is a prize well worth seeking.
I agree with the hon. Member for Foyle that there is no doubt that, over the years, this House and successive British Governments have robbed the minority community of some sense of their identity. They maintain that position despite what seem to be common-sense facts to the contrary.
I wonder whether the House noted an interesting parliamentary reply in another place a few months ago, when a Minister was asked on how many occasions prosecutions under the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act Northern Ireland 1954 had taken place during the past 14 years. Someone like me, brought up in the Province, would know that that Act is important: it makes it illegal for the tricolour to fly in Northern Ireland——
Mr. Hume: Not the French tricolour.
Dr. Mawhinney: That is right. The Act has had a chequered history during the past 14 years of—I had intended to say of inducing violence, but we cannot blame a flag for that—being a scene around which violence has erupted from time to time. It is dear to the hearts of all Protestants.
It was clear from the answer that, although flags had been flown, there had not been one prosecution in 14 years.
I have not researched the subject sufficiently to make a recommendation to the Government. My point is that

61
there seem to be many ways in which, symbolically and in matters of substance, we can move towards reaffirming the identities of both the Protestants and Catholics, the unionists and the nationalists, in the North.
I appreciate what has been said on both sides of the House about the rejection of violence and the need for constitutional politics. If constitutional politics is to be constitutional, it must recognise not only the Head of State but the legitimacy of the forces of law and order. I hope that in seeking to differentiate between the non-violent and constitutional brands of politics and that other form which is anathema to hon. Members in all parts of the House, the minority parties will find a way to protect themselves from any charge that they are ambivalent about what is understood in normal circumstances by the word "constitutional".
This is not an issue which can be set aside as not being of urgency because, as well as killing people, terrorism is also killing jobs, and that must concern all sensible people in the Province, regardless of their political aspirations and beliefs. If the Province is to have a future, it must have an employment base, and that adds urgency to the discussions.
I hope that in the weeks and months ahead people will look again at ways of achieving discussion in Northern Ireland. I believe that those discussions should primarily be between the parties in Northern Ireland and that the parties should, for the most part, be left to themselves. In other words, the British Government should let them get on with the talks and not seek to be apprised of every detail as the discussions proceed. I hope that, for their part, they will appreciate the need for an Irish-British dimension. The Secretary of State keeps telling us that this is a matter for the Parliaments. Although that may be so, the Parliaments require leads from Governments, and we on this side will want a clear direction on the structures which might usefully be set up. I believe that initially they should be between this House and the Dail, excluding members of the Assembly. That would be a sensible way forward.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his speech today. It was one of conciliation, realism and hope. The people of Northern Ireland, of both traditions, owe him a great deal.
6.44 pm
Mr. Stephen Ross: Like the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), I have had the advantage of visiting Dublin since the New Ireland Forum report was published and of having discussions, in collaboration with my leader, with the Taoiseach, with the Tanaiste and with leading members of Fianna Fail. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is an air of realism among all parties, including Fianna Fail, represented in the Dail.
I should at the outset declare my interest because I come from Irish-Scottish stock via Liverpool. I am a Protestant, but I have three Irish grandchildren being brought up in the Roman Catholic faith. I want them, when they grow up, to feel equally at home, and to be able to live in peace, both in Britain and in Ireland.
I should mention, in view of the Liverpool connotation to which I referred—the hon. Member for Peterborough dealt with the point in passing—the rise of Sinn Fein and the fear of the violence spreading into the South. Concern is being expressed about the local elections next year. We cannot brush matters off and say that those are
62
simply developments in Ireland, for if the violence starts to increase, as it appears it might, in the South, it would reach these shores and would occur in Liverpool, Glasgow and even in Southampton.
I had the honour of representing the Isle of Wight when Lord Mountbatten was our governor, and I had the opportunity to speak with him on a number of occasions. We have heard military stories and stories about the bravery of the people of Ireland, from both the North and South. I recall Lord Mountbatten telling me of an occasion when he chaired a Burma Star reunion in Dublin. After a convivial evening, as one might imagine, a number of Irish men from south of the border came to him and said, "When you get back to the big house, Lord Mountbatten, tell your lady that if she is ever in trouble again, we will be over." It is tragic to think that he was killed, blown up, off the west coast of Ireland. I am sure, however, that he would not have held that against the Irish people, for he held them in high esteem.
If he were in his place, I would congratulate the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) on the size of his vote in the recent European Parliament elections. However, I believe that that vote had more in common with a sort of Scargill position as leader of the NUM than, as in the case of the hon. Gentleman, with any response to the forum. I believe that the electorate like the idea of having somebody who they know will shout his mouth off and defend them on occasions, and that is why the hon. Member for Antrim, North got such a vote. It had nothing to do with his views on the New Ireland Forum report.
I now do what I have wanted to do for some time, and that is to pass a verbal bouquet to the Secretary of State. He has done a marvellous job in the Province in the last three years and I regret it if his term in office there is coming to an end. I also pay tribute to his wife, whose work in the Province is much appreciated.
We should say to the people in the South of Ireland. to our American friends and to people throughout the Western world that Britain has tried desperately hard for the last 15 years, under successive Secretaries of State and Governments, to bring peace to the North of Ireland and to put right matters that were wrong for far too long.
There is cause for optimism on the industrial front. Last week I was in Washington and saw regular landings of Shorts 330s and 360s. They are selling in substantial numbers to American airlines. I am also proud of the fact that the middle wings of those planes are made in the Isle of Wight. When I visited Harland and Wolff recently, I found a new optimism there, under Mr. Parker, and some of that comes from the Secretary of State's initiative; when it was in real trouble, he secured an order for that yard from one of the largest oil companies.
The De Lorean affair was an absolute tragedy. Whatever criticism may be levelled at the way in which it was structured, at the time it brought work to a part of Belfast that was desperately in need of it. I was there when it was at its prime and I am pleased to learn that Shorts, if it continues to do well, will take part of that lovely factory. We should also praise the success of LEDU— the local enterprise development unit—which has done a great job. Indeed, I wish that it were possible for the sort of grants and loans that it can make to be made in my constituency.
I also praise the Housing Executive, and not just for its work in Belfast. I was in Londonderry recently and discovered that the investment in housing in Derry is

63
terrific. The investment has gone not only into housing but into central redevelopment and a new £23 million bridge over the Foyle, although I am not sure where the traffic is going. We have put a huge investment into Londonderry, though it is tragic, with such high unemployment, to see the empty factories. But we have tried, and I doubt whether anything like that amount of investment would have come from the Dublin Government. The cost to the British taxpayer has been about £1,400 a head, which is a huge burden. Some of the annexes to the forum report tell us that the cost of violence for Great Britain since 1969 has been slightly less than £9 billion while the cost to the Irish Treasury has been about £2 billion. We must remember these sums and realise that they are a burden upon us. We are prepared to pay but we should remind our fellow citizens exactly what the cost is. There are many other costs to be considered, the principal one being the appalling loss of life and of permanent injury. It is tragic that over the past 40 years Northern Ireland and the Republic have tended to drift further apart. The punt no longer matches the pound.
The Opposition spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), talked about agricultural support. I remember talking to a soldier in Ireland and being told about the dislike of the military in south Armagh. I suggested that south Armagh should be merged into the Republic and he replied that there would be no point in doing that because the price of milk in the North was higher than it was in the South. That situation has probably changed recently and perhaps the farmers in the North are now looking with some envy at those in the South.
It was a grave mistake on the part of the Southern Ireland Government to write the banning of abortion into their constitution and we are all aware that the Republic has a growing tradition of neutrality. These features make it much more difficult for the two parts of the island to come together.
I have been reading Bruce Arnold's "What Kind of a Country?", which is a history of the past 15 years in Ireland. I have read also the fine speech which Lord Fitt made in another place on 20 June. I noticed that Lord Fitt was in the Peers' Gallery and I am sorry that he has left. Both Bruce Arnold and Lord Fitt brought home to me the tragedy of the demise of the Sunningdale agreement. It was a great achievement when the Government of the day set up the Sunningdale talks and we should give them credit for taking that initiative. It was a tragedy when Sunningdale was brought down. However, we must try again and respond positively to the forum report, which we must remember is a Dublin initiative. Similarly, we must respond positively to the Haagerupp report, which has not been mentioned so far. Finally, there is the Official Unionist document, which I find constructive. It goes quite a long way with the forum report on some issues, for some of its proposals fit in with the observations that are set out in the report. That is only to be welcomed.
We must pay regard also to the pertinent remarks of a brave and honest man, the Bishop of Down and Connor. Public opinion polls show consistently that there is strong support for a substantial measure of power sharing within the Province. We should surely be able to make some progress on the political front.
64
In a speech which I addressed to the Liberal assembly in September 1983 I said that we should concentrate our efforts on encouraging the deliberations of the forum, which was then still considering its report, and on
"establishing and maintaining good Irish/British relations, establishing parliamentary links with the Dail, overcoming terrorism and concentrating on the restructure of the economy of the Province, on the introduction of PR for parliamentary elections and support for continuing European interest in the affairs of the Province."
I am sure that we should respond to the realities that are contained in chapter 5 of the forum report. I agree with the hon. Member for Foyle that most hon. Members will find it difficult to criticise the 10 or 11 points that are contained within it. I accept that there will be criticisms of the proposed solutions much as I should like to see a federal or joint authority type of structure. I know that in present circumstances that is not possible.
We should be able to respond to the forum report with some positive intitiatives. The Official Unionists and the alliance parties call for a Bill of Rights—a proposal that is dear to the hearts of Liberals and our SDP colleagues. My colleague in another place, Lord Wade, has tried twice to put such a Bill through another place. He debated the issue in Belfast not so long ago. We can build on the Unionists' suggestion of devolving more power to the Assembly but I should like further clarification of the role that they have in mind for the minority parties and their power of veto where necessary, a power which I am sure the SDLP will be requiring. I still believe that we could make progress with the concept of all-Ireland courts, a subject which was discussed at Sunningdale.
Last summer there was a great deal of opposition in this House to the initiatives of the Political Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, which led to what has now become known as the Haagerupp report. When the committee's initiatives were debated and voted on in March, the findings and recommendations contained within them were much praised. Conservative Members praised them but they were not allowed to vote for them. There was only one Conservative Member who had the guts to do so.
I shall read paragraphs 13 and 14 of the motion, which received overwhelming approval, and having done so I shall address the remainder of my speech to the matters that are contained in paragraph 14.
Paragraph 13
"calls upon the British Government and the Irish Government to re-examine their individual and collective responsibility for expanding and enlarging their mutual co-operation not only in matters relating to security north and south of the border but also to use their influence with the two communities in Northern Ireland to bring about a political system with an equitable sharing of Government responsibilities which will accommodate the identities of the two traditions and so uphold the ideals and the concept of tolerance vis-a-vis minorities in the two countries and in other European country member states."
Paragraph 14
"urges the Parliaments of the two countries to set up as suggested by the meeting of British and Irish Prime Ministers in 1981, a joint Anglo-Irish parliamentary body with representatives of the two Parliaments and of any elected body truly representative of Northern Ireland, and to have Members of the European Parliament take part in such a body insofar as that meets with the support of British and Irish Members."
My Liberal and SDP colleagues and I have been studying the examples of the Nordic council. We believe that it set out a structure that could help us in the establishment of a parliamentary tier that will link Westminster, Dublin and Belfast.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Why Belfast?
Mr. Ross: There are arguments about that, but I think that there is a case for including Belfast. We do not believe that stability can be achieved purely by means of an internal settlement in Northern Ireland. The geographical proximity of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic would of itself be sufficient to create an Irish dimension to the politics of Northern Ireland. In addition, a significant minority of the population in Northern Ireland looks to the Republic for the fulfilment of its national aspirations, and that is bound to have an effect on the politics of the Province. Attempts to express this relationship in institutional form have, unfortunately, not been successful.
The Government of Ireland Act 1920 established two subordinate Parliaments in Ireland and proposed that a Council of Ireland should be established. That proposal proved abortive as the Unionists were unwilling to recognise it. The Sunningdale agreement of 1973 established the power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland. It proposed also that there should be a Council of Ireland, but that, too, proved abortive. In the view of many, the proposed Council of Ireland fuelled Unionist hostility to the Executive. That hostility culminated in the strike of May 1974, which led to the Executive's collapse.
It is clear that a new approach must be adopted which recognises the Irish dimension while at the same time assuaging Unionist fears that a recognition of this dimension will be a step to Irish unity by the back door. We believe that any initiative should take the form of one linking the two sovereign states of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic rather than one linking Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.
The improvement of relations between the two countries is an essential precondition to the resolution of the Northern Ireland problem. We seek to bring together both the Unionists and the nationalist populations in Northern Ireland as well as the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. We believe that the two processes are interlinked; neither will be successful without the other. We want to enable the two traditions in Ireland, the Unionist and the nationalist, to appreciate each other's viewpoint without fearing that in so doing each will be compromising its own deeply held beliefs.
There is already an Anglo-Irish council, which meets at regular intervals and links Ministers and officials of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. What is lacking is a forum in which parliamentarians from the two countries can meet to discuss common problems and methods of improving relations. We propose that a British-Irish parliamentary council be established. The council would be established by an agreement or treaty between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. The agreement or treaty should reiterate the declaration that Northern Ireland would in no circumstances cease to be part of the United Kingdom without the consent of the majority of its population. This would serve to calm Unionists and to isolate the men of violence.
It should also be stated that the aim of the council should be an improvement in relations between the two countries and not political union. We suggest that it should comprise parliamentarians from the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and the Irish Republic. We suggest a total of 29 members: 12 from Great Britain, five
66
from Northern Ireland and 12 from the Irish Republic. There would, therefore, be a United Kingdom majority in the council.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Member has made an important point. Would the five members from Northern Ireland be Members of this House from Northern Ireland?
Mr. Ross: That was not the intention. They would be from the Assembly, but that matter is not fixed. We are putting forward some ideas, and I believe that this is the time to put them forward.
Mr. Michael Mates: What about the 12 members from this House? Would they be Northern Ireland Members?
Mr. Ross: There is no reason why there should not be some members from Northern Ireland among 12 representing this House. I have nothing against that. It is up to the House to devise the measures by which the members are appointed.
There would be a United Kingdom majority on the council but also for the island of Ireland. The parliamentary council would possess consultative powers only. It would be an organ of consultation between the Parliaments of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. Its functions would be twofold. First, it would be able to examine legislative proposals on matters of common interest. In the agreement or treaty establishing the council the two Governments would agree that before any substantial legislative proposals affecting relations between the two countries were promulgated there would be a Green Paper—a consultative pre-legislative stage—so that the council could make known its views in good time and so that it could influence Bills placed before the two Parliaments.
The council would have the power of the Select Committees of the House of Commons to send for persons and papers. The council's role in that area would be particularly important in matters affecting the rights of minoritites. The council would have been able, for example, to consider security legislation in Northern Ireland and the recent referendum on abortion in the Republic.
Secondly, the council would be able to conduct investigations of its own, unrelated to current legislative proposals, and issue reports on matters which, in its view, affected relations between the two countries. It would have a progress-chasing function, acting as a pressure group dedicated to the improvement of British-Irish relations. It could also make proposals for future legislation bringing the two countries closer. It might consider, for example, the role of denominational teaching in Northern Ireland and the Republic, wasteful duplication of expenditure on youth training, and the development of school curriculums more harmoniously attuned to the aspirations of the two communities in Northern Ireland.
Following the EEC's lead, the council could consider the harmonisation of educational qualifications, standards of consumer protection and, more broadly, the subject of how Government expenditure could be more effectively deployed.
We believe that a British-Irish parliamentary council could play a major role in improving relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic. It would be a great mistake to belittle such an institution as a talking shop,

67
because it has only consultative powers. As the experience of Westminster Select Committees has shown, the influence that such bodies can exert depends less upon their powers than upon the will to agree on the part of members and the cogency of their recommendations.
The council might conceivably develop into a forum in which solutions of the Northern Ireland problem can be discussed and developed. That would, of course, depend upon the quality of the relationships established between parliamentarians of opposing views. Whether or not the council developed in that way, any resulting improvement in British-Irish relations would, of itself, benefit Northern Ireland. We see the council as contributing to the settlement of the Northern Ireland problem, not overnight—such a rapid solution is hardly possible — but over a longer perspective. Above all, the council could help to destroy the false images that the parties to the Northern Ireland conflict have of each other. They are false images which have done much to bedevil relations between the Irish and the British people over the past 100 years.
The one thing that emerged from the talks with the members of the Dail was that they had not appreciated the views and problems of the people of the North. They are a new generation and they have been fed on stories of the past. They learnt a great deal from going through the forum exercise. If the council were to destroy those false images it would significantly lessen the mutual fear that lies at the root of the conflict, and would, I hope, reduce the political appeal of Sinn Fein whose strength in recent years must be a cause of anxiety to all north and south of the border, and is well understood by the chief executive of the Official Unionists, who called it the ultimate nightmare. I cannot put it better.
7.3 pm
Mr. Fred Silvester: I intervene with some diffidence because I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) that it would be so much better if it were possible for the people of Northern Ireland, of all the parties, to solve the problem themselves. Eventually it must be upon their wishes and consent that anything worth living with will remain, but I doubt whether that is possible. Although I wish well such talks as the right hon. Gentleman so eloquently foreshadowed this afternoon, I retain some doubts as to whether we can deal with the matter within the context of Northern Ireland alone.
One point that I believe should be made as we discuss the future is that my right hon. Friend's creation of the Assembly is a matter upon which we shall look back with great content. Those who expected to find that it was a radical solution, in place by now, never understood what it was about in the first place.
What my right hon. Friend saw, and what the Assembly has provided, is that Northern Ireland needs a forum for itself—a centre for political activity. It is a vessel into which one can pour many concoctions. I believe that it will stay. I see no Government wishing to remove it. One of the difficulties is that, whenever we reach a constitutional problem of this magnitude, it is necessary to go through the hassle and battle of getting a statute through this place. Now that we have the Assembly in place, many different
68
permutations can be played. I believe that it will remain as a permanent and valuable part of the Northern Ireland scene.
I come now to the subject of what concoction we should pour into that vessel, and I suggest tentatively that we might consider that on three basic premises. First, we should begin by understanding once again that we are probably dealing with the most powerful political force that exists in the world — the force of the nation. Secondly, I wish we would adopt less of the cloud-cuckoo-land approach — wishful thinking — and attach more importance to the realities of political power and a little less to comfortable evasions. Thirdly—this may sound somewhat different from what my right hon. Friend said —I suggest that it might be better to do nothing if we cannot do enough.
I know that it is unfashionable now to say this, but I think that we should do well to acknowledge that nationhood remains the most powerful political force in the world today. As one who finds the sense of belonging to a nation of the utmost importance, it comes as no surprise to me that other people should do the same. I am aware that many of our most enlightened politicians wish otherwise, but throughout the world we see that, whatever colour people may have in politics or religion, the power of the nation remains strong. We will not merge, substitute or destroy it during our political lifetime.
We should remember that at the heart of the problem —although we might talk about traditions or identities—we are really talking about nations. We have a classic case where nations and boundaries do not coincide. The reality is that this happens more often than we would wish. As a result, it is necessary to arrive at compromises.
One of the interesting points about the documents before us is that they all clearly state our recognition of the nations. Paragraph 4.9.1 of the New Ireland Forum report states:
"Unionists generally regard themselves as being British, the inheritors of the specific, communal loyalty to the British Crown."
In the Assembly debate, on 8 May, Mr. Ferguson said:
"There is not one nation of the Irish, there are two nations."
The DUP document, "The Unionist Case", says:
"The longstanding, cultural development between the two peoples in Ireland has evidenced itself in ways which affect not only their attitudes but their daily lives."
Therefore, we are confronted with the realisation that this is a classic case of two nations in one place, and I see no evidence whatever to suggest that that problem will go away.
It is misleading and evasive to speak of unity by consent, when we all know that such consent is not and will not be forthcoming. The DUP, in its document, says:
"Even if expelled from the United Kingdom, … Northern Ireland would not countenance, either in the short term or in the long term, unity with the Republic."
My second premise is that we should be careful of evasion. There are times when evasion and being willing not to confront issues is helpful. It helps those who have difficult decisions to make, and it can ease the pain. Sometimes it buys time when time is the only remedy. But there are times when it is not so wise, and I think that this may be one of those occasions.
I sympathise with the efforts of all those who distinguish between the content of the documents and their tone. Everyone is leaning over backwards to find common factors in the forum report, in "The Way Forward" and in

69
the other documents. There are improvements in tone. There are statements of the other side's point of view, which are set out more clearly than previously, but there are also many substantial differences and lack of movement in the basic positions of both sides.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) talked about a conference with an absolutely open agenda and suggested that talk would solve all. There has been much talk and there have been many conferences.
There are certain basic elements in the situation to which perhaps I come late, because I started by believing that our best course was some kind of administrative devolution, but I think that we have to look deeper than that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) talked about alienation and seemed to imply that the problems could be solved without tackling the constitution. I do not believe that is possible. There are realities that we have to face.
My final premise is that perhaps—I am not so sure of this — we should do nothing unless we can do enough. The prize, after all, is peace. Everything else turns on that—the economy, the quality of life, the wear and tear on the Army and on the respect for law, and the general poisoning of the political atmosphere both here and in the Republic. All the problems spring from, or are made worse by, the terror, and, above all, by the growing respectability of terror. We shall not end the nightmare by ritual condemnation or goodwill gestures, however well intentioned, which fall short of tackling the core problem.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that political developments themselves cannot bring peace. That is right, but it does not follow that peace can come without political developments.
In essence, we face now, as we have faced every year, the twin pillars of terror. One is the pillar of evil—that combination of crime, political ambition, sadism, fear and greed, which motivates much of the violence. The other is the pillar of disillusion—that long-felt belief that, although their methods are evil, the objectives of the IRA are right and that nobody else seems to be getting anywhere.
For the terror to fail, both pillars have to crack. By all means let us be fierce in our assault upon the terrorists, but we need to turn that disillusion into hope. Anything less will fail. Out of the next generation come the terrorists to replace those whom we capture. The people in the United Kingdom as a whole have a right to question whether a policy which relies on so high a level of commitment to security as far as the eye can see is one that can be supported for ever.
Throughout the debates on the Province that we have had in this House, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has said that constant change in the constitution is an encouragement to the IRA; that each move is seen as a response to its violence; and each concession an invitation to try again for a bit more. The right hon. Gentleman's solution is to enmesh Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom so that the nationalists give up hope. I agree that we need that stability and air of finality. Constant innovation is disruptive. Although I cannot agree that a policy to tighten the union with the United Kingdom would achieve that purpose, I am also seeking a resting place. We want to be in a place where a generation or two can put down roots, and perhaps be
70
able to look back, at the beginning of the next century, and ask what all the fuss was about. That is why I say that if we cannot do enough, we should stay where we are.
What is enough? It is the point at which the minority community can feel that its national allegiance is properly expressed without denying the same right to the Unionists. We shall not change Sinn Fein, for which a break with Great Britain is the only solution, but we need to find the point at which the potential gain from supporting such a line is less to the majority of the Catholics in Northern Ireland than the loss of life and a future which is disrupted by violence and vice. It is a point—I emphasise this—which needs to be underwritten by the overt commitment of the Irish parties and by the joint participation of the Irish police and armed forces in the restoration of normal law.
Such a commitment represents an abandonment of what an Opposition Member was calling the forced consent. There is no forced consent. What is required is an underwriting by the Government of the Republic—and, indeed, by the parties of the Republic—of a solution which allows the Unionists to remain part of the United Kingdom. I believe that is possible, but there is a price to be paid. Our institutions need to recognise what is in practice already the truth.
Large numbers of Catholics hold allegiance outside the United Kingdom. The Queen's writ does not run everywhere. Some of the problems facing Northern Ireland will yield only to joint activity with the South. The security problem cannot be solved without the active participation of the Republic. We need to find a way in which we can bring together that joint allegiance. We cannot have peace without joint security and we cannot have joint security without some recognition of the quality of nationhood, with which I began. To concede too little will not bring peace — merely another round of disillusion as yet another concession fails.
It is tempting to grasp at the immediately obtainable titbit, such as the council to which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) referred. Peace can come only if we can sign up the main political forces throughout the island of Ireland in a combined assault on the terrorist, and therefore a combined effort in regard to economic and political problems.
The structure that allows some measure of joint allegiance does not—nor could it—involve a break of the links between the Province and the United Kingdom. It has been made abundantly clear — and most eloquently by my right hon. Friend today — that no British Government would countenance such a thing; nor indeed, would the British people or the people of the Province.
We should be careful how we talk about sovereignty. Continuously we surrender it, we merge it and we blur it when it suits our interest. What is the point of sovereignty if it cannot be used for the benefit of the people? I suggest that the United Kingdom has made the biggest surrender of its sovereignty in its history to the European Court of Human Rights. It has done that without statute, without debate in this House, and without even much interest among hon. Members. It therefore behoves us, particularly Parliament, not to be querulous about some aspects of sovereignty in return for real benefits of stability and peace. But it is not necessary to go that far. The sovereignty of the United Kingdom over Northern Ireland is not at issue. The achievement of agreement does not require it. The stability that we seek can come in many

71
guises, provided that we retain the two essential ingredients—that the loyalties of both nations need to be satisfied, and that the resultant modified union of the Province with the United Kingdom must be underwritten by the Governments and the peoples both of the United Kingdom and of the Republic.
7.20 pm
Mr. Martin Flannery: When I hear hon. Members from Northern Ireland speaking in the House, I always approach these debates with a certain humility, because we over here understand only temporarily what they live through when we go to visit them. I say that equally of hon. Members who agree or disagree with what I say, on either side.
When I heard the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) make his forthright speech I was rather intrigued to hear him say to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that he was surprised that he was not in the Assembly. The hon. Member for Antrim, North said that he would like to be able to talk to him and to convert him. What hope was there if one could not do that sort of thing? One might as well, the hon. Gentleman said, go home. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), has come to the debate. At first I thought that he had expressed his view in triplicate.
I always hope that those of us who have been attending Northern Ireland debates for quite a time do not come with great expectations, because we have learnt not to do so. I remember, throughout the years, that the various Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, including Labour Secretaries of State, conveyed the view, possibly inadvertently, that the security position was improving and that things were clearly on the mend. People like me and my hon. Friends who represent Sheffield—two of them struggle in this area — always cautioned against that. The reality is that we were correct.
None the less, I believe that the debate places a heavy burden on all of us. We have a choice. We can either give some hope to the two traditions in Northern Ireland, and to all the people who are interested over here as well, or we can take up fixed, rigid and entrenched positions and leave those people in despair, fearing that, as the emergency has continued for 15 years, it looks as though many more years will pass before we find a solution.
We seem to have no solutions to offer to this intractable problem. I often think that way, and I believe that all of us do. Unless we hold out some hope, the melancholy cycle of violence, maiming and killing will go on in that small country. It is such a tiny community when it is compared with large countries. On a kind of pro-rata basis, Northern Ireland has lost from 80,000 to 90,000 people in terms of the United Kingdom generally.
If we do not move somewhere else, in my opinion we shall move towards the ultimate catastrophe. There seems to be a sense of urgency, without the need to panic, about the situation we face. The forum was born out of that. I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle. Whatever he says about the voting system in Northern Ireland, many people still voted for Sinn Fein. That is the political reality, whatever the voting system is. Possibly, that was one of the main factors that brought about the forum—the disillusionment of sections of the minority Catholic community with the present situation,
72
which was borne out in that vote. Sections of that community were alarmed by that vote. The alarm bells were ringing. It was apparent that constitutional nationalism and constitutional unionism were in a certain disarray. We must take all those factors into account.
Whatever we may think about it, I believe that the New Ireland Forum is an honest attempt to prove that there is a peaceful solution by consent. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) is a politician to whom I always like to listen. He puts his views clearly, although is viewpoint does not always sound as moderate as the language he uses. None the less, I always like to listen to him. He does not look daggers at anything, or any of us, but he says what he honourably believes. I respect that.
I believe that we can either begin to prove that there is hope of a peaceful solution or we can leave people thinking that, no matter how we try, the problem is so intractable that we are a hopeless lot and are not getting much further with it. Unless there is some movement somewhere towards what we have constantly held out—a peaceful solution—there will be more disillusionment among the people of Northern Ireland and other parts of Ireland.
The three alternatives given—the unitary state, the federal/confederal state, and the joint authority state—have been more or less moved out of court by hon. Members of the Unionist persuasion, and by the Government as well. Therefore, we must think seriously about the stage that we have reached now.
The Official Unionist document is couched in very moderate language. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle says that it is the most moderate language that he has read in any Unionist document yet. I shall quote from paragraph five on the first page of the document—it did not mince words, but came to the point straight away:
"If Northern Ireland is to have a devolved government with legislative and executive powers on the Stormont model, with the government being drawn from the party or coalition of parties having a majority, this would almost certainly be 'Unionist' in character."
That is made plain. The document continues:
"Its overwhelming political objective would be the maintenance of the Union. Such an arrangement would logically preclude power sharing with those whose aspiration is a United Ireland. Conclusion 12 of the Report of the Northern Ireland Constitutional Convention states
'That no country ought to be forced to have in its Cabinet any person whose political philosophy and attitudes have revealed his opposition to the very existence of the State'.
This underlines the logic of the anti-power sharers in these circumstances and the argument is difficult to refute."
The Official Unionists make no bones about it. They say quite clearly that anybody who believes in an ultimately united Ireland has no place with them. Then they wonder why the SDLP did not go into the Assembly. The reality is there. It is categorical and definite. It poses a problem with which all of us are trying to grapple
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman omitted the context from which he was quoting. The context was that of a legislative and administrative devolution to a Northern Ireland Assembly with, therefore, a Cabinet structure. It is necessary to include that context to give the correct meaning to the words that the hon. Gentleman quoted. I am sure that he will agree with that
Mr. Flannery: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. None the less, I reiterate that it is the fundamental viewpoint of unionism that power sharing at all in Northern Ireland is wrong. There are elements in the

73
Unionist party that disagree, but there is something important about the vote that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) received. It is a powerful grouping, and we must look at it as clearly as possible.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but the official Unionists have, in polite language, really asked for a return to the old Stormont. I believe that that is their aim. They will never admit it when they are wrong. They will never admit to the things that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said about bigotry and the way that the Catholic minority has been treated. They have always conveyed the impression that there was democracy in Northern Ireland. There never was. The action of the Catholic minority shows that most clearly.
I should like to tell the story of some years ago when I went into the offices of what is now the Democratic Unionist party, which were festooned with Union Jacks — almost like a National Front organisation. I have mentioned this before in the Chamber to the hon. Member for Antrim, North. As we were talking, I happened to see a picture on the wall. It was a photo-montage. I had a look at it, and it showed the hon. Gentleman sitting on a papal throne, and the Pope was kissing his foot.
In the face of such appalling bigotry, where are we going? People try to say that bigotry does not exist. Despite my Irish name, I am not a Catholic. I am trying to grapple as best I can with the terrible problem that confronts us all. Let us be clear that there are reactionary and powerful forces that do not want us to solve the problem. When the hon. Member for Antrim, North was speaking earlier about gunmen I said, "What about the gunmen on the hillside?" The hon. Gentleman made light of that, as he previously made light of the anecdote that I have just told. When I raised it with him later, he said, "It was only a joke." I do not believe it. Certain people think that they have the God-given right to rule over others and they will not let a little thing like democracy get in their way.
I dearly hope, as Dr. FitzGerald does, that there is a chink of light coming from the forum report and certain other documents. I like the ending of his argument. He said that no matter what we feel, we should talk about it. We should get together and argue in as wide a grouping as possible. I believe that the New Ireland Forum is an attempt to do that. Chapter 5.1, paragraph (1) states:
"Existing structures and practices in Northern Ireland have failed to provide either peace, stability or reconciliation."
That is true. There is no hope if those structures remain as they are. The report continues
"The failure to recognise and accommodate the identity of Northern nationalists has resulted in deep and growing alienation on their part from the system of political authority."
Paragraph (4) states:
"The present formal position of the British Government, namely the guarantee, contained in Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, 1973, has in its practical application had the effect of inhibiting the dialogue necessary for political progress."
That point was made by the hon. Member for Foyle. I am not proposing a solution, but to have that fact in the background to help means that one does not necessarily get down to real argument and try to solve the problem because one feels so powerful. All those matters must be considered.
I was particularly pleased when Dr. FitzGerald said that this is not a solution to our problems but only an agenda. In other words, there is nothing final about it. The three
74
options proposed are not necessarily the final three. it is suggested that they are worthy of discussion by all of us and should not be immediately and rapidly turned out of court.
We should all realise that although there is no royal road to solving this intractable problem, we must make some political progress, not least because our people are deeply frustrated at the lack of progress. We all know that if we consulted our people, we might get an awful shock, as the Daily Mirror did when it ran a poll a few years ago, and about 70 per cent. of those asked wanted to come out of Northern Ireland. I, for one, see no royal road, and I would struggle against it. Nevertheless the British people have a sense of frustration. If there was a referendum, it would change things drastically. It would have an effect that I personally would not wish.
Some people, many from my own side, for whom I have profound respect and affection, believe that pulling the troops out will solve the problem. I personally am completely opposed to that, having gone to Northern Ireland many times through the years. I fear a blood bath. Those people might be correct that pulling the troops out would somehow be the catalyst not to tragedy but to political movement, and, ultimately a united Ireland by consent, which the Labour party and I believe in. It might come about by other methods if we are not careful. We must consider that.
If the troops were pulled out and there was a blood bath, it would be a bit too late to admit that one was wrong. Although I have much sympathy with the people who think that way, I have never gone on one of their platforms, and would not do so. I would need convincing in many ways that it was right because I believe that there is no quick method to solve this intractable problem. There is no royal road. It depends on our integrity and honesty, as we lean on one another's convictions about the discussion and debate that must go on. However, all the time, forces are urgently grappling, probably in a different way.
The Secretary of State pours sarcasm on those who, every now and again, ask for a new political initiative. However, I say to the Secretary of State that it is the people who struggle all the time for new initiatives who move mankind forward a step. The Secretary of State says, "You are here again asking for new initiatives." I say, "I am here again pointing out that there is practically no movement." That is what worries me. I am worried that the killing will continue and that more people will be in danger. That is why I believe that the forum initiative should be not thrown out but studied to see whether at the end of the tunnel there is the beginning of an argument to carry us forward to something better.
It may sound like a platitude, but that initiative:is a contribution to a continuing debate which must not cease but in which we want some movement. I am sure that we respect one another's views. I have said that I believe that ultimately the only hope is for the island of Ireland to be a united country in its own right. If a powerful, imperialist Ireland had been the order of the day many years ago and had subjugated and taken over a weak England and Scotland and ultimately, due to force of circumstance, had carved out Lancashire and attached it to Ireland, we should certainly not be sitting quiet. We should be struggling for a united England, just as the Irish are now struggling for a united Ireland and we should respect them for it.
Those of us who hate violence believe that the debate must continue. A united Ireland may be a long way off,

75
but I believe that the vast majority of the British people believe that it must ultimately come when they see what is now going on. It may be a long way off, but I believe that as the debate continues it is bound to move more and more in the direction of a united Ireland. I believe that the forum initiative is an honourable attempt to grapple with the problem.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. So far, the shortest speech has been 17 minutes and the average has been well over 20 minutes. Unless hon. Members are more restrained, many will be disappointed.
7.42 pm
Mr. Michael Mates: What a moment to get to my feet, but I shall do my best, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) on some of his remarks, but especially on being the only Northern Ireland Member to stay to listen to what other Members have to say. It is a pity that the quality of debate is lowered by the fact that people declaim and then depart so that their views cannot be changed by subsequent argument. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have requested brevity, and as my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) and for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) have made many of the points far more adequately than I could, I shall confine myself to two matters.
When the forum report was first issued, I said that I regarded it as a very helpful diagnosis, that it made many valuable points, that its tone was its most important feature, but that, unfortunately, it had not really gone any distance down the road towards providing for the future. I would say the same about the "The Way Forward", the document produced by the Official Unionist party. Again, the tone is important. I had thought that I hoped in vain for such a change and moderation of the way in which that group had expressed its views in previous years.
Even more important, however, has been the significant series of statements by the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland. I believe that that is the most helpful peg on which we and the Government can hang our attempts to make some tentative progress. Because the report had to be signed by all the nationalist parties, one of its most disappointing features was the caveat of Fianna Fail, the largest party, that only a unitary state would ultimately be acceptable. The Prime Minister, Dr. FitzGerald, has not just categorically denied that, but he has faced the fact, which could not be included in the report, that, whatever the aspirations of the Labour party, the nationalist parties or anyone else to achieve a united Ireland by consent, that is simply not going to happen.
In these matters, we are dealing with Governments, not with Oppositions or parties. The head of the Irish Government has very bravely said to his own people and to us that he sees no prospect of consent for a united Ireland in the near future and that the best way forward, in his view, is to work with the situation that we have. That is a most realistic appraisal, and it should put an end for the foreseeable future to the constant remarks of Unionists, extreme and less extreme, that any conversation or improvement in relations between London and Dublin is
76
no more than the back door to a united Ireland or the Trojan horse out of which a united Ireland will come. It is not going to happen that way, and the Unionists do neither themselves nor the general debate any service by alleging that it will. Given that clear and brave statement by the Irish Prime Minister, I hope that the two Governments can go forward to improve Anglo-Irish relations I believe that this should be done at Government level. Other parliamentarians may have a part to play, but I doubt whether their efforts could create a viable structure and I do not think that another talking shop is really needed.
That brings me conveniently to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The hon. Member for Foyle asked rather violently about how he could be seen entering an Assembly, members of which were responsible for the Poleglass dustbin incident. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the future of Northern Ireland is about more than dustbins. The need for debate between all political parties which have denied the course of violence is greater than ever before. When I urged the hon. Gentleman to go into the Assembly, in a broadcast programme just after the forum report was published, he said, "There is nothing in it for us." He should ask himself not what is in it for him and his party, but what they can do to contribute to the debate in Northern Ireland. They should ask themselves what they can give, rather than what they can get. It is because for so long the political parties in Northern Ireland have been interested only in what is in it for them and those whom they regard as their people that attempts to bring people together have failed. Only by approaching things in a more generous spirit shall we ever get way from that attitude
Mr. Hume: First, given the political sterility in Northern Ireland since 1974, this is the first major debate to take place in prime time, and the initiative of my party led to the New Ireland Forum report.
Secondly, under the Conservative Government of 1974 we accepted the terms laid down and negotiated with the Unionist parties and the British Government. We accepted power sharing and went into the Assembly. We were then kicked out following the Ulster Workers Council strike. When the Labour Government invited us to the Northern Ireland Convention, we again accepted the terms laid down by this House and were willing to negotiate, but again the Unionists said that in no circumstances were they prepared to share power. In 1979, when the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) was Secretary of State, we again accepted the terms and negotiations, but again the Unionists refused to share power.
When the present Secretary of State announced his initiative, before the elections even took place both the Unionist parties made it clear that there were no circumstances in which they were prepared to share power, so the whole purpose of the Assembly was null and void before it began. We were not prepared to put the people of Northern Ireland through another charade. Instead, we took a new initiative, which has led to today's debate. I believe that we were acting in the best interests of all the people in Northern Ireland in so doing
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that interventions should be brief.
Mr. Mates: As the hon. Gentleman's intervention was longer than my speech so far, I hope that I may be allowed some injury time, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Foyle has reminded us of the past. I agree with most of what he has said about past failures, although I think that he made a mistake when he said that a Conservative Government allowed the first Assembly to fail
Mr. Hume: No. A Conservative Government set it up.
Mr. Mates: I am very proud of the Government who did so.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It has become harder for the hon. Gentleman to come back and back again to look for a way forward, but he is a very courageous man. It will take courage for him to abandon his own brand of sterility. Abstentionism is sterile politics, and the hon. Gentleman is made of better stuff than that.
The end of the article by Dr. FitzGerald to which I have referred is addressed as much to the hon. Member for Foyle as to anyone else. Dr. FitzGerald said:
"Let me … take this opportunity to appeal to all those North and South who genuinely seek peace and stability above anything else to put aside their heritage of suspicions and doubts on the one hand, and unrealistic expectations on the other, and to recognise that North and South are interdependent partners in the vital search for peace and stability."
If one added the words "within present constitutional arrangements", that would be as good a recipe for progress as any that could be found. I hope that hon. Members on the Unionist Benches as well as the hon. Member for Foyle, whose courage I admire, will take that brave message to heart. It offers hope for the future.
7.52 pm
Miss Joan Maynard: I welcome the forum report, but I wish that I could agree with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that it is not in any way connected with trying to help constitutional nationalism. I remember that it was said that Sinn Fein would never stand for election because it would never win any votes. Sinn Fein has started to stand, and to win votes, and that has come about because the nationalist population has felt that constitutional methods were not producing any results.
I believe strongly that Britain, as the sovereign power in the North, is directly responsible for the crisis there. As the forum report states,
"The continuing crisis in Northern Ireland has reached critical proportions, involving intense human suffering and misery for many thousands of people."
That is true, not only in relation to Ireland but in relation to the mainland. The violence over there has inevitably overflowed into our own country. I believe that ever since we divided Ireland we have denied freedom to the nationalist minority in the North. One cannot deny freedom to others and retain it for oneself. It was inevitable, therefore, that the violence there would spread over here. We have created a problem, and we must take the initiative to try to solve it.
The question is a political one. Politicians have failed, and the men of violence on both sides have inevitably moved in to fill the vacuum. Every day we see evidence of the failure of the British settlement of 1920. The settlement was made against the wishes of the majority. We have heard a great deal today about consent, but there was no consent to the original division of Ireland. The
78
nationalists were turned into a political minority by the way in which we divided Ireland. We acknowledged the failure of the 1920 settlement when we suspended Stormont and replaced it by direct rule, but we would not have suspended Stormont had not the minority population rebelled in 1969 and said, 'Enough is enough."
In 1974 the Sunningdale attempt collapsed. For more than 60 years we have not been able to create workable and acceptable political structures. They have still to be established, and it is not possible to establish them within the context of a Northern Ireland state.
The minority population in the North has always been left out of decision making at the political level. For over 50 years it has lived with power and privilege that have been exclusively Unionist. The minority has suffered discrimination in terms of jobs and homes as well as in many other ways. Emigration has been high as a result, and members of the minority population have been, and still are, subject to very high unemployment.
British policy is mere crisis management. We talk constantly of political consensus, but, in practice, we never embark on the politics. We are always discussing the security situation. We resort to crisis management in an effort to contain the violence without dealing with its causes. We have never been able to maintain the Northern Ireland state without repressive legislation in some form or another. There must be something wrong with a state that can be maintained only by repressive legislation, whether in the form of the temporary provisions legislation, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, internment without trial, or the Diplock courts. It is said that we have the Diplock courts because no one would dare to give evidence. Is there not something wrong with a state in which people do not dare to give evidence in the courts?
Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the history of political repression and denial of justice in Northern Ireland has to some extent been mirrored in recent years in the rest of the United Kingdom, with the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1983 and the policing measures that we have seen in London and other major cities since the British Army was sent to Northern Ireland in 1979?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We would do well to keep to the subject of the New Ireland Forum.
Miss Maynard: I was talking of the system of law in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that, because the violence spilled over into this country, the Prevention of Terrorism Act was brought in, and that Act is an infringement of our civil liberties. I also believe that many of the policing methods used in Northern Ireland are now being introduced into the rest of the United Kingdom. The miners' strike is the best example of that.
We are now sinking to the level of using supergrasses to get convictions. The minority population in Northern Ireland no longer has any confidence in the legal system. Many lawyers and barristers in Northern Ireland are also concerned that their credibility is being undermined by the system of law and that the legal system is becoming an adjunct of the military power.
I see no solution in the context of Northern Ireland. There have been many attempts to find a solution within the context of a Northern lreland state. They have all failed. The problem transcends Northern Ireland as we

79
know it. Whenever Unionist paramilitaries have taken action to block off the slightest move towards a change in the present situation, we have backed off.
I am sorry to say that I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) as I do not believe that there will be peace or a solution to the problem until we set a date for Britain's withdrawal from Northern Ireland. I remind the House that we had to leave Egypt and India. One day we shall have to leave Northern Ireland. It is possible to stay in a country only as long as one has the people's consent to do so. I know that the consent of the majority remains with us, but that is only because of the way in which the boundaries were drawn. They were so drawn to build in a majority for the Unionists. That gives them the veto. As long as the veto remains, the Unionists will never discuss the politics. We must discuss the politics if we are ever to achieve a solution. They do not need to discuss the politics because they have a veto. They are in a strong position and we are in a difficult one. They always say that they want to remain part of the United Kingdom. The issue should be voted on in the whole of the United Kingdom. I believe that the result would show that a majority favour Britain leaving Northern Ireland. Our people do not want their sons and fathers being killed over there any more than anyone else would.
As has been demonstrated in the Chamber today, seeking the consent of the Unionists is a waste of time. History shows no example of a group of people who have enjoyed a privilege giving it up voluntarily. The Unionists are extremely privileged and they will not give up that privilege voluntarily.
In reality we are seeking the consent of the minority in Ireland. As the report says at paragraph 3.1:
"The existing political systems in Ireland have evolved from the 1920 constitutional arrangements by Britain which resulted in the arbitrary division of the country. Prior to 1920 and during many centuries of British rule, Ireland was administered as an integral political unit. The establishment of Northern Ireland as a separate political unit was contrary to the desire of the great majority of Irish people for the political unity and sovereignty of Ireland as expressed in the all-Ireland election of 1918."
The report presents an entirely different ball game as it talks of the real majority in Ireland, not the gerrymandered majority in the North.
I should like to ask some questions of the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). How will the Unionists ever be brought to consent to constitutional change while the status quo is backed by the British guarantee? Do the Government and my hon. Friend agree with notion of consent? I believe that they do. Do they agree with the notion of consent within an all-Ireland context? What steps are they prepared to take to win that consent? I do not believe that we shall ever have peace until we find a means of bringing about a united Ireland, as I believe that the Irish people have the same right to self-determination as do we.
8.2 pm
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: One would think, having listened to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), that there were not well over 1 million British people in Northern Ireland who are proud to be British and wish to remain British. That constitutes one of the problems for people such as the hon. Lady, who
80
overcome it simply by ignoring it, as if the interests of the people of Northern Ireland do not count. They argue against the fundamental rule of democracy by which the majority rule. The minority can have their say, privileges and safeguards in the constitution, but ultimately, under the rule of democracy, the majority should have their way. That is what has quite properly happened in Northern Ireland.
It must be acknowledged that ministerial responsibility for Northern Ireland is great. As we understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might be giving up the burden of his office in the near future, perhaps as one who has often disagreed with his policies I might say that he is entitled to praise for his immense patience, integrity and courage in the past few years.
Much good will has been expressed by both sides. I begin to think that perhaps there is too much good will and too little plain speaking. Although the New Ireland Forum might have been of some value to those who took part in it and although it might be impressive that Irish politicians got together and could agree on any one thing at any one time, it is my privilege as a Back Bencher to say that I believe that the report is a humbug, a deceit, a snare and a delusion. When they subscribed to it, every one of its authors knew that it would be unacceptable to the people of Northern Ireland. According to the publicity given to their deliberations, they set out to find a formula for peace in Northern Ireland — a matter that is none of their business — and have since received a great deal of adulation for their achievements. They have made no contribution to peace in Northern Ireland. It is time that that was said publicly. The constitutional position within Northern Ireland and of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom is of no concern to any foreign state, including the Republic of Ireland, which wants to be recognised as foreign and independent. It was a mistake for the British Government to give so much attention to a document that was prepared primarily by parties in a foreign country and which was commended by a foreign Government.
What is the report's objective? It is to expand the frontiers of the Irish Republic in order to include a part of the United Kingdom. I am glad to observe that a spirit of greater reality can now be found among my colleagues who appreciate that the cause of a united Ireland has not been advanced one inch by the report. It is far more important for us to concentrate on the inherent difficulties, tensions and frictions that arise in Northern Ireland and to consider how to alleviate them to solve the problem that is the basis of the violence there.
I appreciated the interesting and thoughtful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester), but these matters cannot be solved by constitutional refinement or by a slight rearrangement of constitutional formulae, which do not matter to people on the ground. Such people are not likely to change their view of their neighbours, the people with whom they have fought, protested and argued, just because of some little constitutional device. That is the approach to politics that is beloved of the Liberal party which attaches far more importance to form and ceremony than to reality.
If we are to solve the problem, it must be solved by the people of Northern Ireland living and working together and working out their own formula. That is why the Government got their priorities wrong when they approached the problem by labelling the debate as being on the New Ireland Forum report and other documents. At

81
the minimum, they should have said that this was a debate on constitutional proposals for Northern Ireland. If any one document had to be given precedence, pride of place should have been given to that produced by the Official Unionist party, entitled "The Way Forward".
The Official Unionists are admittedly in a position of power in democratic terms in Northern Ireland. They make up the largest party, they represent the majority community, and they are proposing improvements and developments within their own constitutional arrangements that could go some way towards appeasing the legitimate complaints of the minority. The idea of a bill of rights does not commend itself to me in the United Kingdom, but it is significant that the Official Unionists have proclaimed it. Perhaps even more significantly, that party proposed that local government should be reinstituted on a democratic and parliamentary basis, in that those functions could be transferred to a Stormont. That valuable suggestion should be taken up, not cast aside as if it were just another proposal from another political party. It is a proposal from the most significant political party in Northern Ireland and it should receive far more attention than it has so far.
Perhaps now is an appropriate time for there to be a change in the office of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Perhaps now, having received all the valuable suggestions from different quarters, a new Secretary of State can consider his own way forward. He might start, for example, by having a border poll. One is due now, and this would be an appropriate stage at which to have one to confirm the fact, which so many Irish-Americans and people in the Republic do not believe, that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to stay within the United Kingdom.
After another border poll, we could proceed with the one solution that has so far never been tried in Northern Ireland — ultimate and complete integration of the Province with the United Kingdom. If we stopped keeping Northern Ireland at arm's length constitutionally and if, in future, we treated it as it should be treated, like any other part of the United Kingdom, such as Wales or Scotland, we would then have a basis from which we could say to every citizen in Northern Ireland, "You are as well treated and have as many rights and privileges under the law as anyone else; religion has nothing to do with it." That is the case elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and it should be so in Northern Ireland. If we were to adopt an integration policy, we could achieve it, and at the same time achieve the peace in the Province that we all so desperately desire.
8.12 pm
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: That Ireland has had such a bitter experience at the hands of England over the years is almost entirely due to the existence in the past of many who thought like the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). The Irish problem has been coming before the House for the past 14 years due to the number of hon. Members in the Conservative party who still think like the hon. Member for Orpington. I hope that now he speaks only for himself, because otherwise there can be little, if any, fulfilment of even the tentative proposals that the Secretary of State put before the House when he opened the debate.
At this stage of the debate, it is unnecessary, even if time permitted, for me to address myself to anything other
82
than the general aspects of the New Ireland Forum report. However, it is still necessary, particularly in view of the speech of the hon. Member for Orpington, to remind the House what the report is about. First, it seeks to put an end to the feuding and to promote instead common understanding followed by dialogue and perhaps, in the end, a real coming together.
Secondly, the report does not purport to be a plan. It is an agenda and necessarily incomplete. It does not disguise the fact that it is only the voice of nationalist Ireland—the indigenous people, the people with tenure, the natives. These are the people who feel that they belong and that they are living in the land of their forefathers, and who wonder why they have been punished for that fact for so long in one corner of it.
Thirdly, the report shows some understanding of those in Ireland who prefer to be different, perhaps not even Irish, certainly British. It has striven to see how their wishes could be accommodated with the views of the rest of the people in Ireland. Fourthly, running right through the report is the insistence that no one living in Ireland should feel less at home than another, or less protected by law than his or her fellow citizens. It is attempting to put an end to second-class citizenship. Therefore, Dublin has demonstrated almost unrivalled tolerance, reasonableness, forebearance and maturity. Those are qualities that we in the House do not merit. Can the Unionists or the British match it?
The report has been received favourably overseas, as it has in the more serious British newspapers. However, as we have seen today, some hon. Members still exhibit those symptoms of paralysis that for too long have characterised debates on Northern Ireland in the House. Fair people see that the report presents all sorts of possibilities. The key question is how to get some movement started. That must be the major objective, not some prescribed goal. The structures and gestures now advanced by the Unionist party, as has been confirmed in this debate, may yet amount to a workable alternative to the present unacceptable status quo. We shall all want to read closely the speech made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux).
The response of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), like the speech made by the hon. Member for Orpington, ran true to form. Everything that the hon. Member for Antrim, North stands for is anathema to tolerance and to reasoned and constructive dialogue. When he comes to the House, he constantly whines about security, but he rejects every political move to bring the two communities together. He and his party, as we gathered from the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), are trying to distance themselves from Mr. Seabright. Some hon. Members may not know, but that gentleman wishes to burn Catholics. The hon. Member for Antrim, North cannot conceal from the House and from his record that he and those immediately round him in the Democratic Unionist party have created people such as Mr. Seabright and the many others like him in the DUP.
The Official Unionist party and the DUP have tactical differences about how to manoeuvre, but hitherto they have been equally opposed to any structure that would challenge the political ascendancy that their forefathers won by force 60 years ago. Now the challenge for the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley is that if we cannot look

83
to any party in Northern Ireland to respond positively to this report, other than the SDLP, we must look to Westminster exclusively. There is no other fulcrum.
It is incumbent on the British Government in any event to face up at long last to their responibilities. It is Britain that must carry the historic guilt for creating by conquest and plantation the tradition of violence in Northern Ireland. It is Britain which is ultimately responsible for all the horrors of Northern Ireland. Therefore, there is in particular an onus on Government Back-Bench Members, other than the hon. Member for Orpington. They have a particular responsibility because the Government are well aware that a majority in Britain no longer support the union which, since 1969, has cost more than twice Britain's net payments to the EEC. The British Government must be aware that a majority in Britain wholly repudiates the concept of loyalism in Northern Ireland which defines itself in incitements to break the law and defiance of this Parliament when convenient.
The British Government are equally aware that a majority in Britain wonder why they are not consulted when those same people in Northern Ireland invoke the principle of majority rule. The British Government cannot but be aware that support is mounting in all parties here for the view that Unionist intransigence should not be allowed to block political progress in the Province any longer. The Secretary of State presumably had that in mind when he assured the House this afternoon that in relation to certain initiatives the Government "will not stand idly by". They are supposed to be in charge, as The Economist reminded them in a recent survey of Ulster. It went on to say:
"It is time for something different."
We shall be looking to the Government for results. It is certainly time for something different if—and I believe that this is the inarticulate premise from which all speeches in the debate have started, with the possible exception of that of the hon. Member for Antrim, North—this House is to check the growing strength of the IRA. The Member who is exerting most influence on this debate is the Member who has yet to take his seat. Labour Members accepted their duty to maintain the Union so long as there was no general consent to change. They accepted the Unionists' veto on reform, even though it had been secured under duress. Some have even tolerated the alienation of Catholics in the past, and, by their refusal to come to grips with the real political problem, have handed the initative to the IRA. They would have pleaded in their defence that simplistic solutions cannot work in Northern Ireland and that no amount of constitutional guarantees can overcome the problem of alienation on the part of either community—again, we heard that this afternoon from the Front Bench.
But, thank God, Labour Members now recognise—I hope all of them, certainly the overwhelming majority — that if the Catholic community is not to be completely alienated Labour Members at Westminster cannot go on giving a blank cheque to a system that has brutalised the nationalist, to a state which denies his legitimate aspirations in the land of his fathers, and to an Administration who exclude him from decision making.
Without threatening to act without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, Labour Members believe that the time has arrived to declare for a united Ireland. In the
84
long term, a democratic united Ireland would be a healthier component of western Europe than a divided Ireland. That is almost certainly the opinion of most people in Britain, to say nothing of most people in Ireland. Such an objective, the more it is proclaimed, will not unsettle Ulster Protestants—contrary to what the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) argued a few moments ago—more than they are already unsettled. They have been hearing such assurances for the past 14 years in this House. To talk of a united Ireland will encourage some of them to think constructively and positively about coexistence with their Celtic fellow citizens. It will encourage London and Dublin to build up confidence before they pursue co-operation. Their early tasks will relate to psychiatric problems.
Northern Ireland cannot be governed in peace directly from London any more than it could from Dublin. Real progress can be made only when the two Governments feel freer to work towards the evolution of bilateral and even trilateral institutions which reflect and accept, not ignore or coerce, the double dual allegiances in Northern Ireland.
The Economist recently mentioned some of the possibilities that are now available. I shall not recite them, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will dwell on some of them when he replies.
Years of plastic bullets and plastic policies have not brought peace any nearer, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) warned in a powerful speech. He also warned that if the Government will not face that reality the killings will go on. Children bred in violence in the North will continue that violence. A new generation growing up in the South will be less passive than their parents and grandparents. The divisions will deepen rather than pass away.
What we are witnessing in Northern Ireland is a community in a state of gradual disintegration. The recent scandalous case of Constable Robinson and the incredible remarks of Lord Justice Gibson represent the most disquieting developments. They suggest that Northern Ireland, having already experienced the failure of Stormont, the failure of the RUC and the British Army to prevent a breakdown of law and order, is now beginning to experience the failure of the judiciary as well. When the people, of whatever political persuasion, fail to recognise the independence and impartiality of those who are chosen to administer justice, it really is the beginning of the end.
Given the resilience of the IRA, the electoral advance of Sinn Fein——
Mr. William Ross rose——
Mr. Duffy: I am coming to an end. I would have given way earlier, but not now.
Given the current demographic trends and the deterioration of the North's economy and social fabric, I do not see how any right-thinking person in Northern Ireland cannot be grateful for the opportunities presented by the New Ireland Forum's report. Failure by Westminster to respond positively and constructively to the report will not be forgiven by those who come after us.
8.26 pm
Mr. Peter Lloyd: I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) that responsibility for Northern Ireland lies fairly, squarely and

85
fully with the House. Like him, I took some encouragement from the forum report. It goes a long way towards recognising that there are two nations in Ireland. It specifically acknowledges the Britishness of the majority in the North, but, significantly, not that it is British. However, it concedes that successful new constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland, and with Ireland as a whole if the two were to be brought together, must have the consent of the Northern majority.
Although those acknowledgements are welcome— I believe they are made from genuine good will—some of the assumptions and supporting arguments in the report devalue them. First, there is the crucial matter of consent. The future status of Northern Ireland is not to be decided by the unfettered choice of the people of Northern Ireland. The forum is offering them a one way ticket to Dublin. The date of arrival is unspecified, the choice of route is up for discussion and there may be delays on the way. But it is perfectly clear that there is only one direction, and the forum expects movement along it. Moreover, it is the British Government who must get them moving.
The forum drops the bluntest of hints that Britain must withdraw its guarantee that there can be no constitutional change in Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority there. That is a very curious requirement—half naive and half cynical. At the very time the forum is urging a suspicious North to trust Dublin's assurances to the Unionists, it is showing how little value it places on such assurances by urging London to go back on those that it gave.
Secondly, the Britishness of the Northern majority, although recognised, has not been conceded in terms of a genuine British allegiance. It is seen much more as a tradition and a cultural orientation. It is certainly not afforded the same status as Irish nationalism, which, according to the forum, can have its full expression only in a united and sovereign Ireland. The forum acknowledges that that Irish identity has often defined itself negatively in terms of Ireland not being British and being separate from Britain, but it does not admit that the British identity in Ulster defines itself just as strongly in terms of not being subject to Dublin. It is not a question, as in the story that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) told us, of to whom the clans should pay their tribute, but of to whom the people should give their very strongly and passionately felt loyalties.
Nevertheless, in places the report speaks as if a reorientation towards Dublin might be encouraged if the Irish constitution were amended in some way to make it more acceptable to Protestant opinion though it really means liberal opinion, as if a Unionist in Belfast might one day say to his wife after a very bad breakfast, "Now that they have got easier divorce in the South, I am seriously thinking of voting Republican." National loyalties are not manoeuvred, changed and engineered in that way.
The forum also argues from a tendentious historical summary that conceals rather than illumines the problems that the forum was supposed to face. There is never a hint in its criticisms of Stormont that the 1920 Act, setting up the Northern Ireland Parliament, was designed not to divide Ireland—that had clearly already happened—but to create structures that would facilitate its coming together again.
Then again, for all the talk in the forum report of the importance for each tradition of the symbols and administrative expressions of their respective identities,
86
there is not a word about the impact on Northern Ireland of the Free State's decision, first, to end allegiance to the Crown and, secondly, to withdraw from the Commonwealth. Of course the Free State had every right to make those changes, if that is what it wanted to do and that was the only way that it could fully express its national identity as it saw it; but in such a document it is wrong, misleading and superficial to ignore the impact that that must have had in drastically reducing—if not totally destroying—the possibility of finding common ground between the new Republic and British Northern Ireland.
Furthermore, the forum report contrasts the considerable, if not total, success — that is the forum's own qualification, not mine—with which the Unionists who were left in the South after 1922 were integrated, with the continuing alienation of the nationalist minority in the North. Yet again, however, it does not acknowledge that the Unionists were a much smaller proportion of the population in the South—then 10 per cent. but now down to 3 per cent. —who had no idea of putting the clock back and who received no encouragement from the United Kingdom to do so. In that situation, they posed no threat whatever to the Free State, and had no influence whatever on its evolution to a Republic. In the North, however, the nationalist minority, which was proportionately three times larger, regarded partition as illegitimate and temporary and was encouraged in its intransigence by the South, which formally incorporated the claim to the Six Counties in its constitution in 1937. The minority started out unwilling to work to make a success of the administrative arrangements in the Province.
I put that forward not as a defence of the Stormont system, but as an explanation as to why Unionists could feel that their future depended on excluding Republicans from places of influence. It generates exasperation, not understanding or good will between the communities, to ignore it, as the forum has done.
That is the problem. Given the reality for the present and foreseeable future of the two national allegiances, and particularly their intermingling in Northern Ireland, there is no arrangement in Ireland alone that can successfully accommodate them both.
If the North were integrated, federated or confederated with Dublin, the Republic would find that it had acquired a large, intractable Unionist minority from the North that it would be able to manage no better than Stormont was able to manage the large intractable nationalist minority that it found itself with after 1922. Thus, for the foreseeable future, the only practical arrangement is to ensure that the sharpness of the constitutional divide in Northern Ireland is diluted in the totality of the United Kingdom by reserving legislative and constitutional matters to Westminster, and by providing local government institutions in Northern Ireland whereby the elected representatives of the two nations in Ireland can administer local services and deal with the hundred and one practical problems on which they have everything in common and about which they are quite capable of agreeing without any disloyalty to their ultimate constitutional aspirations, upon which, of course, they cannot agree.
That is why I welcome the proposals of the Official Unionist party in "The Way Forward". Its limited—and it is important that they are limited — realistic recommendations, combined with the goodwill that,

87
despite my harsh criticisms, I find pervades the forum report, provide something upon which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can build or, as he might put it, make political progress. I hope that he will respond to the suggestions and offers made earlier by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux).
However, I go further than that. The Republic has within its power a crucial self-denying contribution to make to that progress if only it can bring itself to do so. When politicians from the South refer, as they often do, to Northern Ireland as a failed political unit, they frequently do so with a relish that almost implies that they would be sorry if it actually succeeded. I do not believe that that is because they want the violence, tensions and hatred to continue. Indeed, I am sure that they do not. I think they merely feel that it must be bringing the peace of a united Ireland closer. But I also suspect that at the back of their minds some of them may have the uneasy feeling that if the North ever settled down reasonably happily within the United Kingdom, it might be lost for ever to the Republic.
However, I am sure that, on the premises of the forum's own arguments, that logic is faulty in both respects. The effect of IRA terror, as the forum admits, and of Southern irredentism, which the forum does not admit, has been to increase Unionist distrust of the Republic and to reinforce the determination of the majority to keep it at a healthy distance. When the Unionists feel under threat—and they are under threat—their suspicions will naturally work overtime, and they will not find the confidence or opportunity to develop wide-ranging and relaxed relationships with the South—whose absence the forum rightly deplored—let alone with their own minority in the North.
That is why the best, and perhaps only practical, recommendation that the forum could have made to ease the problem in Northern Ireland, and to bring North and South closer together, would have been the repeal of sections 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution by which the republic claims the Six Counties. That would be a courageous and constructive step, but one no doubt beyond the present political possibilities of the Republic. But it would be no less unrealistic, and considerably more helpful, than the recommendations that the forum actually did make.
Of course, I am not saying, "Leave the Unionists alone and in the fullness of time they will come to see that their natural future lies properly with the Republic." I am not saying that the nagging fear of some people in Dublin that Northern nationalists might come to accept the union and forget Dublin has no basis. I am suggesting that they have the confidence of their own conviction that the Britishness of the Northern Unionists, though genuine enough as far as it goes, overlays an essential Irishness which fear, prejudice, memories of the old ascendency and a healthy respect for the current level of British social security payments combine to suppress.
If that is right, closer relationships with a prosperous, tolerant, undemanding Republic, combined with a minority in the North prepared to help the Province work successfully, is more likely to liberate their natural Irishness, should it be there, than the murderous assaults of the IRA and the constitutional assaults of the Republic and of the Republican minority in the North.
88
One may then ask: where is the present justice for the minority, stranded unwillingly in the North, with which the forum was rightly concerned? They will have the same constitutional rights and liberties as the Unionsists in the South enjoyed after 1922, which the forum thought satisfactory. They will have considerably more political influence than those Southern Unionists, if they care to use it effectively, and far more hope that majority opinion may, by reason and constructive example, be persuaded to move in the direction that they wish it to go than will ever be achieved by violence, non-co-operation and constitutional arm-twisting.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I am conscious that several hon. Members have been here all day and wish to speak. The Front Benches hope to catch my eye by 9.20.
8.42 pm
Mr. David Winnick: The views expressed today by the Official Unionists and the Democratic Unionists are those that we should have expected. There is no change or departure from the line that they have advocated for the last 60 years and more. The contribution from the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), to which I listened with interest, was along the same line.
It would be disastrous if the House came to the conclusion that there was no political solution to the trouble in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland's difficulties, troubles and tragedy should be seen in an international context. The immense harm that has been done to Britain's reputation as a result of what has happened there in the past 15 years should be recognised. Our friends abroad are deeply unhappy and puzzled at the continued failure to find a satisfactory political solution to Northern Ireland. Our enemies gloat.
One of the fictions to which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and other pro-Unionist politicians contribute is the idea that Northern Ireland is just like any other part of the United Kingdom—like Sussex, the midlands or Yorkshire. Northern Ireland is nothing of the kind. One must constantly bear in mind the history and events that led to the present difficulties.
However much Unionist and pro-Unionist politicians in the House dislike it, the explanation for much of the trouble is that, against the wishes and the will of the majority of people in Ireland as a whole, that country was partitioned. Some now say, on the basis of a document produced by the Unionists, that the Province should have devolution. The House should bear in mind that for 50 years Northern Ireland had a Parliament of its own. The document now produced by the Official Unionists quotes Edmund Burke who said:
"All government, indeed, every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter."
That is indeed a good quote. I only wish that in the 50 years that Stormont reigned, that sentiment had applied.
The solution does not lie in integration with the mainland. Northern Ireland is like no other part of the United Kingdom. If it were, we should not be taking part in a debate based on a document issued partly by a foreign Government.
If we carry on with our existing policy there will be little change in the years leading to the next century. On

89
some occasions, as now, less violence will take place, but all the unease and insecurity, tension and terrorism will continue on and off. Existing policies will result in a continuing tragedy for Northern Ireland.
Much has been said about the feelings of the majority community in Northern Ireland. The views and feelings of the minority community are also of great importance. The minority community, since partition, has felt isolated and alienated. The minority community does not identify with the rest of Britain. It would be puzzling if it did. It believes that its country was divided against its wishes and, understandably, it looks forward to a united Ireland. That is a sentiment with which, with my party, I sympathise. Within that minority community is an even more alienated section of young unemployed people whose chances of getting a job are remote, who live in bad conditions which are a breeding ground for the Provisional IRA and other terrorist organisations.
The forum report provides at least a basis from which to seek a political solution. However much I should like a united Ireland, I doubt whether it will happen for many years. I am opposed in all circumstances to terrorism. The idea that the majority community can be bombed and terrorised into a united Ireland is nonsense. The forum report not only condemns terrorism — which has not been emphasised enough by the Unionists today — it rightly argues that terrorism makes a solution more difficult.
Terrorism cannot provide a solution. I have constantly denounced terrorism. Last year, in Northern Ireland with a delegation, I met Mr. Adams, Mr. Morrison and others and made my views clear. I do not believe that they represent the Irish Republican tradition of 1798 and 1916. More important than my view is the fact that people in the Republic of Ireland do not apparently see them in that light either. I asked Mr. Adams, during our rather angry exchanges last September, "Why is it that when the provisional Sinn Fein contests elections in the Republic, it gets no more than a derisory vote?" He did not give, I think, a satisfactory answer.
I doubt whether a unitary Irish state is possible now. We talk about an alienated minority in Northern Ireland, but what would happen in a united Ireland where the present majority in Northern Ireland formed a significant minority? Could they identify with the Republic, its history and its traditions? Once the present majority community in Northern Ireland was part of a united Ireland, could we imagine it celebrating the events of 1916? We must recognise those facts.
That does not mean that there is no other solution. The forum report gave two alternatives. One was for joint authority, which could provide, I believe, a possible basis for negotiation with the Irish Government. However, I believe that the other alternative — a federal or confederal state—provides a more satisfactory solution. There is no reason why, within the framework of Ireland as a whole, there should not be two states with central authority resting in Dublin. If that had been proposed and acted on in 1920, so much of the tragedy that we have debated during the past few years would never have happened.
It is 98 years since Gladstone first introduced his home rule Bill. I do not want to quote anything that Gladstone said then, but he pleaded with the House in 1886 to take a balanced, overall position on Ireland. We know what
90
happened—the Bill fell, as did a later Bill. The events before and after the first world war led to the partition of Ireland.
After all these long years, one would hope that the House of Commons would understand the need to find a solution for that part of Ireland—and I stress Ireland—that remained with Britain after the settlement of 1922 of an Irish Free State, and thereafter the Irish Republic.
It is said that we must bear in mind the majority community, and I agree with that. But another view which must also be considered is that of the remainder of the people of Britain. If the Unionists take the view that they have a veto against the political progress that is necessary and desirable in the overall interests of Britain, there may come a time when the views of all the people in Britain need to be consulted.
I am not a great enthusiast for a referendum. However, if a British Government negotiated with the Irish Government, and the results are met with great hostility in Northern Ireland, it may be necessary — as as it was with the Common Market in 1975—to ask the people of Britain whether they agree with the results of the negotiations. The final decision would always lie with the House of Commons.
I listened, of course, with great attention to the Secretary of State. I hope that the British Government will now show courage and resolve. Those have been lacking in Governments of both political colours. I do not pretend that it is a party issue. There has not been a great deal of difference in policies pursued over Northern Ireland by either the Labour or Conservative Governments. I regret that when the successful effort to destroy power sharing was made in 1974, there was not a greater resolve by the then Government. I hope that the Government will show the necessary courage and resolve to seek agreement with the Irish Government on the basis of the alternatives put forward in the forum report. The alternative is continuing tragedy, bloodshed and violence in Northern Ireland during the next 15, 20 and 25 years.
8.56 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for squeezing me into the debate. I shall try to be as brief as possible.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), like many other hon. Members, looked too much to history and not enough to the immediate future. I shall look to the future and try to be more constructive. I welcome both this debate and the forum which has given rise to wide-ranging discussions and documents. I recognise the effort involved in producing the forum report. It is easy to understand why it has been so heavily criticised by so many people. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) was probably wrong in his criticism. It is wrong to say that all it contained in solutions was what has been coming out of Ireland since de Valera.
If we probe deeply into the report, we find significant points. I welcome its total and outright condemnation of violence. The report has been signed by the Fianna Fail party—even if it has tried since to distance itself from it —whose constitution lays claim to unity, which shows that it recognises that there are alternatives.
Another significant commitment was that of the nationalists to provide full and fair protection for the rights and aspirations of the Unionists. That is quite unprecedented. It shows that the question of unity lies with

91
Ulster and that the consent of the North is, therefore, an essential precondition. It is illogical to pressure Britain to procure consent by withdrawing Ulster's guaranteed right to remain in the United Kingdom. Surely consent procured by revoking that right is unacceptable. That point should not be lost on the authors of the report.
The recommendations in the report must be seen against that background. We must be realistic about consent becoming possible in the near future — it will not. That leaves a great deal to be done by the South in trying to make way for any future constitutional changes. The South must be made more acceptable to Unionist traditions in the North. That point was mentioned in some detail in the report. It was never meant to be the last word. As Dr. FitzGerald said, it is an effort to start a dialogue. I welcome the dialogue getting under way with renewed vigour in the immediate future. I look forward to the summit later this year, to great economic ties and links, and to greater cross-border security.
As the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) pointed out, because the violence is spreading to the South and policemen are being killed there, there is a greater realisation that both communities and traditions are in the same boat. I welcome the referendum of 14 June which gave British people in Southern Ireland the right to vote. I must be one of the few Members of this House who will be entitled to vote in the Republic of Ireland. Patrick Henessey, of the Irish embassy, will be pleased to hear that I shall in future be exercising my right to vote in the South.
We are led to the inexorable conclusion that the immediate emphasis must be in Ulster itself, and that brings us to consider the various other documents, such as the alliance paper on joint sovereignty, a document to which reference has not been made in the debate. That finally rejected the argument for joint sovereignty, stressed the importance of the Assembly, and stated:

"Stable government will not be restored to Ulster by a scheme which is not well supported and which does not carry with it the consent of the people of the North."
I am afraid that the DUP document—that issued by the Democratic Unionist party—like the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), was coloured by its view that there should be no concessions to the nationalist viewpoint. It did not give an inch to the understandable aspirations of the minority in the North. It was coloured also by unnecessary alarmism and by a vicious anti-Papism that I found thoroughly distasteful.
However, the document was positive about the Assembly, especially in its final chapter entitled, "The Way Ahead," in which it mentioned, rightly in my view, that
"direct rule is totally unacceptable and is tolerated only with a growing impatience"
and it looked more and more to the Assembly as the way forward.
I was pleased to note that the OUP—the Official Unionist party — paper concentrated greatly on local government in Northern Ireland. It was realistic about the possibility of consent becoming available. At the same time, it was sympathetic to the minority tradition in the North. I welcomed that sympathy and thought that the document was extremely positive on that aspect.
I was also interested to read the comments in it about a Bill of Rights, which must be a possibility demanding
92
further exploration and discussion in the future. Its paragraph on administrative devolution had much to recommend it, when it said:
"The time is now right for both communities in Northern Ireland to realise that essentially their problems will have to be solved in Northern Ireland by their political representatives and that any further prospect for them and their children is best provided for in Northern Ireland."
That obviously means that the medium through which those problems can be solved is the Assembly. The infrastructure is there. The only people who are not there are the representatives of the SDLP.
We heard months ago that after the forum was established the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) might think of joining the Assembly. We then thought that after the European elections he would think about going in. He had a good excuse for not going in while he was working on the forum report, but now he has no excuse for not going into the Assembly. I appeal to him tonight, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) to put as much as he can into Northern Ireland and not just to take, for unless the SDLP goes into the Assembly it will not work. If it goes in, it can work.
There are functions waiting to be rolled to the Assembly. There is scope for the minority to have a real say, through the Assembly, in how Northern Ireland is run—for example, through the chairmanship of committees. Paragraph 5.3 of the forum report points out that that is the best way to promote reconciliation between the two major traditions.
I welcome the unequivocal statement in the forum report that Ulster's future lies within Ulster itself. Perhaps to an extent the report tried to put the horse before the cart by saying that a solution to terrorism and murder could not be found until we had a major political solution. I do not believe that we can even contemplate a major political solution until we have a solution to the local political difficulties. The only way to get that is through the Assembly, through the existing framework, and that is why I urge the hon. Member for Foyle, for goodness sake, to do his best to make it work. If as a result of the forum report and the other documents the hon. Gentleman goes into the Assembly and makes it work, those documents could be seen by history as representing a major turning point in Irish history.
9.5 pm
Ms. Clare Short: The opportunity to discuss the underlying problems in Northern Ireland rather than to react to the symptoms of the problems is enormously welcome. I agree with the Secretary of State that the line taken in the forum report and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, is unrealistic. We shall not see the reunification of Ireland by consent, for that consent is not forthcoming. That is clear from what has been said by those who represent the loyalist community in the House and from the development of history since partition, especially since 1969.
The debate has been enormously unrealistic—p—
Mr. Archer: Did I hear my hon. Friend correctly? Did she say that the line taken by the Opposition Front Bench was that consent to reunification would never be forthcoming? If so, I obviously failed to make myself clear.
Ms. Short: Not at all. I said that I disagreed with the line taken by my right hon. and learned Friend, which was to advocate the reunification of Ireland by consent. I do not believe that that consent will be forthcoming. If we are serious in advocating the reunification of Ireland, we shall have to face that reality. If the consent is not forthcoming, we shall be fudging the issue and not being entirely honest about what we would have to implement if we were in Government.
The debate has been worryingly unrealistic about the seriousness of the situation in Northern Ireland. It has been suggested that if only there could be a little more talking we might suddenly make masses of progress. There has been much talking through many Administrations, and many previous Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland have found that they could not get anywhere with their way of talking. There is no likelihood that any of the hints and suggestions that have been made today are likely to be any more productive. The situation in Northern Ireland is more polarised than it has been for a long time.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made an aggressive, startling and shocking speech and then left the Chamber. He did not listen to any of those who succeeded him. The hon. Gentleman enjoyed an increased vote in the recent European elections and in the 1983 general election the Provisional Sinn Fein achieved 43 per cent. of the nationalist vote. It sustained that result in the recent European elections and it looks forward to increasing it when the next local government elections take place.
In Northern Ireland we see a society that is racked by violence. There is high and increasing unemployment, and there are enormous social problems. We live in an economic period in which there is likely to be further increases in unemployment and we shall have to face the tension that is likely to flow from that. We all know what will come about.
In my view, Britain should, must and one day will reunify Ireland by seeking the consent of the people of Ireland and not looking only to the Loyalist community in the North for their consent. That is the policy that I advocate, and I hope to persuade my party to adopt it and implement it when it forms the next Labour Government. I believe seriously that it is the only solution to the problems of Northern Ireland and that it will be implemented in due course.
I shall explain why I take that view by referring to the recent history of Northern Ireland. Ireland was partitioned against the will of majority of the Irish people. Many of those who had come from Britain to live in Ireland during the period when Britain ruled Ireland were opposed initially to home rule and, secondly, to Irish independence. That is not an unfamiliar attitude because we have seen it in Rhodesia and southern Africa. Those who did well in colonial times resisted independence and democracy. It was exactly the same instinct that resisted independence and democracy in Ireland.
When it was clear that independence was unstoppable, the British in Ireland came out in favour of partitioning Ireland. It was an odd solution because the full Province of Ulster, as they called it, would not have provided a majority. The Six Counties were taken because only in that small unit would they have a majority, although they left as many in the Protestant community in Northern Ireland out of the Six Counties as were included. It was a desperate last fling.
94
The British Government were not sympathetic to the proposal, so what did the loyalists do? They armed themselves. They prepared to use force illegally to gain what they wanted. That is how Northern Ireland came about—through the threatened illegal use of force. We now hear denunciations of the threatened illegal force on one side, but we must conclude that the threatened illegal use of force that one gets away with is all right and that anyone who wants to upset that order is beyond and outside the political pale. The man who led the threatened illegal use of force that brought about the partition of Ireland—Carson—did not just get his way; he was made a Law Officer, of all things, by a subsequent Tory Government.
I do not believe that many people would doubt that the partition of Ireland was wrong and regrettable on any democratic principle. If we had had a longer history and more experience of decolonisation, it would never have come about. I would argue, and would agree with anyone who argued, that a historical wrong is not a sufficient ground always to demand that it be put right. If a historical wrong becomes a reality, if Northern Ireland had developed a just democracy and a state which could treat its people equally, I would say, and I think that every Opposition Member would say, "OK, let it be. It was wrong to partition Ireland, but if the people of Northern Ireland are happy to live together in that unit, so be it."
That is not the case. Since partition there has been the crudest gerrymandering and discrimination against the minority community because there was always the fear that the minority might become the majority. Those processes continued to keep them down and to keep them in a minority.
Something that we should face, but never talk about, is that if there had not been different levels of emigration from Northern Ireland, because of discrimination and different employment levels in the two communities, the nationalists would already be a majority in the North. The discrimination, injustice and gerrymandering were practised to maintain the false majority that had been created at the time of partition. Following partition and the establishment of Stormont, disgraceful practices continued. This Parliament and all British Governments of both parties ignored them, neglected Northern Ireland and allowed those practices to continue.
In 1969 there was an explosion in the minority community. It was demanding simple things — one person, one vote, an end to discrimination, equal opportunities for all communities — and people who marched and demanded those things were beaten into the ground by the so-called forces of law and order. Another pretence is that there is an impartial criminal justice system and an impartial state in Northern Ireland. There is the hypocrisy of the denunciations of the use of force and the unjust use of power when, in the case of Northern Ireland, the illicit use of force has been entrenched in the state machine.
Following 1969, and the shock felt by the world when focus was beamed on the practices that had been going on for so long in Northern Ireland and Great Britain began direct rule, Governments of both parties attempted to reform Northern Ireland, attempted to bring the discrimination to an end, and attempted to create a just and democratic state. If they had succeeded, I should not be advocating what I do today, but they failed. There is no just and democratic state in Northern Ireland. It is a mess.

95
It is full of repressive legislation. There is clear evidence of continuing gross discrimination in employment and all other facets of life.
We can only conclude that Northern Ireland is unreformable. It is a corrupt little state. It was created so that one community could dominate another. People have lived with the constant paranoia that power might be lost. That has distorted the state's operations and prevented the development of a normal democratic and equal state. If I am right in that analysis, as I think I am, and I believe that many people agree with me in private — I have had conversations with Conservative Members in private, and, as many Conservative Members are aware, many members of the Conservative party agree with that analysis—the only solution for Northern Ireland is reunification and British withdrawal.
The other fact that must be taken into account, particularly by the intransigent Unionists, is that the majority of opinion in Great Britain wants withdrawal. That has been made clear in poll after poll for a long time
Mr. Corbyn: Would my hon. Friend care to reflect that there is an overwhelming feeling among progressive opinion throughout the world that British troops should be withdrawn from Northern Ireland, that peace can come only by the British Government accepting that Ireland must be reunited, and that the first step towards that is the withdrawal of the British Army?
Ms. Short: I believe that everyone would like to withdraw the troops from Northern Ireland; there is no difference between any of us on that. The question is whether we can find the political solution that will make it possible. It is my view that only withdrawal in the context of the reunification of Ireland will bring that about. Of course I recognise that that road would be difficult and dangerous. During the debate there have been clear threats from the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that in that situation he would organise the use of force to resist the wishes of the British Parliament.
In Northern Ireland there is no "no risk" solution, but I believe that, if we aim in the direction that I have outlined, we shall get a solution which can be lasting and just. The situation that we now have—when it is argued that to try to bring about reunification would result in a bloodbath—is itself a bloodbath. In Northern Ireland, 2,000 people have died since 1969. That is the equivalent of 84,000 people dying in Great Britain. If that number of people had died because of political conflict in Britain, we would not tolerate the cause of that conflict, and the political priority to find a solution would be massive.
The truth for Northern Ireland is that it is safer and easier for British Governments to hold the current situation, and to let the death, the suffering and the discrimination continue than to have the guts to tackle the problem and find the ultimate solution.
9.16 pm
Mr. W. Benyon: I do not think that I am the only person in this House who finds the article written by the Taoiseach in the Belfast Telegraph last week a truly remarkable contribution. In that article, in the Forum Report and in "The Way Forward", there appears to be just a glimmer of light, and we must grasp the opportunity that it provides.
96
We know that the British presence is the only force at the moment that stands between anarchy and bloodshed — anarchy and bloodshed that could develop into a situation rivalling that in the Lebanon in its attractions to outside intervention. Of course, both sides of the political divide realise that, and a degree of irresponsibility is allowed to flourish in the vacuum. Both sides hide behind the skirts of the British Government. Extremists on both sides triumph over anyone putting forward solutions based on moderation and conciliation, and it is against that background that we must consider the Forum Report.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), I reject the solution of full integration, because it seems to me simply to perpetuate and exacerbate the present situation. Likewise, I must reject the all-Ireland solution proposed in the Forum Report. It would have to be forced through. Indeed, the report itself says that it could be achieved only by agreement, and that is not likely to be forthcoming.
I supported my right hon. Friend in his efforts to set up an Assembly in Northern Ireland, because I believe very strongly that we shall never make progress until the people of Northern Ireland as a whole have responsibility for their own affairs. That is why I hope that Her Majesty's Government will at the very least discuss the two other solutions in the forum report — the federal/confederal state and the joint authority. I make no secret of the fact that I am strongly attracted to the latter, because it would allow both communities to develop with their separate identities within a strengthened territorial framework. It could bring in its wake such things as a combined police authority, all-Ireland courts, and a revised devolved constitution for the Province as a whole. Anyone who has any knowledge of the Province appreciates the difficulties that stand in the way. Extremists on both sides will be adamant in their opposition.
There is one hopeful aspect—this is all I have time for, so I shall end on this note. There is political stability at the moment in London and in Dublin. In both countries we have leaders of exceptional ability. I can only trust that they seize this opportunity quickly, because it may not recur for many years.
9.19 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: I should like to reiterate our gratitude for the New Ireland Forum report and for the reports from other political parties in Northern Ireland in response to the forum report. Having given evidence to the forum as a Front Bench spokesman for the Labour party, I should like to place on record my appreciation of the very skilful and efficient way in which it carried out its studies. It was an impressive exercise, and it deserves much respect and reading.
We should never forget that, because we are where we are in 1984, we have the advantage of hindsight over the past 15 years. If that tells us anything at all, it is that we should not allow those 15 years to be repeated or the experience to drag on indefinitely for another 10, 20 or 30 years. That is unacceptable.
We have a duty to those whose lives have been taken or torn apart by violence to do more than just condemn the violence. We are not historians; we are politicians. We are here to solve political problems. I have heard many references to history today, which sadden me in some respects. A political problem is in front of us today. Whatever happened in the past, it is our duty to solve the

97
problem today. That is why the forum report is important. We are talking about a process of which we are part. It is important to continue that process and to make sure that it does not pass away as others have done.
Like many hon. Members, I am sick and tired of standing here, or outside the House, condemning acts of violence. It is necessary to condemn acts of violence and the activities of paramilitaries on both sides, but that is not enough. Our job is to deal with the causes.
One of the things that saddened me about the speech by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) was that he tried to deal with symptoms, not causes. As a doctor, if not as a politician, he should have known better than to use sticking plaster to deal with symptoms, in the hope that the causes would eventually go away. He talked of not being able to discuss the constitution of Northern Ireland but that is not possible.
One of the main causes of the trouble is the existence of the border and the way in which it was drawn. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) made that point powerfully. Nothing can change it. We must respond to and understand the problems that arise from the border. Sooner or later the border, which has so distorted the political, economic and social face of Ireland, must go.
Dr. Mawhinney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that nothing will be solved in Northern Ireland if we remove a problem for half a million people and create a problem for a million people?
Mr. Soley: I am coming to that very point.
To return to the point that I was making to the hon. Gentleman, by talking of removing the possibility of discussing the border he was giving credence to the paramilitary view on the Republican side, that one cannot get change from the British because they will not allow one even to discuss the matter. I recognise that the border problem, as so many have said before, is that it is a line not merely on the map, but through the hearts and minds of men, women and children.
I am glad to reiterate the Labour party's policy of a united Ireland by consent, with no veto on political developments. The debate has, to a considerable extent, focused on the meaning of consent, and I want to say quite a lot about that.
We refer to unity by consent, because almost everyone in Northern Ireland as well as in Southern Ireland, with the exception of Provisional Sinn Fein, accepts that unity must be by consent. That is one reason. It is obvious that we would prefer to govern by consent. I accept the powerful argument that has been put forward by several hon. Members, that Ireland was divided without consent. They are right—it was. Look at the disastrous bloodshed to which that led. One cannot resolve the matter simply by reversing that. The tragedy is that, like so many things, particularly in the discussion of politics in Northern Ireland, the words begin to mean more than the reality. I do not mind whether the word "consent" is there or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] It is the reality that matters. This will please hon. Members, who should understand what I am saying before they say "Ah".
The reality is that 1 million people in the North-east corner of Ireland are not prepared to live in peace and harmony with the other 4 million. The reason why the political parties in the North and South, with the exception of Provisional Sinn Fein, accept the need for consent is
98
that they know that they could not deal with the problem if there were coercion. That is the essence of it. Therefore, words such as "consent" and "coercion" are irrelevant to the central issue, which is how to get 1 million people to live with 4 million people when there is resistance to it.
What upsets me and is so sad about the Government's position is that they say—the Secretary of State said it on Thursday as well as today—they cannot get consent. Of course one will not get consent if one does not work or have a policy for it. If one does not work for consent, what does one do? The question that the Conservative Government have consistently dodged is what they would do about Northern Ireland if they did not work for the unity of Ireland in the long run. The Government do not have a long-run policy for Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) properly referred to this matter, and I have said it several times. I said it when I gave evidence to the forum. The essence of British policy since 1969 has been crisis management. I say that without wanting to criticise present or previous Secretaries of State. I can understand how we have got into that situation. For much of the time, we could not have had anything but crisis management, but it should never become a long-term policy. That is what it has become for the British Government.
We would prefer it if all the parties in the North and South sat down to work out a solution for a united Ireland. I do not believe that it will happen tomorrow, just like that. I do not intend to sit down and wait for it, any more than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) or any other member of my party does. We are working for something much more important than that and, if I may say so, something much more subtle. There is something terribly unsubtle about the Conservatives' approach to the problem.
I am fascinated by the way that Conservative Members say over and over again that they want the Dublin Government or the people of the South to change. The hon. Members for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) and for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingharn) said, "If only the people in the South would change." I agree that changes are necessary. The hon. Member for Fareham made the point—there is something in it—that it might reduce tension if the Dublin Government dropped their claim to Northern Ireland, but Conservative Members never put themselves on the other side of the fence and say, "Is not the logical opposite to that that Britain should drop its claim to Northern Ireland to reduce tension?" Think of the implications for both communities if one said that Dublin should drop its request for Northern Ireland to be part of the South. What effect would it have on the minority community? If one said that Britain should drop its desire to govern Northern Ireland, it would have a similar effect on the Unionists. Conservative Members fail to understand the position on the other side of the fence. They constantly attempt to make those people change instead of standing back and saying, as we should all say in this debate, "What can we contribute?"
Sir John Biggs-Davison rose——
Mr. Soley: I shall give way in a moment.
That typifies Conservative policy on Northern Ireland over many years. It is on what people in Northern Ireland and in the Republic should do, not what people in Britain should do. This might head off the hon. Gentleman's

99
intervention. The hon. Members for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) are different in this respect. They make it clear that Britain should integrate Northern Ireland fully into the United Kingdom. In that respect, they are different from the rest of the Conservative party, and in a very different wing.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: We are simply asking for a return to what the Irish Government agreed in 1925. In the tripartite agreement they accepted the border
Mr. Soley: That is far too simple, and I shall not pursue it.
The weakness of the Government's position is that they have no policy. Yet everyone knows what is the real ideal of many Conservatives and, I believe, a significant number of Cabinet members. They would dearly love the Unionists to consent to a united Ireland. I am almost sick of hearing Conservative Members say, "You are basically on the right lines, Clive." I wish that they would say that loud and clear in the Chamber, because one of the most important aspects of the present situation is the uncertainty caused by the Government's lack of policy. The message that goes out from the Government is that they have no policy on Ireland. That being so, no one should be surprised if Provisional Sinn Fein increases its vote and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) increases his majority. When there is gross uncertainty, people look for certainty. In the absence of leadership from Britain, people will look and vote for authoritarian parties and leadership of one form or another.
As I have said many times, neither Britain nor any British political party has ever treated Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. That is why the Unionists feel that they are slowly being betrayed. In this context, it is as well to remember the old saying in social work and psychiatry: "Just because you are paranoid does not mean that you are not being got at." In his talks in Dublin the Secretary of State can say as often as he likes that Northern Ireland can stay in the United Kingdom, but the Official Unionists and the Democratic Unionists know that the future and procedures of Northern Ireland are being discussed with a foreign Government, which has always been unacceptable to them, as the hon. Member for Orpington and others well know.
If one cannot or will not coerce people, one must work for and win consent. We have already declared our intention to unite Ireland by consent with no veto on political development to that end. We have referred to the need for joint citizenship and to the importance of a British-Irish council to deal with human rights and culture, as well as the importance of setting up an all-Ireland economic development committee and of harmonising the economic, social and political institutions and benefits.
My hon. Friends the Members for Brightside and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) asked what can be done without consent. I will give them an example. I have talked about an all-Ireland police force and court system. As we have said on a number of occasions, we are looking for a system in which, for instance, the police are recruited and trained on either side of the border and deployed as the two Governments think appropriate. I know that that upsets many nationalists, as well as many Unionists, but
100
I also know that many of them welcome it because it would bring them some security. The important point is that one can go ahead with that without a veto being applied.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood knows, the criminal justice system is the third arm of the state. That is why the Unionists are worried. They are worried about the third arm of the state being created without their consent. The issue of consent arises again, because we say that, before consent is won, we shall apply that policy with Dublin as we think appropriate and the British Government will still have the right to extend or end that programme. If my hon. Friends do not recognise that that is capable of winning consent and, above all, cannot be vetoed, they must ask themselves how unity can be imposed.
In all fairness, it must be said that many people rationally and fairly argue that Britain should withdraw, or set a date for withdrawal. In my judgment, even if that view can be justified in the first instance, it would lead to greater paramilitary activity and probably a smaller independent Northern Ireland. Although many people outside the House take that view—across party lines—I do not believe that they have thought through the full consequences.
Setting a date for withdrawal would be particularly dangerous, because it would line up the opposition. Provisional Sinn Fein does not argue for immediate withdrawal. Its attitude is commonly misunderstood. Provisional Sinn Fein believes that there should be a declaration of intention to withdraw and that the Unionists should then be disarmed. It is amazing that members of Provisional Sinn Fein should put forward that argument, when we have been trying to disarm them for 15 years without any noticeable success. I cannot see that the Unionists would choose quietly to hand over their weapons either.
However, if we fail to respond to those arguments, we fail to respond to deep and powerful feelings outside the House to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) referred. He reminded us that many people in Britain are fed up with the problem of Northern Ireland.
I do not think that the violence will ever reach such a pitch that it induces us to pull out. In terms of violence, the Provisional IRA cannot win. However, we have to win the argument in the country as a whole. The House of Commons has ducked the argument. Hon. Members are heard to condemn the violence, but they are not heard to describe the opportunities, however they may see them.
The hon. Members for Orpington and for Epping Forest favour total integration, while the Labour party looks towards a united Ireland, arrived at by consent. We must debate those issues. Too often in the past we have excluded parts of the debate and allowed the paramilitaries to dictate the terms of debate.
If one refuses to discuss the constitution and if, like the Secretary of State, one says that the normal political process will never produce consent, one is telling Republicans who support the Provisional IRA and the INLA that the Brits will never give in as part of the normal political process. One is advising people to forget the constitutional nationalist parties and to join the IRA. If Conservative Members choose to ignore that powerful argument, they do so not at their own but at other people's peril.

101
Consent must never again be a veto on the wishes and aims of the people of Britain and Ireland as a whole. That must be clearly stated. Consent can be won, and we should never say otherwise. The Secretary of State talks of the difficulty of winning consent in Northern Ireland. We do not talk in those terms in other political situations. No political party in this House would accept that it could not win consent to govern the country.
All options must be openly discussed, and there must be pressure on the British Government to declare their view. The British Government must present a policy. We claim—uniquely among nations—that we do not mind where our border is. We say that if the people of Northern Ireland want the border where it is, it shall stay where it is. If they do not, we shall gladly wipe the sweat off our brow. The tragedy is that we are claiming that we have no view on where the border should be.
I believe that the British Government have a view. In reality, they do not wish the border to remain where it is. However, they do not say so openly. Why should not members of the DUP and of the OUP feel paranoid? I do not blame them. With a policy of a united Ireland by consent, they would know where they stood. If the Government merely state that they intend to continue to respond to the situation, those people do not know where they stand. They say that, at the same time, they will talk to the head of a foreign Government and enter talks at Civil Service level as well as at political level to achieve our aims. I defy any Conservative Member to suggest that people know where they stand in those circumstances. Conservative Members will certainly not convince the Unionist parties of that.
Perhaps the greatest betrayal of all is of the Unionist people of Northern Ireland, especially the working class Unionist people. They see themselves as being in the front line. They are the people who, ultimately, do the fighting. That is an interesting difference between the DUP and the OUP. The Unionist working class gave their blood on the Somme in the belief that that would win the heart of their mistress in London. It did not. British Labour, Tory and Liberal Administrations carried on treating them as different and, above all, as Irish. We are still doing that, and they know it. The Unionist people are not stupid. They understand what is happening. Conservative Members treat them as though they are little children who need to be patted on the head and brought along. One of the most hurtful things of all is desperately to be trying to be a member of a family and constantly being pushed away. That is what the Tories are doing to the Unionist population. They have never been treated as British. They have always been — and I believe always will be — treated as Irish.
We have watched the tragedy of Northern Ireland tearing people's lives apart and costing lives and liberties in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. As we have often said, great democracies are destroyed overnight not by individual acts, but by attrition. In the past 15 years, we have witnessed the attrition of civil rights, liberties and the democracy to which the people of Britain and Ireland have been accustomed for many years. If we do not respond positively to the forum, that process will continue and it will ultimately drag us all down with it.
9.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I apologise in
102
advance to right hon. and hon. Members who have made important speeches to which I shall not be able to refer as, in common with the Opposition Front Bench. we have given up some time to enable hon. Members to speak. I hope that the House will understand. I am anxious to deal with some of the major points that have been made.
Running through the debate has been the theme that, perhaps in the next few months, the House, Northern Ireland and Ireland as a whole might have a chance to perceive what meteorologists call a window. There might be a gap in the clouds that will enable some action to be taken. That theme ran through much of what the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and others said. We are encouraged in that view by the way in which the forum report respected, as I do not think any Republican position has done, the Unionist tradition in the North of Ireland and the way in which the Unionist document "The Way Forward" respected nationalist aspirations and the national disposition in the North of Ireland. In both cases, perhaps it was more tone and language than content that mattered, but there are sufficient grounds for encouragement in both. Both documents were non-definitive and non-entrenched and both explicitly laid the path open for negotiation in future.
The scale of the problem is clear from the debate, but I believe that there is a widespread feeling in the House that today, the dangers of doing nothing outweigh those of trying to do something in the immediate future. It would be a gross dereliction of duty for the House not to try to find a way to avoid condemning another generation of Northern Ireland children to a society in which violence is seen as a normal part of the political process, and not to seek to avoid the threat of the influence of the advocates of violence throughout the island of Ireland and, increasingly, across the water in Great Britain. We must try. In the end, we hope to make significant progress, but if, in the beginning, the steps that we can take are small, we should not be disappointed, for the ultimate benefits can still be great.
I hope that when this debate is over, the real dialogues can begin — the dialogues between the parties in Northern Ireland, between those parties and Her Majesty's Government, and between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. We have to be clear on what our aims are for those dialogues. They are to create within Northern Ireland a system of government that will involve the two traditions and their political leaders in the decision-making process, at least on the day-to-day matters that affect the lives of the people whom they represent. Within these islands, we must build the closest possible working relationship between the sovereign Governments in London and Dublin.
Even that will be a daunting task, and it is not the first time that it has been attempted. Many will seek to undermine that effort, not least, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the terrorists to whom any sort of improvement in the political position of Northern Ireland is anathema. If the tone of this debate is a guide for the opportunities of the next few months, we have a right to be moderately optimistic. I detect a growing willingness to listen, a growing awareness of the dangers of doing nothing, and a growing feeling that, within the island of Ireland, the nationalists and unionists must find a better and more enduring way to live together.
I now move on to the central argument that we have had today. The Labour Front Bench has advanced a theory

103
about consent, and the hon. Members for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) put their view about progress without consent. I say to them, and I reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), that unification without the consent of Northern unionists would be no basis for enduring and stable government in the island of Ireland in any case. It would leave a desperate legacy of bloodshed and violence for years to come. For a perfectly good reason, no constitutional party in the Republic of Ireland advocates such a role, the Government of the Republic of Ireland do not do so, and neither does the SDLP. No British Government could honourably abandon their responsibilities in that way and leave a scene of bloodshed and turmoil for the foreseeable future.
Equally, I disagree with the line taken by the Opposition Front Bench in our debate. It makes a virtue of the fact that the Labour party's policy document last year embraced the concept of Ireland being reunited by peaceful means on the basis of consent. Labour party Front Bench spokesmen have expanded on that policy today. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith put it in writing recently, it is essential to recognise that the intransigence of the Unionists stems from a feeling of insecurity, and that has been heightened by British ambivalence.
Subsequently, as has been reiterated in today's debate, the Labour party has come to a policy by which the first step should be a clear and unequivocal commitment by Britain to a united Ireland. It believes that this would help to clear the atmosphere of distrust and suspicion. If one can believe that, one can believe anything. If both Governments in London and Dublin were to commit themselves to achieving unity by consent, the Labour party believes that we would make progress.
I ask the hon. Member for Hammersmith to consult his psychiatry. His proposal seems best designed to displace distrust and insecurity with paranoia. The cry of some unionists—"Not an inch"—would be a rallying cry for violence in the streets. Any political development from his proposal would lead, to borrow a word from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), ineluctably to a united Ireland, and it would be resisted to a bitter and bloody end. I beg the Labour party to understand that, for the foreseeable future, the only conceivable way out of the present impasse is to seek to design a structure in Northern Ireland within which both unionist and nationalist will be able to play their part in the day-to-day governance of the Province.
I did not take the same view as other hon. Members of the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). He repeated some familiar themes but he did say that he was prepared to talk. He thought that when one had reached this sort of difficulty it was right for the elected representatives of the political parties in Northern Ireland to get together to see whether they could talk about a way out. I understand why he had to leave the House this evening, but in his absence I would say that it is useful to talk if those to whom one is talking do not have closed minds. I hope that as the talks begin he will play his part in ensuring that that is the background against which the talks take place.
Important and valuable though it is, "The Way Forward" should not be the last word of the Official Unionist party. Indeed, it says that it regards the proposals
104
put forward as open to negotiation. I hope that will continue to be its position. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) will not expect me to agree with him about the role of the Assembly. Anybody who has had to deal with the Assembly since its establishment knows how well and effectively it has been pursuing the first of the two roles designed for it by the legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be saying that progress along the local government route in a sense needed no quid pro quo from the nationalist people because both sides of the community would benefit from it. That is not what I understand the position to be. If he can convince the nationalist people and their representatives that that is so, so be it. While movement on the local government front can be part of an overall approach to the problems of local government, it is unlikely to be enough to secure agreement across the community divide.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) made an important speech. His description of the alienation that exists in many parts of the nationalist community commanded the attention of the House, and hon. Members' minds should be concentrated on that problem for some time to come. He recognised the mutually exclusive and destructive doctrines of "Not an inch" and "Ourselves alone". Like others, encouragingly, he said that he was willing to talk, and the House will welcome that. I wonder whether, as he appeared to do, he should automatically rule out talks with those whose attitude is governed by prejudice. If we were to do that in Northern Ireland, progress might be rather slow. We have to talk on an open-ended basis. He rightly outlined the need and reality for the basis of successful political process —consensus. I know that he will be anxious to play his part in it. I hope that he will and that one of the early steps that he will take in that regard will be to reconsider his party's attitude towards the Assembly and give it a go. That can provide the basis for such a consensus for which the House is entitled to look.
The Anglo-Irish parliamentary body was mentioned. It must be right that the inititative to establish that body lies with the two national Parliaments. Several people have mentioned that tier and its role today. We must all take note of that. My position remains that it must be for the Parliaments to take the initiative. If the will is there in those two Parliaments it would be right for the Government to give the whole process a fair wind and to help with the logistical and organisational arrangements for the establishment of such a tier.
Many times the problems of Northern Ireland have been seen as a triangle with the economy on one side, security on another and the political problem on the third. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) suggested examples of the progress that has been made in the economy in Northern Ireland. We have to run fast in order to stand still, particularly in terms of unemployment and its impact on young people. Substantial progress has also been made against terrorism. I sometimes think that we give too little credit to the courage, commitment and determination of the security forces and their success in cutting terrorism down to its current level. That level is still unacceptable and still has to be worked on, as it will be, by those same security forces.
Without the third side—that of seeking to solve the political problem — the problems of Northern Ireland will endure. Therefore, we need a political system within

105
Northern Ireland to share the decision-making process, combined with the closest possible working relationship between London and Dublin. Today, inevitably, many of the difficulties of this process have been highlighted and, in particular, the problem of alienation was mentioned by the hon. Member for Foyle. But some of today's speeches may also have opened our eyes to opportunities for progress. As I said earlier, surely none of us would lightly throw away the chance to make progress, if one exists.
Those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies will not need reminding, but others may not be aware of the degree of co-operation across the political and sectarian divides that already takes place in Northern Ireland on several issues. At the top level the leaders of the political parties in Northern Ireland are able to come together to argue for inward investment for the Province and to present to the Government their cases on economic matters. On the health and education boards, Catholic, Protestant, unionist and nationalist work together for the good of those covered by their responsibilities. Many sporting, recreational and other bodies, too, cross those divides for the good of those who use their services.
Literally thousands of people in Northern Ireland work tirelessly across the sectarian divides — whether it is those at Corrymeela, Winnie Jordan in east Belfast, or those who work in the schools — seeking to find practical ways in which good can be done. We should not forget those who work so hard. Perhaps I may cite one small example that I found very moving. Recently I visited a medium-sized town in Northern Ireland where, coincidentally, the Roman Catholic and controlled secondary schools adjoin. Some 10 or 11 years ago it was necessary to build a double chain link fence between the two schools to keep the children apart. Today there is not one but two huge holes in that chain link fencing, and the children go backwards and forwards taking lesson together on occasions and working together on projects for the benefit of the local community. I just wonder whether it is too much to ask today that we might find a few more holes in a few other fences in Northern Ireland, as that might be of advantage to all the people in the Province.
We know and have been reminded today that there are still substantial dams of intransigence in Northern Ireland and a feeling still of fear on the part of both communities. It is a feeling of "them and us" that hits those of us from
106
England very soon after we arrive. But one can also detect strong currents of goodwill and co-operation, and we have seen some signs of that in the willingness to talk today in the House. It must be our hope that those currents will be strong enough to achieve that goals that we have set ourselves. It will not be easy. The whole House will want to wish the leaders of the Northern Ireland political parties well as they set about the dialogue that I hope, and trust, will follow this debate. If they fail, the Government will not be able to neglect their responsibility in such matters. In the first instance, at least, we look to the dialogue to point the way forward.
The House may know that one of my responsibilities involves education in Northern Ireland. When I arrived in Northern Ireland, I was very conscious of the work of a man called John Malone. He was a prominent educationist and an innovator in education and community relations. I was struck by the following sentences from his obituary which appeared not long ago:
"Above all, he was sensitive to the cultural values of others and the importance to the individual of tradition and a sense of identity. Secure in his own tradition, in his strong moral values, in his clear perception of right and wrong—he could reach out with self confidence and abounding charity to other men and women, to draw from their cultural experience to enrich his own, and to aspire to a society characterised by tolerance and pluralism."
The task that the House must set itself is to build structures that will give the people of Northern Ireland in both their communities a sense of that self-confidence for the future—to the Unionists that they can remain a part of the United Kingdom for as long as they wish, and to the Nationalists that they will be fairly treated and that the relationship between London and Dublin will provide a secure guarantee for them—that will allow a society based on that tolerance and pluralism to emerge.
A common theme today has been that we should work towards that end. I trust that in the talks in the coming months, which I hope will be pursued with urgency, we shall see a way forward to ensure that future generations will not have to endure what those in Northern Ireland have had to endure for the past 14 years
Mr. Michael Neubert: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension)
10 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 12 June, be approved.
As the House will be aware from my remarks at the beginning of the debate which has just concluded, the Government hope in the coming months to have detailed discussions with the Northern Ireland parties. Our purpose will be to see whether agreement can be reached on arrangements for enabling locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland to exercise at least some of the functions which are currently discharged by Ministers answerable to this House.
I do not underestimate the difficulty of establishing the necessary climate of trust which will enable Northern Ireland constitutional parties to reach agreement, but I have always recognised that agreement will take time. Meanwhile, it is necessary to renew the direct rule provisions which provide that legislation which could be passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly after devolution can continue to be passed at Westminster by Order in Council and that the executive responsibilities of a Northern Ireland administration should be exercised by the Secretary of State.
In commending this order to the House, the Government recognise that direct rule is not an ideal arrangement. It enjoys a good deal of acceptance throughout the community and it is generally recognised that the Northern Ireland Departments, to whose staff I pay tribute, discharge their duties effectively and impartially, but, whatever its qualities, direct rule does not provide a system of government with which the citizen can easily identify. I recognise that to be the view of the Ulster Unionists, who do not like the system any more than the rest of us.
That said, I believe that the quality of direct rule has been improved, and improved considerably, by the work and advice of the Northern Ireland Assembly over the past two years. My ministerial colleagues and I are answerable to this House, including as it does Members from Northern Ireland to whose views we devote great care. But we have also found the detailed work of the Assembly, and its Committees, to be of value in focusing attention on detailed as well as general issues and in enabling the Government to be more responsive to Northern Ireland views
Since March 1983 about 46 Assembly reports have been laid before Parliament. Each has been examined closely by the Government and we have sent detailed replies to the Assembly's proposals. In some cases, proposals for draft Orders in Council have been considerably changed to take account of Assembly views. My ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office have met the Assembly's Committees frequently. These exchanges enable Ministers to discuss detailed issues in depth and to hear the views of elected representatives at first hand on a wide range of issues. We have found this a valuable addition to our debates in this House, where decisions are taken.
108
I am naturally pleased that the Ulster Unionist party has rejoined the Assembly and I hope that one outcome of the discussions which I envisage will take place shortly will be that all the constitutional parties will participate in whatever democratic framework may be agreed. But I should make it clear that we do not take the view that devolution as envisaged in the Northern Ireland Act 1982 represents the only way forward. The bottom line for the Government is that any scheme must enjoy support across the community. If that cannot be attained, or attained in the foreseeable future, through devolution as envisaged until now, other, perhaps more modest, schemes will have to be considered. What is needed above all is the will to find a workable, demonstrably fair, system of government and I hope that all concerned will discuss the possibilities including the many documents — outlined today, but especially in the UUP's "The Way Forward"
The practical and psychological benefits across the community of a measure of agreement would be considerable, but, as I said in our earlier debate today, progress requires recognition of the realities. Rather than repeat them, I would simply appeal to the constitutional parties to build on what they have in common — in particular, their shared desire for peace and concern about the economy—and to show that their own proposals for constitutional development pose no threat to others.
We shall persist in our objective of giving the people of Northern Ireland more say and more responsibility in their own government. But meanwhile direct rule must continue if government is to function properly, and I therefore commend the order to the House.
10.6 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: The Opposition accept the need for this continuing legislation. I suppose that it is still true that direct rule is everybody's second favourite option, and as such it is working as well as can be expected in the circumstances. We have noted the greater degree of accountability that the questioning, especially in the Assembly, lends to the present structure, which is welcome. I know that the Secretary of State would dearly like the SDLP to participate. However, it has always been consistent and clear that it would be unrealistic, not only because of its election commitment but because of the position it holds within the minority community, if it was to do that without some recognition of an all-Ireland dimension.
I think that this is the time to reiterate yet again that if the Government choose to look with favour on the idea of some form of British-Irish council, which would give a British-Irish dimension, the Opposition would consider it sympathetically and would want to help in whatever way we could. That might help the various parties that are standing for election in the North, including the SDLP, to participate.
Without some movement towards the minority community, I cannot envisage the Assembly involving all the people of Northern Ireland. In those circumstances, the Government would have to continue with what the Secretary of State has rightly called a bottom line—which is that any legislation must have cross-community support. But such support, as measured by a British Secretary of State, is a poor substitute, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree, for the elected views

109
of the people of Northern Ireland, properly expressed by all the elected representatives in whatever forums are available to them.
I envisage that direct rule will continue for some time. Our previous debate today might mark a watershed in the affairs of Britain and Ireland. Like many other people, I dearly hope that it does. But, for the moment, direct rule must be made to work as flexibly and fairly as possible. The Opposition will do all that they can to assist in that purpose.
10.8 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The order is of practical interest and concern to all hon. Members because it requires from the House an additional process of legislation for one part of the United Kingdom, which considerably adds to the time exerted by hon. Members on legislation and, to that extent, denies us the opportunity to consider other business. This was by no means inevitable when direct rule, as it is called, was first introduced in 1972, though the present form which is being renewed is the form of 1974, and it may be of interest to hon. Members to understand why the gramophone needle is so obstinately stuck in the groove that this is the tenth year that it has been in rotation, and we are not threatened with any early cessation of that repetition.
When the Northern Ireland Parliament was suspended and then dissolved in 1972–73, little technical change was necessary to enable Northern Ireland to be legislated for and administered like any other part of the United Kingdom. Some legislative provisions would have been necessary, but it was certainly not a consequence of the dissolution of the Northern Ireland Parliament and Government that we should legislate for Northern Ireland in the manner which is continued for a tenth year by this order.
The effect of the order is to substitute in the case of Northern Ireland for the legislation of this House which applies to the rest of the United Kingdom a system of legislation by ministerial Order in Council. The purpose of that was to keep in existence the possibility—which in 1974 was, no doubt, regarded as the imminent possibility—of the revival of the legislative assembly in that Province.
There is here a deeper repetition than the mere annual repetition of the renewal of these orders. The Stormont constitution itself, in its origin in the 1920 Act, represented an endeavour by the Government of the United Kingdom to create a form of government in Northern Ireland which would be amenable to eventual amalgamation with the form of government in the South of Ireland, and one need only read the Government of Ireland Act 1920 to realise that it was paving legislation towards a reuniting—as perhaps it would have been called at that time—of the North and South.
When Stormont was destroyed by this House in 1972—and I was one of those who voted against that action because it was taken by a Government who had not disclosed to the House or the country what they intended to put in the place of the previous constitution—it was not the intention in doing so to bring Northern Ireland into congruence with the rest of the United Kingdom. The object was to establish in Northern Ireland a more
110
susceptible or more manageable form of local administration which would still serve the purpose of arriving at some sort of accommodation with the Irish Republic and its desire for the amalgamation of the North of Ireland.
The first essay was the 1972 Act, with the power-sharing constitution and the Assembly which was created under it. That Assembly initially did not contain the mechanism for the all-Ireland dimension. That was supplied just before the establishment of the Executive and was the direct cause of the rejection of that Assembly and Executive by the overwhelming majority of the people of the Province. That rejection caused the incoming Labour Government in 1974 to revert to the temporary status of direct rule. Thus, direct rule is a means of keeping the way open for the establishment of a separate show in Northern Ireland, a separate show which, as we have twice heard in hints, and more than hints, from the Treasury Bench during today's debate, will be the means of creating an Anglo-Irish set up in which Northern Ireland features as a separate entity. That effort has been pursued throughout the years since 1974 to the present day and, although the Government have intimated that there are ways in which they can see normal administration of the day-to-clay affairs of Northern Ireland being conducted by selected representatives, they have always been careful to couple that with the establishment of the Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier, which has been foreshadowed since the discussions between the Prime Minister and the Irish Prime Minister in 1980 and 1981.
That is what direct rule is about. It is not the consequence of Northern Ireland being recognised as part of the United Kingdom, for it is the consequence of a continuing determination to apply what used to be de Valera's formula for reuniting Ireland, the combination of Ulster autonomy with the English interest. Hon. Members can take that phrase and apply it as the key to the political history of the relations between the Government in the United Kingdom and that Province of the United Kingdom from 1920 onwards. If they do so, they will find that the key fits the lock.
The immediate consequence is that the law is made for the people of Northern Ireland by a different process from that which applies for the rest of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is put apart by the order and it is still kept apart from the rest of the kingdom after 10 years. No other part of the United Kingdom would tolerate this, and hon. Members who represent other parts would be the first to repudiate the proposition that laws should be made for their constituents by an Order in Council and passed under the affirmative procedure. Indeed, I somewhat exaggerate, for only a part of it is passed under that procedure. The vast majority is passed with no parliamentary scrutiny in the form of regulations and orders, which under the devolved constitution would be subject to the negative procedure but which are subject to no procedure and no parliamentary scrutiny, whether by Committee or the House, under the order which is being reviewed.
The order is a declaration that Northern Ireland is to be kept in isolation from the rest of the United Kingdom and that its citizens are not to enjoy the same rights vis-a-vis this legislative House as their fellow citizens enjoy in the rest of the United Kingdom. The official Unionist party has never accepted that and we do not believe that it can be maintained in the long run. We do not believe that in

111
the long run Parliament can treat one part of the United Kingdom differently in the basic constitutional respects from any other.
We told the House when we were elected 10 years ago in 1974 that sooner or later the Province of Northern Ireland would have to have full and equal representation in the House with any other part of the kingdom. That is what we told the House and we were right. The House saw the justice of our case and it was conceded in 1977. It became an accomplished fact at the general election of 1983. Following that election, we were returned in 11 out of 18 seats on a policy of which one of the principal items was that we would get rid of direct rule. We said and we say that it is something which cannot be sustained. It cannot be right that laws should be made by different processes in different parts of the United Kingdom and that they should be made in Northern Ireland by a method which denies to our constituents that participation in legislation at every stage which British citizens in the rest of the Kingdom take for granted as part of their heritage
Mr. Soley: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he means by "the long run"? He said that he wants to bring the Northern Ireland method into line with that which is adopted in the rest of the United Kingdom "in the long run"; but that has not been the position for 60 years
Mr. Powell: That is certainly the case, but now that the House has accepted full and exclusive responsibility for legislation for Northern Ireland as it did in 1972 for the first time after 1921, it is only right and just that the House should use the same legislative processes for Northern Ireland as it uses elsewhere. It would be doing that but for the partially disclosed intentions which lie behind the order deliberately to isolate Northern Ireland so that it might more readily be brought into some sort of conjunction with the Irish Republic. We regard that as an intolerable imposition upon those whom we represent. We were sent to the House in an overwhelming majority of Northern Ireland seats to say so.
We are sure that sooner or later the injustice of the manner in which Northern Ireland is treated for the purposes of legislation by the order will be perceived and acted upon, but until that happens it is our duty, on behalf of those who sent us here, to make our protest. We shall, therefore, oppose the order this year as we did last year, and we shall continue opposing it until justice is done to us in this respect as it already has been in others and will yet be in many more.
10.20 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: Like the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I do not find the system of direct rule anything close to Utopia for the people of Northern Ireland. However, one needs to bear two points in mind. The first is that after a decade of going through this ritual the least that Northern Ireland Members can say is that the system of direct rule has been improved slightly. It has been improved by the presence in Northern Ireland of an Assembly elected by the people that has functions that made the direct-rule system more accountable. They are powers of scrutiny and consideration of legislation and Government actions. Those are an advance upon what hon. Members in the House had to consider and vote upon some two or more years ago. To
112
that extent, at least, direct rule has improved, but it is not improved, and nor could it ever, to the extent necessary to make it an acceptable form of Government in Northern Ireland. I believe that the Government, and I suspect even the Opposition, recognise that to be true.
I believe that when the right hon. Member for Down, South says that he wants Northern Ireland to be treated the same as any other part of the United Kingdom, he is saying that Northern Ireland should have a form of local government similar to the rest of the United Kingdom, should be represented in the House in the same manner as the rest of the United Kingdom and that its laws should be made as are the laws for the rest of the United Kingdom.
I have no hesitation in saying that Northern Ireland is different. It is different from England just as Scotland is different from England, and Wales is different from Scotland. The statute book in Scotland is separate from that of the rest of the mainland as is the statute book for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is unique in that it is one part of the United Kingdom that has had a devolved Government and Parliament previously. It is unique because it is separated from the rest of the United Kingdom by a stretch of water, and it is remote to that extent. It is unique in one other important facet which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). He talked about the paranoia of unionists and their feeling that they were being betrayed behind their backs. It is one thing to call it a paranoia, but in Northern Ireland it is believed to be a reality.
The difference between the right hon. Member for Down, South and myself is that the people in Northern Ireland who support my party do not believe that it is in their best interests to leave their future wholly within a Parliament where they have minor representation.
I was born in a traditional unionist family. I suspect that they voted for the Unionist party. They had no alternative. The union about which I was taught at my father's knee was not the same union as exists today, and we would be fooling ourselves as unionists if we believed that it was. It is different in many respects. The union of which I was taught in my father's day was a union that was there to protect the unionist community in Northern Ireland.
Sadly, I have to say that I see the sort of signs to which the Opposition spokesman referred, where the union is being used as a vehicle to manoeuvre us into the lifestyle of the Republic of Ireland so that we might be more like them and so that we might fit into their way of life. In that respect the union is no longer a safeguard; in fact, it can be a danger.
Therefore, it is important for Unionists to ensure that we have a union that protects the interests of unionists. Laying ourselves on the platter of this House is not always the safest thing to do, and I believe that that is part of the thinking of those who believe in devolution in Northern Ireland. It allows us to have an extra degree of safety.
I do not intend to go into history—enough has been said about the history of our Province in the earlier debate. I intend to look to the future. I was not able to present a document to this House, as the official Unionist party did with "The Way Forward". That is not to say that my party has not presented proposals; in fact, it has presented very detailed proposals to the Report Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I do not believe that there is any great advantage in putting out those proposals for publication at this time, but undoubtedly the time will come.

113
I believe that the future constitution of Northern Ireland can be discussed and decided only by the people themselves in Northern Ireland. The solution to Ulster's problems will not come from or be enforced by this House. It will not come from the New Ireland Forum or from Dublin. It will come by Ulstermen and women looking at the difficulties that have confronted them and trying to find a way out of them. If I believe that to be true, one of the important elements in the Northern Ireland Assembly is that which allows the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to put forward other propositions for the constitutional future of our country. In the Northern Ireland Assembly—represented as it is at present by only three parties—it can be done to that limited extent, and the Northern Ireland Assembly is already undertaking that task.
I cannot chide the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) for not being present to hear me making these remarks; they would best be put to him directly. Indeed, I was unable to hear his contribution earlier. But perhaps, when he reads my remarks in the Official Report, he will take them into account. It seems to me strange that the hon. Member for Foyle, regarding himself as coming from the Republican or nationalist tradition, is prepared to sit down in a British House of Commons but is not prepared to sit down with Ulstermen in Northern Ireland. It seems strange that he is prepared to consider the future of Northern Ireland with politicians to whom he refers as the British—and even with those in Dublin—but is not prepared to come to the Northern Ireland Assembly and consider them with Ulstermen.
The hon. Gentleman will not arrive at a solution to our problems in London or in Dublin. Eventually he will have to come and deal with the unionist people in Northern Ireland, and I would rather he did that sooner than later. There are several advantages in his doing that within the Northern Ireland Assembly. First, the Assembly has been set up, and that is one of the tasks that has been assigned to it. It is a body of elected representatives who can speak for those who put them there. It is a body that can draw upon the expert advice upon which it is entitled to draw as an Assembly. It can use the staff of that Assembly and the support of Report Committee to assist it. It can have close contact with the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Office. Most important, it provides a forum to such people in operating private as well as plenary sessions to deal with the very real problems that concern us all.
I can only put the invitation, and say that I am genuine in saying that I want to talk about the future of Northern Ireland, with other political parties. I can only say that there is no other way to get a solution than by doing that.
Having said that, it is important to remember the words of the Secretary of State when he said in his opening remarks that what is wanted is a workable and demonstrably fair system of Government. There are a multiplicity of systems that would fall within that scope. The nationalist tradition has had, unfortunately, tunnel vision and it sees only one system that could be considered namely power-sharing. There are many systems that would allow the Unionist community to enjoy the British democratic system of Government and which at the same time would ensure that the rights of individuals and of minority groups are protected and still give a meaningful role to the representatives of minority parties. Those can
114
be achieved within the many systems of Government. Indeed, the system of Government that my party has put forward to the Report Committee can do just that.
The Government would undoubtedly find that system satisfactory as a way forward. Without going into the details of the system, there are many other possibilities —I am not putting this forward as the only one—that should be considered if people have the charity, good faith and courage to look at those proposals.
All that we need to do is to face together in a spirit of sincerity the challenges that must be faced. This debate may not be like the previous debates over the decade, as this is the first occasion for many years on which we seem to be moving through one of those stages where everything seems to be in or out of a state of flux. Almost anything can happen. That can be good, and it can be dangerous.
I believe that if there is goodwill with the Northern Ireland political parties then good can surely come of that. I must say for the party that I represent that we are prepared to enter those talks in the Northern Ireland Assembly in good faith and in the understanding that we are prepared to examine the proposals put forward by any political party in Northern Ireland. We suggest that the SDLP joins those parties that are already sitting down and joins in that task.
10.33 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I have had the privilege of listening to seven hours of debate about the future of Northern Ireland. I noted in the concluding remarks of the earlier debate that the Minister was perhaps a little optimistic in his belief that a certain theme was running through the debates. There have been many of themes, although not all have been harmonious or in unision. Any Minister who faces such a diversity of views as have been expressed in this debate must have the sympathy of the House.
The House has no practical alternative but to pass the order, although I accept what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said about its being far from the acme of political wisdom or democracy as it is known in any other part of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, he does his own party less than justice with regard to its constructive recommendations in "The Way Forward". That document recognised the distinctiveness of the politics and polity of Northern Ireland. It not only recognised its difference from the rest of the United Kingdom but put forward proposals for its future government, which are different from any that prevail in any part of the United Kingdom.
Most notable was the recommendation that the Government should look with favour upon the introduction of a Bill of Rights, as part of the proposed package of devolutionary measures. I most strongly welcome that proposal from the right hon. Gentleman's party. I particularly commend the suggestion that the Government should look, as I think is implicit in the document, at how best to incorporate the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, recognising the inevitability of making reservations to take account of the special predicament of Northern Ireland at this time and the existence of emergency legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman did less than justice to the recognition in his own party's document of the different traditions and outlooks of the communities, which is clearly spelt out. The document states:

115
"The time is now ripe for both communities in Northern Ireland to realise that, essentially, their problems will have to be solved in Northern Ireland by their political representatives and that any future prospect for them and their children is best provided for within the Northern Ireland context."
That is very different from leaving the affairs of the right hon. Gentleman's countrymen in Northern Ireland to the mercies of a Westminster Government. As I understand it, in the document the Official Unionist party is not recommending a policy of integration of Northern Ireland with this country, nor measures for future legislation that are to be developed pari passu with those prevailing for the rest of the country. It is something of a myth in any event that there is total uniformity within these isles in Government and legislative practice. Scotland is governed and legislated for in a different fashion from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: In this Parliament
Mr. Maclennan: Certainly, in this Parliament. The simple point that I am making is that it is not a uniform procedure
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is.
Mr. Maclennan: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, it is a very different procedure. As one who participates in it regularly, I have to tell him that it is a different procedure
Mr. Powell: The essential point is that, though the legislation for Scotland may be different, it is legislation which is made by the House in its normal legislative processes
Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman begs the question when he speaks of "normal legislative processes". They are certainly normal for Scotland, but they are not precisely the same as those that prevail for the rest of the United Kingdom. Perhaps he will wish to look at similar normal, but different procedures for Northern Ireland
Mr. Powell: Not by Order in Council
Mr. Maclennan: I conceded the right hon. Gentleman's point at the beginning of my speech, that legislation by Order in Council is highly undesirable. It must be departed from as soon as there can be agreement about an alternative.
I am wholly at one with the Government in the view that an attempt must be made to get agreement. I thought that there was great wisdom in the view of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) in the former debate that there were risks in doing something if what one did was not enough. That interesting plea for the status quo is not so difficult to understand when one bears in mind the history of the past 10 years.
The right hon. Member for Down, South offered a description of the past 10 years which would not be supported or recognised by anyone who lived through that difficult period. I do not believe that it is necessary to ascribe to successive Governments the motives that the right hon. Gentleman suggested to explain the tergiversations of policy that have marked the development of the constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland over that period. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was all due
116
to the fact that successive Governments were waiting to create a new Anglo-Irish entity, to be given responsibility for the government of Northern Ireland, or that there would be some transfer of powers as a consequence of an unspoken premise.
I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman comes to be privy to such matters or whether that reflects the thinking of the present Government, but I very much doubt it. Certainly I know of no such thinking on the part of those responsible for the government of Northern Ireland in the latter part of the Labour Government. The only unanimity from Labour Members today has been their expression to a man and a woman, of the view that a united Ireland is the solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. The motivation of Ministers in the Labour Government, however, was quite different. The right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason), who was present earlier, was not inspired by any such objectives and I cannot think that the right hon. Member for Down, South would attribute any such motive to him.
It is not important, however, to know the motives of the Governments who presided over Northern Ireland in the past 10 years. It is sufficient to note the way in which they have oscillated from one solution to another and how unsatisfactory that has been. There was the collapse of the Northern Ireland Executive, which the right hon. Member for Down, South took as his starting point, followed by the constitutional convention which strove unsuccessfully for two years to find a way forward, followed by the abortive five-part framework for partial restoration of devolution, in which the right hon. Gentleman's party did not participate, and then the somewhat more relaxed interim period under the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central. There was then the constitutional conference in 1980, the establishment of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Council in 1981 and the initiative for the new rolling devolution in 1982.
Those attempts do not form a consistent, coherent search for a way forward and I found myself regretting very much that the Secretary of State felt that he had to persist both in the earlier debate today and at the beginning of this debate in the view that the best way ahead was really more of the same—that is, in seeking to establish some form of devolved institution, which has already been tried and found wanting. I hope that, if tonight is not his valediction the right hon. Gentleman will be successful in constructing such a consensus as is plainly necessary if that is to be achieved. However, nothing that has been said in this debate has given one any cause for hope that there is such a consensus and, in the absence of such a consensus, I do not see how this House can resist the inevitability of direct rule. It therefore rests with those who wish to see some change from direct rule to seek to create that consensus.
The steps suggested today by the Official Unionist party are, in a sense, the most constructive. The proposals in the Forum document are not in any sense an agenda which has any prospect of commanding support. That is recognised by its authors. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have also recognised that the Forum document does not set out an alternative system of government. It is an open-ended agenda. It is a cry for help and a recognition that the Republic of Ireland has some stake in the stable government — the accepted stable government — of Northern Ireland. The cry for help is powerful because this is the first time in 60 years of Irish history that it has been

117
expressed, and signed, by representatives of all the political parties in the Republic. The signatures appended to the document have attracted more attention than its contents. Its contents take us very little further.
This debate will presumably—indeed, inevitably—be short. That very fact is perhaps an illustration of the outrageousness of the present system of government in Northern Ireland. It is outrageous that such massive powers as are exercised by the Secretary of State should be voted through the House almost on the nod and that some hon. Members should express irritation that any hon. Member should see fit to debate the subject at all. This matter is of high constitutional importance. If we do not remain sensitive to the need to change the system, we are not responding as we should to the importance of the issue.
The Government will enjoy my support and that of my party in passing this legislation this year, but we enter the caveat that this is not a system on which the British people should build their hopes for the long-term resolution of the difficulties of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has issued an invitation to all men of good will to contribute to the building up of a consensus about the next phase. We shall play our part in putting forward our own constructive proposals.
If it is not out of order to say so, I noted with particular interest the comments of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) about the unsuitability of international institutions. He said that, if established, they would create some pressure—more moral than otherwise—on those who might feel reluctant to be involved in an all-Ireland solution. I agree that any such international institution would not serve a useful purpose. If such an institution were designed to bring about a better dialogue between two sovereign Governments and greater understanding between two legislatures on the problems of each, that would be quite a different matter. I listened with special interest to what the right hon. Member for Down, South said about the appropriateness or otherwise of the participation in any such international institution of representatives of the Ulster Assembly. The force of what the right hon. Gentleman said was not lost on me. He made an important speech.
We shall endeavour to make constructive proposals to ensure that the House does not have to be faced with such legislation too many more times.
10.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The House was interested to hear so clearly spelt out in the speeches of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) the two distinctive Unionist stances on devolved government and the treatment in this House of legislation that affect Northern Ireland.
In an important speech, the hon. Member for Belfast, East said that Northern Ireland has had devolved government, and he made clear the determination of his party to play a full part in trying to restore devolved government to the Province. The right hon. Member for Down, South, however, who believes in the deep-laid conspiracy theory, is determined rather to take the route of total integration and wishes all legislation that affects the Province to be treated in the House in what he called the normal legislative manner. The Government, of course, recognise that Northern Ireland is and will remain
118
a constituent part of the United Kingdom, but we believe that the special needs and traditions of Northern Ireland make a system of devolved government the more appropriate method of dealing with their affairs.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: When legislation is identical for the mainland and Northern Ireland, why should the time of the House be wasted by duplicating the legislative process?
Mr. Scott: It is important that we retain for Northern Ireland, during the period of direct rule, a separate corpus of law ready for when Northern Ireland is devolved again and has fully devolved powers. We have a temporary arrangement to deal with legislation that affects Northern Ireland. I do not believe that abandoning the search for a proper system of devolved government would contribute one whit to the stability or peace of the Province. I accept that the present arrangements are far from perfect, although I believe that they have been improved by the extremely effective work that the Assembly has done in scrutinising the Government's proposals for legislation. Nevertheless, we ultimately want devolved government that will be able to scrutinies primary and subordinate legislation in detail. For the time being, we go on with direct rule. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) advocated a Bill of Rights. I am sure that the Government do not have a closed mind on the matter, but, faced with complex decisions on whether to have one, we must bear in mind that there have recently been extensive advances in Northern Ireland for the protection of individuals and their rights. It ramains open whether the introduction of a full Bill of Rights is necessary.
Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the Minister for referring to the Bill of Rights. The Secretary of State alluded to it in passing when he spoke of the existence in Northern Ireland of an advisory standing commission on human rights. He will know that it has believed for a long time that incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights is the best safeguard and would save difficult arguments about what should be included in a Bill of Rights. I hope that the Minister will listen to his own advisory body.
Mr. Scott: The Government have an open mind. This is a complex issue, involving questions such as whether to have such a Bill of Rights just for Northern Ireland or for the whole of the United Kingdom, and how such a Bill of Rights would be properly enforced.
I commend the order to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 9.

Division No. 388]

[10.54 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Ashby, David

Bright, Graham

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Brinton, Tim

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Baldry, Anthony

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Batiste, Spencer

Bruinvels, Peter

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Buck, Sir Antony

Bellingham, Henry

Burt, Alistair

Benyon, William

Butterfill, John

Best, Keith

Carttiss, Michael

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Cash, William

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Bottomley, Peter

Chope, Christopher

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

119

Clegg, Sir Walter

Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

Cope, John

Knowles, Michael

Dorrell, Stephen

Lang, Ian

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Lawler, Geoffrey

Dunn, Robert

Lee, John (Pendle)

Dykes, Hugh

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Evennett, David

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Lester, Jim

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Lightbown, David

Fallon, Michael

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Favell, Anthony

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lyell, Nicholas

Forth, Eric

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Franks, Cecil

Macfarlane, Neil

Freeman, Roger

MacGregor, John

Gale, Roger

Maclean, David John

Goodlad, Alastair

Maclennan, Robert

Gower, Sir Raymond

Major, John

Gregory, Conal

Malins, Humfrey

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Marland, Paul

Ground, Patrick

Marlow, Antony

Grylls, Michael

Mates, Michael

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Mather, Carol

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Maude, Hon Francis

Hanley, Jeremy

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Harris, David

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Harvey, Robert

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Merchant, Piers

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Hayhoe, Barney

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Hayward, Robert

Monro, Sir Hector

Hickmet, Richard

Montgomery, Fergus

Hirst, Michael

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Murphy, Christopher

Holt, Richard

Neale, Gerrard

Howard, Michael

Needham, Richard

Howarth, Alan (Stratfd-on-A)

Newton, Tony

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Normanton, Tom

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Norris, Steven

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Oppenheim, Philip

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Ottaway, Richard

Hunter, Andrew

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Jackson, Robert

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Parris, Matthew

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Kennedy, Charles

Powell, William (Corby)

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Powley, John

Key, Robert

Prior, Rt Hon James

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Proctor, K. Harvey

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Rhodes James, Robert

120

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Waldegrave, Hon William

Scott, Nicholas

Watts, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wilkinson, John

Silvester, Fred

Wolfson, Mark

Sims, Roger

Yeo, Tim

Skeet, T. H. H.

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Tellers for the Ayes:

Speller, Tony

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. Michael Neubert.

Steen, Anthony

NOES

Beggs, Roy

Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

McCusker, Harold

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Tellers for the Noes:

Nicholson, J.

Mr. William Ross and Mr. Ken Maginnis.

Porter, Barry

Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 12 June, be approved.

ESTIMATES
Resolved,
That this House agrees with the Report (19th June) of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Major.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 80(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents.)
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

  BEVERAGE CONTAINERS
  That this House takes note of the proposal for a Council Directive on containers of liquids for human consumption contained in the Department of Trade and Industry's Explanatory Memorandum dated 30th March 1984; and supports the Government's intention to improve the environment and conserve resources without imposing unnecessary legislative burdens on industry.—[Mr. Major.]
  Question agreed to.

Monkeys
Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Major.]
11.5 pm
Mr. Greg Knight: I am glad to have this opportunity to raise a very important matter. No one can say that our debates lack variety, and I realise that the subject that I have chosen may be regarded by some hon. Members as rather unusual. However, the ill-treatment of monkeys and the consequent safety of members of the public are matters of concern. I shall refer not to some far-flung corner of the world, but to what is happening in Britain in 1984.
Regrettably, in the short time available I cannot deal with all the areas of abuse, so I shall restrict my remarks to a relatively narrow subject — the misuse and ill-treatment of monkeys in captivity for entertainment and other purposes. I particularly include those animals that are used as props by seaside and street photographers as an aid to attracting custom, and those kept as pets, often in unsuitable accommodation.
The problem is growing. During the past year or so monkeys have to my knowledge been used by street photographers in Hastings, Lytham St. Anne's, Morecambe, Flamborough, Skegness, Great Yarmouth and many other places, as well as in Cornwall and in the Middlesex street market in London, colloquially known as Petticoat lane. In addition, the number of monkeys in private ownership is believed to be on the increase.
Some hon. Members may ask: what is wrong with photographers using monkeys in that way? The answer is that there is a lot wrong with it. I shall endeavour to explain why. It may well be true that a dog is a man's best friend, but, whether or not hon. Members like it, it is undeniable that a monkey is man's closest relative. We are, therefore, talking about a highly intelligent and sensitive animal that needs the company of its own kind, a varied and well-balanced diet and plenty of space for exercise. To deny all or any of those facilities amounts to cruelty and should not be allowed.
Street photographers fall well below what we should expect and require. Invariably, their monkeys are kept in inadequate cages, and when they are being used as business props—which can be for five or six hours a day, five days a week—they are denied proper exercise and are disgracefully treated. I have had reports and letters from all over Britain saying that monkeys have been seen tied with tight-fitting belts. The belts often cause sores in the short-term and lead to intestinal problems later. One photographer whom I met in Skegness said that he never removed the belts that he used for his animals despite their obvious discomfort.
Tonight's debate has attracted a lot of interest. I am delighted to see so many of my hon. Friends here.
I shall read from two of the many supportive letters which I have received. A lady who lives in Cheshire states:
"I had my picture taken, a number of years ago in Stockport market, with a squirrel monkey and I am ashamed to say I never gave a thought to the misery and degredation suffered by that unfortunate animal … I find the exploitation of primates (or any other animal for that matter) by man, for entertainment, very distasteful."
A letter from a lady living in Norfolk states:
"one day last year I went to Yarmouth for the day and going down Regent Street, there was this photographer with this little monkey. It had a collar and lead on which he was using to swing
122
the monkey around. I went and spoke to him about it. It had two sores on its tail … I was very distressed to see how it was being treated, so I sincerely hope that something will be done by the House of Commons."
The cruelty aspect is only one matter which gives me cause for concern. A second, equally important, problem is public safety. Monkeys can and do bite, especially when irritated or unhappy. Those used by photographers are often both irritated and unhappy. Why should the public be placed at risk? Within two months, in Sussex, seven monkey bites were reported. One was on a baby's face and another on a baby's finger. In the east midlands recently two people were bitten by a monkey which escaped from a shop. Similar incidents have occurred elsewhere, including London. The story is the same in most parts of the country where photographers operate and monkeys are mistreated or manage to escape.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is also anxious and has drawn my attention to cases of children in pushchairs having monkeys placed on their laps and being frightened. In a letter the RSPCA confirms that the problem has been with us for some time. The letter states:
"As long ago as September 1980 the Chief Executive of a South Coast resort which was the home base of an operator of monkeys for photographers told us 'I receive several complaints each year from pedestrians who have been bitten by these monkeys.' … photographers appear to be aggressive in thrusting animals into the arms of passers-by in order to solicit custom."
That is exactly what happens. It is why unsuspecting members of the public receive nasty bites.
Why should the public have to face the risk? We have a dual problem — the danger to the public and the cruelty often involved. There are 51 genera of living primates, but only two or three genera of monkeys are commonly used by street photographers. These are known as New World monkeys — mainly the squirrel and capuchin monkeys. Why are those monkeys so attractive to street photographers? The main reason is that the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 does not list New World monkeys in its schedule. That means that they can be owned without a licence and used without restriction.
Those with financial interests would no doubt argue that a licence should not be necessary because a New World monkey is not dangerous. I disagree with that. It is true that some primates are more dangerous than others. Looking around the House, some may say that the most dangerous of all is homo sapiens. But for non-human primates, the difference is only one of degree in terms of the danger that members of the public face. Of course, a gorilla is more dangerous than a squirrel monkey, but even a squirrel monkey—and I assure hon. Members that I speak from experience—can inflict a nasty bite. I do not understand why the public should face that potential danger.
For those who may argue that the New World monkey is not dangerous, I also pray in aid a circular sent to most zoos by the Secretary of State under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, headed
"The Secretary of State's standards of modern zoo practice".
In the introduction, it states:
"In pursuance of section 9 of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 the Secretary of State, after having consulted such persons on the list compiled under section 8 of the Act and such other persons as he has thought fit, hereby specifies the following standards of modern zoo practice, that is, standards with respect to the management of zoos and the animals in them."

123
That document, in the section headed "Interpretation", under the sub-heading "Hazardous animals" further states:
"'hazardous animals' means those animals listed in the Schedule, for the time being current, to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, and any other animal which, because of its individual disposition, sexual cycle, maternal instincts, or for any other reason, whether by biting, scratching, butting, compression, injecting venom, or by any other method, is likely to injure seriously or transmit disease to humans."
It goes on to say, and this is the important point:
"For the avoidance of doubt all (non-human) primates will be considered as hazardous animals for the purpose of these standards."
Zoos are being told to consider all non-human primates as hazardous, yet the public are not protected under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act against New World monkeys. Surely that is wrong.
Some may ask how will the Act help? It makes it a requirement that an owner of a dangerous animal therein defined needs to obtain a licence. The question is whether the schedule to the Act should be extended to include the species of monkey that I have described. I believe the answer to be yes.
Should that be done, the Dangerous Wild Animals Act empowers a local authority not to grant a licence unless it is satisfied on a number of points. In the main, they relate not only to the safety of the public, but to the conditions in which the animal is kept. Clause 1(5) states:
"A local authority shall not grant a licence under this Act unless a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner authorised by the authority to do so under section 3 of this Act has inspected the premises where any animal will normally be held in pursuance of the licence and the authority has received and considered a report by the surgeon or practitioner, containing such particulars as in the authority's opinion enable it to decide whether the premises are such that any animal proposed to be kept under the authority of the licence may suitably be held there, and describing the condition of the premises and of any animal or other thing found there."
We have two duties, both of which involve protection. The first is a duty to protect the public from potential danger. The second is to protect monkeys and other animals from exploitation, abuse and inadequate or unsuitable owners. I hope that the Government will discharge those two duties.
11.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) on raising an important matter. The subjects that fall to my Department include the abolition of the GLC — [HON. MEMBERS: "And monkeys."] — yes, and monkeys, though why, I am not entirely sure. Having listened to my hon. Friend, the relationship between these subjects may be clearer to the House.
My hon. Friend has persuaded the Government of his case. There is no question, having listened to his arguments, but that there is really nothing more to say. My right hon. Friend will this very month be laying a relevant order under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. Especially gratifying to us in the Department, and to the many experts who advise us on these matters, is that someone who has first-hand experience of having been savaged by a squirrel monkey has reached the same conclusions as we have about the borderline that we must
124
draw. As in all these matters, it is difficult to draw the borderline between what is and what is not a dangerous animal.
Obviously, it is unnecessary for me to do this for the benefit of my hon. Friend, but some of my other hon. Friends might find it helpful to be reminded of the background to the Act and the schedule. The original objective was to list only those obviously dangerous animals that it was, by 1976, becoming fashionable to keep, such as lions and crocodiles. They were obviously dangerous, and the schedule was prepared accordingly, omitting any creature that it was considered unlikely that anyone would wish to keep.
Also, although there was an underlying reluctance to list species about which there might be scope for serious disagreement as to how dangerous they were, some comparatively harmless species were embraced within certain broad categories. Other more dangerous kinds were omitted.
The approach was, thus, insufficiently selective, and a first amendment to the schedule had to be made as early as 1977. By 1981 it became clear that there were far too many anomalies. It was also felt that it was undesirable for the schedule to have to be amended every time there was a change in fashion in pet-keeping. Lions out, crocodiles in—an amendment.
The decision was, therefore, made to embark on a thoroughgoing revision of the schedule and to list all kinds of dangerous wild animals, whether currently considered likely pets or not. As a first step, the Government put through an urgent revision—we did it as soon as we came to power; it was high on our list of priorities—the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 (Modification) Order 1981—the current schedule—to correct the more glaring anomalies. That order bore an explanatory note to the effect that a second-stage review would follow which would consider further modifications, including the addition of certain snakes and certain mustelids, being the relations of badgers
Mr. Richard Hickmet: May we be assured, in the light of my hon. Friend's announcement about the licensing requirements that the Government propose to lay before the House, that right hon. and hon. Members in this place will not be required to be licensed, or that this place will not need to be licensed, on the basis that we fall within the definition of "a primate"?
Mr. Waldegrave: As long as my hon. Friend is not referring to any of the archbishops, the answer is no.
To assist in this review, we assembled a committee of experts. Included were representatives from the British Veterinary Association, the National Federation of Zoological Gardens, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the Pet Trade Association, the Cat Survival Trust, the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, the Primate Society—nothing to do with the archbishops on this occasion—the British Herpetological Society and the International Herpetological Society. A fine body of men.
My hon. Friend has already said that the sole justification for listing an animal in the schedule is that it is dangerous. There was a great and understandable temptation for some committee members to urge the

125
inclusion of certain animals not because they were dangerous but so that the welfare provisions of the Act could come into play. It was made clear throughout that this temptation had to be resisted. Nor has the Act any role in the protection of endangered species.
So, based exclusively on the criterion of public safety, agreement on most of the species was easy. Although it is very difficult to arrive at completely objective criteria defining what constitutes a dangerous animal, a broad consensus was nevertheless reached and most of the creatures that are listed in the proposed new schedule are so clearly above the line that little or no discussion was needed. As always, it was a small number of borderline cases that took up the time. It is not surprising, given the difficulty of defining "dangerous", that the experts failed to reach a uninimous decision on the borderline cases but, having looked at the various views expressed, I am happy that the forthcoming order will present a realistic and defensible list.
I shall mention the borderline cases in a moment, but, before I do, I should like to re-emphasis a point made by my hon. Friend, that there is nothing in the Dangerous Wild Animals Act designed to stop people from keeping the listed animals. It merely requires that, if they are kept, the local authority should be satisfied that they are kept in a way that poses no threat to public safety and causes no nuisance; that the keeper is a suitable person to be entrusted with their care; and that certain minimum standards are maintained for their welfare.
What were the borderline cases?
Mr. John Butterfill rose——
Mr. Waldegrave: No, I must continue with my speech. If I am interrupted on an occasion like this I may lose the track of the argument.
The borderline cases were certain spiders, certain snakes, the civets, the smaller New World monkeys and the raccoon. Perhaps that was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) wanted to make.
As soon as one mentions spiders and snakes, one enters the realm of folklore. My advisers steadfastly put these considerations behind them. Most of us would run a mile at the sight of a tarantula, but I am advised that in truth it is a most amiable creature. It is reluctant to bite unless under extreme provocation, and then it causes only little more pain than a bee sting. It is not on the list, therefore. As for pythons, boa constrictors and anacondas, their size, like speeches in the House, is directly related to the available accommodation, and the few recorded instances of their having proved dangerous have occurred in their natural habitats. If a boa constrictor happens to live in Africa, it will have plenty of room. If it lives in more confined circumstances, it will be a small example. Therefore, boa constrictors are not on the list either.
The experts were able to reach unanimous agreement on spiders and snakes and on the civets, where the Pet Traders Association's recommendations were accepted without dispute.
There remained one main area where there was an unresolved difference of opinion, the New World monkeys. The Pet Trade Association's representatives, with some expert backing, argued that in ascending order of dangerousness, the marmoset, the tamarin, the saki—perhaps a writer of short stories — the squirrel, the
126
douroucouli and the capuchin were not unacceptably dangerous. Experts from the British Veterinary Association, the National Federation of Zoological Gardens and the Primate Society—on this occasion no "s" should appear after "Primate" — took the contrary view while others suggested that the line should be drawn either between the marmoset and the tamarin or the tamarin and the saki.
The recommendation that I have accepted is that the marmoset should be below the line and the tamarin and all the others above it, the essential difference being the size of the lower permanent canine teeth. Although marmosets can and do bite, I am persuaded that this animal cannot realistically be described as dangerous. I am assured that anyone—my advisers looked into this matter by firsthand experience—who has been bitten by tamarin will know that it is a very different experience from being bitten by a marmoset. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in that view.
The Pet Trade Association has, during discussion and in the press, drawn comparison between the risk of injury from dogs and from the small monkeys. There is, however, one important distinction. Dogs have been widely domesticated for millennia and bred for specific purposes. Such risk as they present to human safety is accepted by society.
It is quite another matter to permit uncontrolled keeping of species only a few generations away from the wild; and Mr. and Mrs. Public have a right to know that their next door neighbour is not irresponsibly keeping an exotic pet of unpredictable behaviour and the ability to inflict injury on their child. That is the kind of criticism of our living habits that we, as Members of the House, have to face.
The comparison with dogs brings me to the last of the borderline animals—the raccoon—about which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) was about to intervene. That, incidentally, is not to be confused with the raccoon-dog — my hon. Friend would not have made that mistake— a canine which has been on the list until now, but which is not considered dangerous and which will be taken off the list by the forthcoming order.
Captive-bred specimens of the raccoon itself are entering trade in increasing numbers and the Pet Trade Association argues that they are essentially domesticated and should be accepted as such. I am not persuaded that the time is right to do so. As I have said, dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years and yet still present some degree of risk to the public, and the postman, as I am reminded. I accept the view of the majority of the experts who were consulted — that a species can be classed as domestic only after many generations of selective breeding. The raccoon is a long way short of achieving that status. It may work away at it and in clue course return to the House in some hundreds of years and achieve that status, but not yet. Meanwhile I consider that it should be regarded as a dangerous wild animal. I do not believe that many of my hon. Friends will want to argue against me.
I should like to offer my thanks to all those experts who attended the meetings held in Marsham street and tried out the difference between being bitten by a marmoset and a tamarin, or who offered their comments and advice in writing, and who helped me make my decisions on the revised schedule. I should like to repeat my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North for bringing the

127
subject to the attention of the House tonight. Although we have treated it lightly, there is a serious point here. He is a keeper of these monkeys and we read with great pleasure in Crossbencher at the weekend of the happy event which may be expected by his squirrel monkeys, and we offer our best felicitations. My hon. Friend has done well to raise
128
a serious point. We have followed his advice and been grateful for it in the way in which we have laid the order that my right hon. Friend will put before the House shortly.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Racial Attacks (Newham)
  Racial Attacks (Newham)
  Firearms Act 1968
  Firearms Act 1968
  Breath Tests
  Breath Tests
  Immigration Appeals Tribunal
  Immigration Appeals Tribunal
  Water Cannons
  Water Cannons
  M. Jean-Marie Le Pen
  M. Jean-Marie Le Pen
  Repatriation of Prisoners Bill
  Repatriation of Prisoners Bill
  Sayeed Manzur Hussein Bukhari
  Sayeed Manzur Hussein Bukhari
  Replica Weapons
  Replica Weapons
  Prisons (Cell Sharing)
  Prisons (Cell Sharing)
PRIME MINISTER
  Fontainebleau Communiqué
  Fontainebleau Communiqué
  Positive Action for Women
  Positive Action for Women
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  EC (Intervention Food Stores)
  EC (Intervention Food Stores)
  Halvergate Marshes
  Halvergate Marshes
  EC (Rebate)
  EC (Rebate)
  President Jayawardene (Visit)
  President Jayawardene (Visit)
  Universities and Polytechnics
  Universities and Polytechnics
  EC (Receipts and Payments)
  EC (Receipts and Payments)
  EC (Contributions)
  EC (Contributions)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Stores System (Efficiency Scrutiny)
  Stores System (Efficiency Scrutiny)
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Salmon (Drift Netting)
  Salmon (Drift Netting)
TRANSPORT
  Testing Stations
  Testing Stations
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Road Construction
  Road Construction
  East Coast Main Line (Electrification)
  East Coast Main Line (Electrification)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Unemployment Benefit (Taxation)
  Unemployment Benefit (Taxation)
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Britons Resident Abroad
  Britons Resident Abroad
  Argentina
  Argentina
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  EC (Contributions)
  EC (Contributions)
  Tax Evasion
  Tax Evasion
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Staff Inspector
  Staff Inspector
  Stamp Duty
  Stamp Duty
  EC(Grants and Loans)
  EC(Grants and Loans)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Regional Industrial Policy
  Regional Industrial Policy
  Telecommunications Equipment
  Telecommunications Equipment
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
  Booker McConnell
  Booker McConnell
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Tinplate Merger
  Tinplate Merger
  South America (Exports)
  South America (Exports)
  Argentine Books (Import Controls)
  Argentine Books (Import Controls)
  Patents (Litigation)
  Patents (Litigation)
  British Leyland, Bathgate
  British Leyland, Bathgate
  British Telecom (Telephone Kiosks)
  British Telecom (Telephone Kiosks)
  Sale of Goods Act
  Sale of Goods Act
  Universal Postal Union
  Universal Postal Union
  Clothing Imports (China)
  Clothing Imports (China)
  Businesses (Departmental Loans)
  Businesses (Departmental Loans)
  Trade Statistics
  Trade Statistics
WALES
  Planning Aid Service
  Planning Aid Service
  Housing (Improvement Grants)
  Housing (Improvement Grants)
  Physiotherapists
  Physiotherapists
  Shorthold Tenancies
  Shorthold Tenancies
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Timber
  Timber
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Land Authority for Wales (Redundancies)
  Land Authority for Wales (Redundancies)
  Welsh Arts Council
  Welsh Arts Council
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Britons Resident Abroad
  Britons Resident Abroad
  President Jayawardene (Visit)
  President Jayawardene (Visit)
  Parliamentary Human Rights Group (Sri Lanka Visit)
  Parliamentary Human Rights Group (Sri Lanka Visit)
SCOTLAND
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Shared Accommodation
  Shared Accommodation
  Criminal Statistics
  Criminal Statistics
  Employment Measures (Dundee)
  Employment Measures (Dundee)
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Food Self-Sufficiency
  Food Self-Sufficiency
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
DEFENCE
  NATO
  NATO
ENERGY
  Electricity Imports (France)
  Electricity Imports (France)
  Energy Efficiency (Investment)
  Energy Efficiency (Investment)
  Oil Imports
  Oil Imports
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  National Coal Board (Membership)
  National Coal Board (Membership)
  Energy Costs
  Energy Costs
  Nuclear Power (Costs)
  Nuclear Power (Costs)
  Energy Efficiency Campaign
  Energy Efficiency Campaign
  Coal Production
  Coal Production
  Coal Stocks
  Coal Stocks
  Coal Mines (Economic Assessment Criteria)
  Coal Mines (Economic Assessment Criteria)
  Policies (Environmental Considerations)
  Policies (Environmental Considerations)
  Coal (Research and Development)
  Coal (Research and Development)
  Mersey Barrage
  Mersey Barrage
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  Electricity Production
  Electricity Production
EMPLOYMENT
  "Training for Jobs"
  "Training for Jobs"
  Minimum Wage Regulations
  Minimum Wage Regulations
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Pulmonary Asbestosis
  Pulmonary Asbestosis
  Byssinosis
  Byssinosis
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Travel-to-work Areas (Wales)
  Travel-to-work Areas (Wales)
  Dock Labour Scheme
  Dock Labour Scheme
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Agriculture (Bilateral Overseas Aid)
  Agriculture (Bilateral Overseas Aid)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Farmers (Subsidies)
  Farmers (Subsidies)
  European Community (US Grain Imports)
  European Community (US Grain Imports)
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Food Imports
  Food Imports
  Self-sufficiency
  Self-sufficiency
  Timber
  Timber
  China Sheep (Name)
  China Sheep (Name)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Book Imports (Argentina)
  Book Imports (Argentina)
  Scientific Instruments
  Scientific Instruments
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
ENVIRONMENT
  Sport (Behaviour)
  Sport (Behaviour)
  City of London (Roofspace Development)
  City of London (Roofspace Development)
  Council House Sales (Cannock Chase District Council)
  Council House Sales (Cannock Chase District Council)
  Local Authorities (Contractors)
  Local Authorities (Contractors)
  Regional Water Authorities (Customers' Interests)
  Regional Water Authorities (Customers' Interests)
  Housing Statistics
  Housing Statistics
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Pollution
  Pollution
  House of Commons (Lift)
  House of Commons (Lift)
  Sports Council
  Sports Council
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain
  Disabled Persons (Buildings)
  Disabled Persons (Buildings)
  Housing Corporation (Approved Development Programmes)
  Housing Corporation (Approved Development Programmes)
  Council of Environment Ministers
  Council of Environment Ministers
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Broadmoor
  Broadmoor
  Benefits (Uprating)
  Benefits (Uprating)
  Pre-School Playgroups Association
  Pre-School Playgroups Association
  Noise at Work
  Noise at Work
  Benefits (Young People)
  Benefits (Young People)
  Heating Additions
  Heating Additions
  Urgent Needs Payments
  Urgent Needs Payments
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Emphysema (Benefit)
  Emphysema (Benefit)
  Farmer's Lung
  Farmer's Lung
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Motability Cars (Departmental Contribution)
  Motability Cars (Departmental Contribution)
  One-parent Families
  One-parent Families
  Unemployment Pay
  Unemployment Pay
  NHS (Veterinary Surgeons)
  NHS (Veterinary Surgeons)
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Heart Patients (Manchester)
  Heart Patients (Manchester)
  Health Authorities (Premature Retirement Scheme)
  Health Authorities (Premature Retirement Scheme)
  Supplementary Benefits Tribunal
  Supplementary Benefits Tribunal
  Voluntary Organisations (Aid)
  Voluntary Organisations (Aid)
  Benefit Claims
  Benefit Claims
  Benefits (Banff and Buchan)
  Benefits (Banff and Buchan)
  Local Office Staff (Banff and Buchan)
  Local Office Staff (Banff and Buchan)
  Child Benefit Centre
  Child Benefit Centre
  Consultants (Thames Region)
  Consultants (Thames Region)
  Social Security Expenditure
  Social Security Expenditure
  NHS (Funding Proposal)
  NHS (Funding Proposal)
  Specialist Fraud Investigations
  Specialist Fraud Investigations
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Benefits (Fraud)
  Benefits (Fraud)
  Health Authorities (Asset Sales)
  Health Authorities (Asset Sales)
  Students (Social Security Payments)
  Students (Social Security Payments)
  Newcastle upon Tyne Office (Dispute)
  Newcastle upon Tyne Office (Dispute)
  Dentists (Earnings)
  Dentists (Earnings)
  Local Office Claimants (Erdington)
  Local Office Claimants (Erdington)
  Mentally Ill and Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Ill and Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Voluntary Unemployment Deductions
  Voluntary Unemployment Deductions
  Pension Rights (Transfer Clearing House)
  Pension Rights (Transfer Clearing House)

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

Polytechnic of North London
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have proposals for the closure of the Polytechnic of North London.
The Earl of Swinton: No, my Lords.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that for at least 10 years certain departments of this polytechnic have been subject to continuous disruption by students claiming, on political grounds, to dictate who should study, who should teach and what standard should be applied in examinations? At a time when public expenditure is being limited, could not more useful expenditure in the higher education field be found?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am aware of my noble friend's feeling on this matter, and I am sorry not to have given him an original reply which would have satisfied him more upon his birthday. However, as my noble friend says, the fact is that in some departments these events have indeed been happening: but in other departments matters have been going fairly well.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving us the assurance—and I take it to be an assurance—that the Government are not planning a further reduction in the powers of local authorities by
2
intervening to close educational establishments. Will not the noble Earl agree that as has been said, while this college has had very difficult problems, it is now making quite an effort for progress, and that the type of questions that have been asked this afternoon are not helpful?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not think that I would altogether agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mulley. Some of the comments made by my noble friend were very accurate and very justified. However, my right honourable friend does not have the power to close down an entire establishment like this; he can only close down individual courses, if he considers it necessary.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, although the Polytechnic of North London has suffered repeated disruptions (to which reference has already been made) for more than 12 years, no disciplinary action whatever has ever been taken by the governors or by the Inner London Education Authority, and that the situation is now so serious that some staff in some good departments would prefer to be relocated in a healthier academic environment?
Noble Lords: Reading!
Baroness Cox: My Lords, since the political composition of the ILEA is such that it is unlikely to take action to this effect, I should like to ask whether the Government might undertake a radical review or reorganisation of the polytechnics similar to that which has already taken place in London University?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I found it rather difficult to hear my noble friend's questions because of the rather strange noises from the other side of the House; but I gather that her question referred to discipline. I understand that a joint advisory committee has been established between the ILEA and the polytechnic, and that it has already met several times. The aim of this committee is to tighten up the disciplinary procedures of the polytechnic in order to prevent unacceptable and disruptive behaviour either by individuals or by groups of students. The committee will also be considering the question of

3
communication between the polytechnic and staff and students with a view to recommending improvements. My right honourable friend looks forward to learning the outcome of the committee's deliberations in due course and he will be studying them most carefully.
Lord Annan: My Lords, would the noble Earl accept that, if politically it is impossible to close down whole institutions, would not it be possible to close those departments which are not really concerned with the work of polytechnics?—polytechnics being principally concerned with the applied sciences and with mathematics and perhaps with business studies. But the departments to which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was referring are not actually crucial to the existence of this polytechnic. Would it also be possible for the noble Earl to look into the reply he made about the consultations taking place between the Inner London Education Authority and the polytechnic? The Inner London Education Authority's representatives on the governing body of this polytechnic have for years supported disruptive action by students in that institution.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, in reply to the first part of Lord Annan's question, the courses to which he is probably referring are the BSc in sociology and the BA in Applied Social Studies. HM inspectors have reported several weaknesses in these courses. It is the practice where HMI reports reveal weaknesses to offer the institution and its maintaining or responsible local authority the opportunity to put matters right. Both the polytechnic directorate and the ILEA have agreed to take remedial action and we should not prejudge the issue. However, the advice of the national advisory body in respect of the Polytechnic of North London's provision for 1984–1985, as endorsed by my right honourable friend, entails a halving of student intakes in those subjects. So we hope that there will be an improvement. On the matter of discipline, I do not think I can go further than to say that my right honourable friend will be studying the report when it arrives.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while no one defends or condones antics that go on from time to

EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND COMMITMENTS AND PAYMENTS TO BRITISH TELECOM 1981–1983

1981

1982

1983

Region

Commitments

Payments

Commitments

Payments

Commitments

Payments

Northern

6,682,800

9,999,881

5,320,200

174,775

4,614,300

2,473,668

North-West

3,881,700

963,253

2,664,000

951,230

6,566,520

2,657,417

Yorkshire and Humberside

1,206,000

—

—

—

2,865,000

—

East Midlands

—

—

—

—

—

—

West Midlands

—

—

—

—

3,192,300

—

South-West

—

904,500

1,397,400

5,265

2,985,900

143,460

Scotland

2,014,800

1,883,834

10,084,590

3,264,343

3,702,720

612,365

Wales

1,110,600

326,495

701,802

1,170,883

6,062,790

1,424,385

Great Britain

14,895,900

14,077,963

20,167,992

5,566,496

29,989,530

7,311,295

Northern Ireland

3,402,120

2,890,599

3,557,149

1,088,679

3,959,400

0

United Kingdom

18,298,020

16,968,562

23,725,141

6,655,175

33,948,930

7,311,295

Note: The payments shown in the table include some payments arising from commitments made in years prior to 1981.
time, is the noble Earl aware that in Oxford in the 13th century all the Welsh students were sent home and there was some talk of closing Oxford then? Could we have the same sense of proportion now?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that over the years Welshman have invaded more than Oxford and there might be a feeling on this side of the House that some of them inflicted a certain amount of damage here the other day and that they might well be banished to Wales in return!

EEC Grants to British Telecom
2.43 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how much money was granted for regional development to British Telecom by the EEC in each of the last three years, how it was spent between the different United Kingdom regions, and how much private sector service providers received.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, as the Answer contains a number of figures I will with permission include the detailed analysis in the Official Report. But, in brief, in the three years 1981, 1982, and 1983 grants allocated by the ERDF towards public sector infrastructure works undertaken by BT in areas eligible for national regional aid amounted to £76 million. These figures do not include sums allocated under supplementary measures, as these formed part of the procedures adopted to give effect to the United Kingdom's budgetary refunds.
The position of private sector service providers is quite different. They would not normally qualify in respect of infrastructure works; and in respect of industrial projects ERDF aid would not go directly to the company concerned, but would be in partial reimbursement of regional aid.
Following is the detailed analysis referred to above:
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the House must be very grateful that these quite amazing figures have emerged from this Question? A sum of £76 million to help the infrastructure in parts of our country which need it is wholly salutary, and perhaps more people would have taken part in the European elections had figures of this kind been known and had just what the EEC is doing for various sectors of our economy been known.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to that matter.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that of the aid of £76 million which he has mentioned, some 71 per cent. was provided direct by the United Kingdom to the EEC, that the EEC is acting as a conduit in the matter, and that the only profit gained by the United Kingdom is some 8 per cent. of the total?
Lord Cockfield: No, my Lords, I would not accept the noble Lord's interpretation of the figures. Probably what he has in mind is ERDF aid to the private sector in respect of industrial projects, but even there the figures are quite different from those which the noble Lord has given.

Stockholm Conference: Mandate
2.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that NATO representatives are alleged to be delaying serious negotiations in Stockholm by refusing to discuss any proposals other than those submitted by them which exclude consideration of naval and air forces and confine discussion to ground forces and ground-launched weapon systems; and whether they will seek to remove any such barriers to a free exchange of views.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, the mandate for the Stockholm Conference was adopted by consensus at the Madrid CSCE review meeting in 1983. It includes a provision that only those air and sea activities which form part of a notifiable land activity will be subject to measures to be agreed at Stockholm.
We and our allies have made it clear that we are prepared to consider any proposals which conform to the conference mandate. Moreover, Western and neutral participants have taken the lead in making procedural proposals to move the conference towards detailed negotiations. These are now under discussion.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that the difficulty in the matter is that the conference is not making the progress which was expected, due to the mutual decision by each side not to discuss the proposals put forward by the other side? Would not progress be made if NATO representatives were to agree to discuss one Warsaw Pact proposal in return
6
for the Warsaw Pact countries agreeing to discuss one NATO proposal?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we should like to make progress at this conference, and the United Kingdom and the NATO powers have made proposals which are designed to reduce tension and the danger of surprise attack through increased openness about normal patterns of military behaviour. The Soviet Union proposals, which were formally tabled on 8th May, include a treaty on the no first use of force, a declaration on the no first use of nuclear weapons, a reduction in military budgets, a ban on chemical weapons in Europe, nuclear weapon-free zones, and some suggestions for building on measures in the Helsinki Final Act.
However, we believe that the measures that we have proposed are designed to reduce tension and the danger of surprise attack, and that this is the first step in this conference.

Voting Practice
2.47 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask the Leader of the House what steps he proposes to codify the present practice of the House of Lords with regard to voting on Government Bills at Second and Third Reading.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): None, my Lords. The powers which this House possesses are considerable, but it has in the past exercised them with restraint, as indeed I hope that it will in the future. This restraint has been self-imposed, and I suspect that any attempt by the Leader of the House for the time being to impose a code of practice to regulate the position would be neither welcome nor effective.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, while expressing my gratitude to the noble Viscount for that Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is considerable confusion among Ministers as to the extent of what he calls the restraint and what I might call the conventions under which this House works, particularly with regard to Second and Third Readings and in regard to the Motions which have recently been laid before your Lordships' House? Therefore, does he not think it would be helpful if this matter were to be examined by the appropriate committee and reported on, so that the House would have an opportunity to decide the extent of the conventions and whether the House ought to be bound by them? Is it not of considerable importance that when he and his noble friends find themselves sitting on this side of the Chamber they should feel bound by pecisely the same self-denying ordinance as do the present Opposition parties?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, of course it is open to this House and, naturally, to the Procedure Committee to make any changes that they wish. If

7
they did so wish, of course it could be done. As far as the details are concerned, as a newcomer to this House I have learnt that a certain flexibility, together with a certain understanding of convention, has worked much to the benefit of this House. I hope that it will always be thus; and although I do not anticipate my translation from one side of the House to the other (although one never knows), I do not imagine that I would adopt any different position if I were in opposition from that which I seek to adopt now, except that I should be seeking to beat the Government, at which I think other people seem to be very successful, instead of defending them, at which I do not seem always to have been so successful.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill will be adjourned for dinner at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour. During this adjournment the Consideration of Commons Amendments to the Agricultural Holdings Bill will be taken.

Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Trumpington).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Code of practice.
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice in connection with the exercise by police officers of their powers and the duties under sections 1, 2 and 3 of this Act.
(2) The provisions of section 64 of this Act shall apply to such code of practice.").
The noble Lord said: In the other place during the debate on this Bill there was a considerable amount of discussion in regard to the need for codes of practice. I do not think that it is necessary for me to enter into a long dissertation on the advantages of having a code of practice when you are dealing with matters such as stop and search, arrest, detention, and so on. I think that your Lordships would be happier to know that codes of practice existed, and that the Secretary of State was mandated to prepare such codes of practice, the drafts of which would be placed before Parliament.
There was considerable pressure for that in the other place. The result of that pressure was that the Secretary of State gave an undertaking to look favourably on the inclusion in the Bill of provision for codes of practice. It was not possible for that undertaking to be implemented by any suggested legislative provision
8
until this came before your Lordships' House. My noble friends and I therefore put down as an amendment Amendment No. 28, which is now before your Lordships. It will be seen that that amendment provides that the Secretary of State shall issue—it is going to be his duty to issue under this amendment—
"a code of practice in connection with the exercise by police officers of their powers and the duties under sections 1, 2 and 3 of this Act".
May I briefly remind your Lordships that Part I of the Act deals with "Powers to Stop and Search"; Part II with "Powers of Entry, Search and Seizure"; and Part III with "Arrest". After this amendment was put down the Government, following upon their undertaking, honourably put down Amendment No. 156. Your Lordships will therefore notice that as a result of the pressure, properly exercised and courteously acknowledged in the other place, and as a result as well of this amendment put down by my noble friend and I, Amendment No. 156 appears.
Amendment No. 156: Clause 63, page 60, line 27, leave out from ("with") to ("the") in line 29 and insert—

(" (a) the exercise of statutory powers—

(i) to search a person without first arresting him; or

(ii) to search a vehicle without making an arrest;

(b) the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons by police officers;

(c) searches of premises by police officers; and

(d)")

May I therefore refer your Lordships to Amendment No. 156 and say briefly, while recognising that this is in some way in compliance with the undertaking, why it is the belief of my noble friends and I that that amendment is not as good as Amendment No. 28. Under that amendment there is in fact an amendment to the Bill at page 60, line 27. To follow this therefore one has to turn to page 60, line 27, and your Lordships will see that as a result of the amendment the words,
"detention, treatment, questioning and identification"
are left out, and
"the exercise of statutory powers"
comes into the Bill and it is limited to:

"(i) to search a person without first arresting him; or

(ii) to search a vehicle without making an arrest;

(b) the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons by police officers';
(c) searches of premises by police officers".
The first thing one notices about that amendment is that it provides that Clause 64 shall apply to these codes of practice, and that when the draft codes appear they will come before Parliament. But your Lordships will notice that the specific provisions that are laid down there omit various items. First of all we see reference to searching a person without first arresting him. What about a code of practice which deals with stopping a person before you decide to search him? Should there not be some code of practice relating to that, otherwise all innocent people are in danger of being stopped and having preliminary words uttered to them before a search?
There ought to be a code of practice about what you ought to suspect before you interfere with the lawful comings and goings of peaceful and honourable citizens. We also see provision for a search of a vehicle without making an arrest. There is nothing to do with stopping a vehicle without making an arrest. There is

9
nothing here, either, about the power of the police to enter and seize. Instead of that we have,
"searches of premises by police officers".
There is nothing about a code of practice which says what ought to be the situation before a police officer enters premises and seizes property.
Therefore I turn back—I think it is the logical thing to do—to Amendment No. 28 and ask your Lordships to be good enough to direct your attention to the fact that our amendment covers the whole of Clauses 1, 2 and 3 and does not attempt to dissect the clauses or extract various items from them. It makes it quite inclusive of 1, 2 and 3 in respect of which important powers of the police there ought to be codes of practice. It is in those general terms that I bring the amendment before your Lordships for your consideration. I hope I have differentiated between this amendment and Amendment No. 156 to your Lordships' satisfaction. I beg to move.
Lord Gifford: I understand that we shall be addressing our minds to the Minister's amendment, Amendment No. 156, at the same time as we consider the amendment in the name of my noble friends. I should like to say how much I welcome the introduction of a code of practice. For the moment I do not take up the point exactly what form it should be, but I welcome in principle that there will be such a code. I should like to renew the plea that I made on the last Committee day that a first draft at least of that code might be with us before we leave our consideration of this Bill.
May I mention two considerations which I hope will be taken into account when the code dealing with stops and searches is being drafted. The first concerns the question to which we have had to turn our attention on a number of occasions already; that is the question of colour and of prejudice. Anyone who thought that some of us were scaremongering when we drew attention to the bias which has been shown in the exercise of the police forces' existing powers would have understood why we did it when the report of the Policy Studies Institute on this matter was published. In the section headed, "Colour as a criterion for stops", in the fourth volume of the report, the researchers of the PSI—who, let us remember, spent many weeks and months in the company of metropolitan police officers—described the attitude of three relatively experienced police constables as to their relationship with coloured people, in their thoughts about colour and the stop and search powers. One of them said that he would give this advice to probationers:
"How does an experienced policeman decide who to stop? Well, the one that you stop is often wearing a woolly hat, he is dark in complexion, he has thick lips and he usually has dark, fuzzy hair".
The PSI reporters stated:
"This group of officers indulged in a great deal of racialist talk, but they also gave what they regarded as reasoned justifications for stopping black people. All three insisted that it was reasonable to stop any black people in cars because nine times out of ten they would have drugs".
The report commented that 3 per cent. of stops led to an arrest or charge and a further 5 per cent. lead only to an offence being reported.
10
Finally, one of the police officers, living in a division containing areas of high and low ethnic concentrations, said:
"If I saw a black man walking through Wimbledon High Street I would definitely stop him. 'Course, down here it's a common sight, so there's no point".
I hope that the code of practice will lay upon police officers the most stringent duties so far as these biased criteria for stopping people are concerned.
The second matter concerns the recording of the information which will be asked of the people who are to be stopped and searched, in pursuance of the powers conferred by Clause 1. It really is essential that no more information is extracted from the people who are stopped and searched and on whom nothing is found than is necessary for the proper discharge of police duties. I have in front of me a Metropolitan Police draft form which is described as being Form 124B, and is headed "Search Record". I understand it to be the type of form which it is proposed will be used to record the details of people who are stopped and searched. I note that it has only a line and a half of small space on which to record the grounds for the search. I note also that it requires the officer to record the date and place of birth of the person who is stopped in the street for the purposes of a search. If someone is stopped and searched and is innocent, he should be allowed to go on his way. In my submission it is not right that the date and place of his birth should be demanded by the police officer. The only purpose that I can think of for this being down on the form as being something which should be recorded is so that the facts of the stop and search can be recorded against any entry that might be made of that individual in the police computer, since the date of birth is an essential marking point to ascertain whether someone is on the police computer and, if he is not, he can be put on it. It seems to me that if that is being recorded, it is so that people who are innocent, but who are being stopped and searched, whether or not anything is found on them, should have that fact recorded and logged against them on the police computer. I hope that the code of practice will ensure that that practice, if it is contemplated, will not be carried out.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I should like to support the suggestion that there should be a code of practice, and I welcome the Minister's amendment, but I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that his amendment really fulfils the purpose much better than does the Government's amendment. This code of practice is perhaps as crucial as anything in the Bill. I am quite sure that the Minister is aware—in fact he has said so—that hitherto the powers of stop and search have been misused. In saying that in the last debate we had in Committee, the noble Lord said that if there is a defect, it does not lie in the definition in subsection (3). It will be remembered that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and myself put down an amendment to try to deal with the misuse by, first of all, limiting the powers of stop and search to an officer in uniform—that amendment has gone through—and, secondly, requiring the reasons for the suspicion to arise out of the circumstances of the stop itself. The noble Lord said that the defect did not lie in the definition because there must be some concrete basis for the police officer's beliefs relating to the individual

11
concerned. That, if I may say so, is the essence of the whole of the guidance which is to be given in this code of practice.
I should like to ask the Minister now, for the third time, the same question which hitherto he has not been able to answer: is it the view of the Government that if a police officer knows that an individual has a conviction of some kind for a criminal offence, that knowledge alone would found a reasonable suspicion? Both Ministers in another place during Committee said that that would be so. It is because of that that we feel the amendment we have put down, which now could find its sense in the code, is so crucial. As the Minister said, there must be some concrete basis for the officer's belief relating to the individual. By that does he mean that it will be open to the police to stop anybody on the street simply and solely because that person has some form of criminal record?
If that is not so, I ask the Minister to make it abundantly clear in the code that that does not found a reasonable suspicion? It is that, to which one can add the appearance of the person, the company he keeps, his proclivity (such as being a homosexual) and so on, that have given rise to all the worries and the hassle that this power has brought with it. I ask the Minister whether he can reply to that question and, whatever his answer, I hope that it will be in the sense that I have indicated—that he will make it abundantly clear in the code when it is drafted.
Will he also make it clear that when there is a stop of this kind the person stopped should be cautioned? It is just as important that he should be cautioned at that stage as when he reaches the police station, and as when he is arrested, which is now the law. The Government have introduced into the criminal law a completely new concept, that of detention, which has never before been recognised in the criminal law. There is now something called "detention", which is different from arrest, and the law at present is that if someone is arrested, he must be cautioned; that is, told of his right to keep silent. I would suggest that in the code it is equally crucial that the person should be cautioned when stopped because, for instance, it may be suggested that he has stolen goods in his pocket. What he says in relation to those stolen goods may be of crucial importance, and he should be warned of his rights at that stage.
Lord Inglewood: If it is still in order to address Amendment No. 28, I hope that I may do so very briefly and ask the Minister whether he can tell us more about the shape, form and length of these codes which will be laid before us soon, I believe, in draft. It is possible that they may be very short. They must be long enough, or they are not going to serve their purpose. On the other hand, if they are made too long they will not be read and learned and understood in the same way. In fact, if they are too long they will be self-defeating; and I think that that could easily happen. I am not sure how many of these codes are already in view. We have been discussing three of them under Amendment No. 28, and I think that there are more to come.
It may be of interest to your Lordships that I always try to compare police procedure in another country
12
with that in this country. Not so long ago, at the beginning of this year, an extremely intelligent and able German police officer who understands English as well as we do asked if I could send him not just a copy of the Bill but also of the amendments when it came to Committee stage. The opinion he expressed to me was that their men, who are trained over at least two years before they come out and do duty outside, would take about two years before they understood this Bill which we are now considering. I should like to think that when the Minister goes through this question of the codes he will give us his idea so that in due course we can discuss exactly where the golden mean may lie.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: It seems from the speeches we have heard already that both sides of the Committee are as aware as I am that this code of practice is vitally important, not only for the police but certainly for the younger people in society. They must know where they stand as well as the police knowing where they stand. It will breed confidence in the young people, about whom we are worried today. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, made an allusion to a form. It seems to me that his idea that there should be one form for one lot of people and another form, asking for details of birth and address, for another lot of people is not really a practical idea. With respect, it seems to me that everybody should have the same form and that every police officer should have the same form to fill in. But I agree also that the code of practice, as such, must be as concise as it is possible for it to be.
Lord Renton: Although I have a great deal of sympathy with what has been said in favour of codes of practice dealing with these matters, I am somewhat surprised that we are dealing with this at this stage. Therefore, I assume that Amendment No. 28 is really a probing amendment. Your Lordships have agreed that Amendment No. 156, which is a specific amendment to the relevant clause, Clause No. 63, dealing with codes of practice, can be referred to now. But I would very much hope and expect that my noble friend on the Front Bench will say that these matters should be dealt with in a code under Clause 63, and not separately and at this early part of the Bill. As I am referring to Clause 63, may I humbly give notice that when we come to that clause I shall be suggesting that there should be a code covering the interrogation, arrest and treatment in the hands of the police of those suffering from mental handicap and mental illness.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): It may be convenient if I speak at the same time to Amendment No. 156. Several noble Lords have already referred to it. Amendment No. 156 has been tabled by my noble friend, and we shall come to it in due course. Both amendments serve the same purpose: to include in the Bill a requirement that the Home Secretary should issue a code of practice governing the use of powers to stop and search. My right honourable friend the Minister of State undertook to consider the case for such code following a suggestion made during Report in another place.
Having done so, both we and the Association of Chief Police Officers, which we have consulted on this suggestion, agree that provision for a code is desirable,

13
and we are grateful to those who have made this helpful and constructive proposal. A code will provide an opportunity to supplement the already detailed safeguards contained in the Bill and to provide guidance about the exercise of powers which, while necessary, must be exercised responsibly and with care if community relations are not to suffer. My noble friend Lord Elton undertook on the first Committee day that we would push forward as fast as possible with work on the code. I can now tell your Lordships that we shall publish a first draft of this code of practice before the Report stage in your Lordships' House, and copies will be available from the Printed Paper Office.
The draft will include, among other things, a guide to the police about the requirement of reasonable grounds for suspicion as a pre-condition for the exercise of these powers. This was in the mind of one noble Lord who spoke. It was, I think, accepted by your Lordships on the first day of Committee that the reasonable suspicion test was a key safeguard but that it was not susceptible to precise definition; but, as it was not susceptible to precise definition, great care had to be taken to ensure that it was not devalued in practice. We shall be sending copies of this draft code to the wide range of bodies which have commented on drafts of the other codes of practice for which the Bill provides. I should like to take this opportunity to stress that the stop-and-search draft is very much a first draft, and that we shall welcome constructive criticisms and suggestions from any quarter.
Amendment No. 156, standing in the name of my noble friend, has exactly the same effect as the new clause proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the others who have attached their names to this amendment. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree that the matter can be dealt with in Clause 63 and that a new clause is therefore not necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in his opening remarks, referred particularly to the powers of search referred to in our amendment—that is, our Amendment No. 156—and I can confirm that these include the power to detain for the purposes of a search; and the code of practice will, therefore, as I said just now, cover that point.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble Lord proceeds to embellish that remark, could I perhaps help him, I hope, by saying that it was not my point that the code might cover other things. It was my point that the statute must lay down what the code should or should not contain. I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister will bear in mind that there is also the power to issue new codes, and therefore the fact that a current code may, although it is not in the Act, cover something, an amended code may not do so. Therefore, it is necessary to be precise in the Bill.
Lord Trefgarne: I know the noble Lord has some anxieties on this matter. I was going to draw his attention to one of the three codes which have already been published in draft—I do not think the noble Lord has given full weight to that fact—and that is the code of practice for the searching of premises and seizure of property, which is another matter to which he referred later in his remarks. But our amendment does indeed
14
cover the seizure of property, and the noble Lord did express some anxiety on that point when he was speaking just now.
In the course of his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, referred to the question of the date of birth being entered on the form when suspects were stopped for search under this provision. The noble Lord will be reassured to know that suspects are not required to give their date or place of birth when questioned under these provisions. The question may indeed be asked but the suspects are not required to give that information. I am not sure whether or not the noble Lord was aware of that point.
Lord Gifford: I intervene to say and to put on record that I am not reassured. My hope is that when the code is being considered the question will not be asked—certainly as a matter of routine—because it is the asking of the question which is offensive. Most people will not know that they are not required to answer it.
Lord Trefgarne: I hear what the noble Lord says. Nonetheless it is the case that suspects are not required to give this information, but I will take note of the observation of the noble Lord that perhaps that fact may not be immediately known to those who are stopped under these provisions.
But if I may revert to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I should add that the power to search does indeed include the power to detain, which is included in the Bill, and therefore the code must cover that particular aspect of the matter to which the noble Lord referred just now.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, asked me specifically whether a previous record alone would suffice as a ground for suspicion in this case. I can tell the noble Lord that a previous record alone cannot suffice, and the draft code will deal with this point.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, also suggested that we were providing some sort of novelty by means of this provision, but there has long been a power to detain short of arrest—for example, the power to stop and search under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971—so the proposition that the power is a novel one is not, I think, quite correct.
Lord Inglewood: Will my noble friend make one simple matter clear? What does a police constable do with a man whom he is about to detain? What is the difference between that and arresting him? Where does the police constable put him if he is responsible for a man who is detained?
Lord Trefgarne: These are just the sort of matters that will be covered by the code of practice to which I have referred and which will be brought before your Lordships in due course. But I should have thought that it was fairly obvious that a suspect who was detained in this way would then be searched and only following the search would the constable decide what was the right way to proceed thereafter.
Lord Molloy: Would the suspect be allowed to protest and say that he did not want to be searched because he had not been accused of anything whatsoever?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords. The purpose of this provision is of course to give the police constable the power to detain and to search, which is exactly the issue that we are discussing at this moment.
But, if I may revert again to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, when I said that this was not a novel power, it is not the present intention to require cautioning over and above what is included in Section 11 of the draft questioning code, which we believe to be sufficient for all purposes.
I hope that in the light of these explanations the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will not wish to press his amendment. I do believe that the Government have brought forward a proper response to the concern that has been expressed, and that response is contained in Amendment No. 156, to which we shall come in due course.
Lord Mishcon: I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister knows that I have the greatest respect for him and therefore if I say that the reply is rather woolly, he will not take that as a personal affront at all because it is not meant to be. But we are dealing with a very important matter and I am afraid that the noble Lord the Minister has not addressed his mind to what may be very imperfect observations that I have made, but the noble Lord has just not directed his mind to them.
As I understood the Minister, the code of practice is intended to cover Parts I, II and III of the Bill. Our amendment says that. The noble Lord the Minister says, "There is no difference at all between that, really; do look at our Amendment No. 156. We will cover all that in the code." In Amendment No. 156, instead of saying with great simplicity and clarity that the codes will cover Parts I, II and III, matters are singled out from Parts I, II and III. There is no point in the noble Lord, the Minister, opening his comments by saying, "Of course we cover stop and search". I ask him to stop and search for one moment his own amendment and he will find that there is no reference at all to stop—only to search. There is a reference to detention but not arrest. There is a reference to seizure of property in premises but not to entry into premises. There is also a question here of the whole of this matter being answered by the Minister by saying, "Wait until you see the code of practice and you will find that everything is in it, even though Amendment No. 156 does not say so." I have two points to make in answer to that and I shall make them very briefly.
First, statute ought to say quite clearly what codes of practice should cover. One should not just leave it to the fact that the code of practice might. Secondly, a code of practice may be before your Lordships next week or in a fortnight's time. The Secretary of State, whoever he may be in the future, has the right to prepare new codes of practice. It is perfectly correct that they will have to come before both Houses of Parliament but there will not be the possibility, as the Committee knows, to amend them when they come before Parliament. There will be only the power either to throw them out or to accept them. When the next set of codes do come, instead of our being bound to see the provisions in that code covering Parts I, II and III, we shall not be in that position because Amendment No. 156 does not say so. If the codes do not include these vital items in Parts I, II and III, Parliament will
16
have no power at all except to throw out the whole code of practice.
Lord Foot: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for a moment, because the Committee may be under a misunderstanding. The noble Lord has referred constantly to "Parts I, II and III", when I think he means Sections 1, 2 and 3.
Lord Mishcon: If Members will turn to the first three pages of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, they will see "Part I—Powers to Stop and Search"; "Part II—Powers of Entry, Search and Seizure"; and "Part III—Arrest". So what I was trying to do was to follow the nomenclature of the Bill itself. I hope that the noble Lord will not think that I have acted incorrectly or misleadingly in so doing.
Lord Foot: No, my Lords, but I am looking at the noble Lord's own amendment, in which he refers to "sections 1, 2 and 3". That is what I thought he was referring to in his remarks to the Minister.
Lord Mishcon: I think I am right in saying that by the time the Bill passes, it will in fact be "sections 1, 2 and 3", and it is only when the Bill is before Parliament that it becomes Parts I, II and III. So I am trying—
Several noble Lords: No.
Lord Mishcon: Is that wrong? My Lords, not for the first time I have dealt incorrectly with Parliamentary procedure and possibly it is a question of not having had the benefit, as other noble Lords have had, of sitting in another place. I have learnt my procedure in this House at very courteous hands and I apologise to the Committee if I have said something wrong on procedure. I was prompted to say that and obviously it is not accurate. All it really means is that it would have been better had this amendment said "Parts I, II and III", instead of "sections 1, 2 and 3".
Several noble Lords: No.
Lord Foot: Will the noble Lord understand that I am trying to help him? I am not being critical of him in any way. If he will look at his own amendment he will see that it refers to "sections 1, 2 and 3". Those are the present Clauses 1, 2 and 3. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment, as I understand it—and I entirely approve of it—is that the code of practice will be required to cover all the matters which are referred to in the present Clauses 1, 2 and 3. I entirely support what the noble Lord is saying about that but I think that in referring to Parts I, II and III he must have been bewildering the Committee because the Bill as a whole is divided into parts, and he cannot be referring to Parts I, II and III in this particular connection.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: With respect, I think he is; I think he is referring to Clauses 1 to 7, 8 to 16 and 17 to 21.
Lord Mishcon: In endeavouring to persuade the Committee that the noble Lord the Minister is confusing the Committee, in the course of those

17
remarks I have possibly confused your Lordships, for which I apologise. It is my intention absolutely definitely to be covering Parts I, II and III and, if my amendment is wrongly worded in calling parts "sections", I apologise to your Lordships. However, it is my firm intention to be covering Parts I, II and III.
Having said that, I hope I have made the point that the noble Lord the Minister has, by extracting from Parts I, II and III various matters which leave out other matters in Parts I, II and III, obviously put before your Lordships an amendment which, in my submission, is inferior to the amendment before your Lordships which I would ask you to consider as referring to Parts I, II and III.
Lord Trefgarne: I, of course, was replying to the amendment as I saw it on the Marshalled List, but I do believe there is a misapprehension in the mind of the noble Lord, and I confess that it may be that I have not sufficiently clearly explained the difficulties or, rather, the misapprehension in the mind of the noble Lord on this matter. I do firmly believe, for example, that it really is inconceivable to construct a power of search which does not include a power to detain, since nobody can search a person, or a vehicle for that matter, without stopping it first. Guidance about searching, therefore, has to include guidance about detaining in the first instance: in other words, I believe that Amendment No. 156, which we are discussing now, does confer adequate powers to meet the anxieties of the noble Lord.
Incidentally, he did draw attention to what he thought was a shortcoming in Amendment No. 156 about the searching of premises and the seizure of property, and before you can search premises you have of course to enter them. I can assure the noble Lord that of course this matter is very much part of the code of practice which I imagine the noble Lord will have already seen. I believe there is nothing between the noble Lord and myself on this matter, and therefore I hope that he will see fit to withdraw his amendment and to agree to ours in due course.
Lord Mishcon: It does appear that there is a certain amount of meeting of the ways here. The last thing in the world that I want to do, in endeavouring to meet halfway down the road and secure a betterment of the Bill, is to argue further at this stage. I think it may be a good idea if the noble Lord the Minister, with his customary diligence and courtesy, would look at what I have been trying to say. I will look at what he has been trying to say, and I hope that between now and Report stage it will be possible to bring before your Lordships something which is truly acceptable. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Road checks]:
3.35 p.m.
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 6, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: We now pass to Clause 4 and away from stops and searches to a very important
18
clause of the Bill which is entitled "Road checks". It is important, if for no other reason than that the power given by this Bill to allow police officers in certain circumstances to stop either all vehicles or vehicles selected by some criterion is likely to affect, albeit sometimes in quite small ways, more citizens than perhaps any other power given by this Bill.
The existing law on the powers of the police to institute road blocks or road checks, as they are called in this Bill, is very unclear. It is a murky area of the law which I hope the noble Lord the Minister will be able to help us to clarify. We have at the moment road blocks instituted over large sections of our country in connection with the miners' dispute. I was myself in Nottinghamshire last week and saw on every road leading towards any colliery a group of police officers stationed there in order to stop those whom they believed to be going to the colliery for the purposes of picketing. I heard of case after case of people prevented from going, not to picket, but about their lawful business as a result of these road blocks. I mention this not to raise that controversy but in order to draw your Lordships' attention to the difficulties arising in the existing law, because it would be my contention that there is not a power at the moment to set up road blocks at will around the country, and I certainly welcome any clause in this Bill which has the effect of clarifying the law and tying the circumstances down to identifiable criteria which we can all understand and accept.
The doubts arise in other fields as well. I have before me a letter written by the Metropolitan Police in answer to complaints raised by the National Council for Civil Liberties, who themselves had received complaints from citizens about road blocks in North West London, and I quote the answer of the commander:
"Authority to set up the road blocks was given by the divisional chief superintendent in order to increase public awareness of police presence in an area which was experiencing a high level of vehicle thefts."
It appears therefore that the police believe they have the power to set up road blocks in a variety of circumstances which certainly many of us had no idea were legal at all and which I suggest are in fact not legal.
In those circumstances I turn to the specific provisions of the Bill, because it is my submission that that even the attempt to tie down the power to set up road blocks to specific circumstances has gone far too wide. If we look at Clause 4 we see that there are four separate types of people who can be the targets of a road check under the Bill. The first one is a person who has committed an offence, and later we learn that it must be a serious, arrestable offence. I do not seek to interfere with that power. We all know how valuable it is in cases where an offender such as Sutcliffe, the rapist, is at large in an area and everyone would wish road blocks to be set up in order to find him.
Much the same criteria apply to Clause 4(1)(d),
"a person who is unlawfully at large"—
an escaped prisoner—and I make no proposal to delete that type of person. My Amendment No. 29 addresses itself to paragraph (b):
"a person who is a witness to such an offence".

19
My Amendment No. 30, which it might be convenient to take at the same time, addresses itself to paragraph (c)
"a person intending to commit such an offence".
Amendment No. 30: Page 6, line 19, leave out paragraph (c).
Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 are consequential upon those two amendments and I shall take them in turn.
Amendment No. 33: Page 6, line 37, leave out paragraph (b).
Amendment No. 34: Page 6, line 40, leave out paragraph (c).
So far as a witness is concerned, I find myself very puzzled. The police do not have the power by force to stop a citizen in the street to try to find out whether he has been a witness to an offence. They have the power to ask a question, and they have the power to ask for the co-operation of the public, which is how the public should be addressed. But what this Bill is seeking to introduce is a power forcibly to stop vehicles, in order to try to find a witness to an offence. It has to be a serious arrestable offence, but that is the only limit which is placed in subsection (4)(b), and that goes too far.
By all means let members of the public be invited to co-operate with the police; by all means let the numbers of passing cars which might have witnesses in them be taken and the owners in due course interviewed. But the power to interfere with traffic and to stop people going about their lawful business should be circumscribed and not made so wide as to include a search for vehicles.
The next paragraph which I seek to delete, paragraph (c)
"a person intending to commit such an offence",
worries me even more. It is not a crime to intend to commit a crime. Attempted crime is an offence. Conspiracies when groups of people conspire together to commit a crime are an offence. But to have in your mind the intention to commit a crime is not a crime, and for the police to have powers to set up road blocks in order to find people who are intending to commit an offence takes us dangerously near to the thought-crime of George Orwell, when to have crime in your mind is to commit a crime and to make one the object of police attention—
Lord Molloy: There was a time in Nazi Germany when police were instructed in a similar way to look at the features of a person. If he had Semitic features he could be arrested.
Lord Gifford: I am grateful to my noble friend, and when we come to an amendment that I intend to move, which deals with the police being able to stop people selected by any criterion at all, I will take up his point. When we find out what circumstances the Bill envisages for the exercise of this power, our confusion and worry grows, because in Clause 4(4)(c)(ii), at the top of page 7 of the Bill, we see that in order to exercise power to set up road blocks to find people intending to commit an offence, the criterion has to be
"that, having regard to a pattern of crime in the area in which vehicles would be stopped if the road check was authorised, the offence"—
that is to say, a serious arrestable offence—
20
"is likely to be committed in that area during the period during which the road check would be authorised to continue".
We have already seen in our consideration of Clause 109 how wide and lax the definition of "a serious arrestable offence" is. It seems to me that under this Bill as it stands road blocks could be instituted all around our cities, week after week, in order to find people who are intending to commit crimes, if "having regard to a pattern of crime" is the necessary criterion. It is an extraordinary criterion. If there is a spate of burglaries in Hampstead, of drug dealings in Notting Hill or of any other crimes of a type which occur daily or weekly in our cities, any officer in a case of urgency can set up a road block.
We need to exercise our powers of limiting this Bill in relation to this clause. Of course, there will be an element of discretion. Of course, the number of road checks set up will be recorded and the reasons for them given, and that is to be welcomed. But let us try to deal with the situation in circumstances which we all agree are proper, and those are the circumstances in Clause (4)(1)(a) and Clause (4)(1)(b), I submit that the others are not necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: I hope that your Lordships will not accept these amendments. As regards paragraph (c),
"a person intending to commit such an offence",
let us take the case where motorists start from the metropolis and intend to break into a house in Hampshire. The attempt to commit the crime does not start when they leave London. The attempt starts, and the crime starts, only when they enter the front gate or break the front door of the house in Hampshire. Therefore it is essential that there should be power to put on a road check if need be so as to stop those people who are intending to leave London on their escapade. That is the difference in the law between an attempt to commit a crime and the preparation for it, which is well known.
As regards paragraph (b),
"a person who is a witness to such an offence",
quite often you might have a criminal who is escaping or who has a colleague who goes off from the crime. There is no evidence to implicate him in it, but he is certainly a witness to it, and it must be most valuable in finding the miscreants if you are able to have a road check to stop a person who is a witness to such an offence. He will probably not want to be found out and all you can be sure of is that he is a witness, but that should be sufficient. So I hope that your Lordships will not accept these amendments.
Lord Wigoder: I see the force of the argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and I certainly would not want to do anything to weaken the protection to which owners of houses in Hampshire are entitled. At the same time, there is something in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, that the wording,
"a person intending to commit such an offence"
is extraordinarily loose and may simply cover a person with a mental element of the intention of committing an offence at some indeterminate time in the future.
I wonder whether the point of both the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord

21
Denning, might be met if the noble and learned Lord the Minister would consider at a future stage some alteration to the wording, so that the Bill read either,
"a person about to commit an offence",
or,
"a person on his way to commit an offence".
Would that meet the point that the Minister is seeking to make, without giving rise to the objection raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford?
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I am sure we are all aware that up to now road checks have been completely unrestricted. This Bill is trying to make them more restricted, so that they cause less nuisance to the public at large. But we have to make it possible for the police to apprehend criminals, whether they are intending to commit a crime or whether they have already done so. My reading of the Bill is that if a robbery has been committed in a district, the witness who has taken part in the robbery must be able to be apprehended in a road check, if and when one is put up with the authority of the police. These amendments are very important, because the police must have flexibility to be able to apprehend anybody who they think is in breach of the law.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: It may well be that the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Wigoder, that Clause 4(1)(c) could be improved at the Report stage is valid, but for the moment I should prefer to speak simply about Clause 4(1)(b) which is concerned with the power given to the police to stop a person who might be a witness to a serious arrestable offence. It seems to me that it is desirable to maintain some form of provision of this kind in the Bill, for a series of reasons, some of which have been given. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, touched on some of those reasons.
Perhaps I may give another illustration which may have some validity. Let us assume that a child has been murdered and buried in a wood near a highway in a rural area. Tragically, there are, as we know, many such cases each year. If the police decide that a motorist who regularly passes that spot at seven o'clock in the evening or thereabouts could have some information which would be of help to them, it does not seem to me to be unreasonable that the police should have such a power. It would be very unfortunate if we were to delete it.
Lord Plant: I hope that these amendments will not be carried. They would deprive the police of a facility to trace witnesses. They would seriously hamper the investigative process. So far as crime is concerned, areas throw up certain patterns which need to be checked by way of road checks. How was the Yorkshire ripper caught? If these amendments had been in operation, he might never have been caught. We have to think very seriously before we take away from the police an investigative procedure which is very much in the interests of the community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): The noble Lord, Lord Plant, has
22
referred to an amendment dealing with the pattern of crime. It is not among the group referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. On the other hand, it is in the group of amendments which it has been agreed by the usual channels should be taken now. I wonder whether the noble Lords opposite would like at this point to give their views on that matter.
Lord Mishcon: If we are invited to give our view on the pattern of crime, it will mean referring, will it not—I ask the noble Lord the Minister to help me on this point—to Amendments Nos. 35 and 36?
Lord Elton: Yes.
Lord Mishcon: If it is convenient to the Committee that Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 should be dealt with now, I shall do so with pleasure and, I hope, with brevity.
Amendment No. 35: Page 7, line 1, leave out from ("that") to ("the") in line 3.
Amendment No. 36: Page 7, line 4, leave out ("that area") and insert ("the area in which vehicles would be stopped if the road check was authorised").
I wonder whether your Lordships would be good enough to look at the top of page 7 of the Bill, where the most extraordinary and, your Lordships may think, extremely harmful words appear. They are:
"that, having regard to a pattern of crime in the area in which vehicles would be stopped if the road check was authorised, the offence is likely to be committed in that area during the period during which the road check would be authorised to continue".
Are we to accept crime areas—areas where the pattern is such that rights are given which do not exist in other areas? If I may turn to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I would ask, is Hampshire to be designated as an area where a pattern of crime exists? I hope not, because I have the privilege of sharing that county with the noble and learned Lord and of loving it very much indeed.
I dare not treat this matter lightly because many of your Lordships—I look in particular at those who occupy with honour the Bench of Bishops in this House—are terribly concerned about the way in which relationships are being built up or destroyed in various areas. This would mean talking in terms of areas which are going to receive special treatment because there is a pattern of crime in those areas; therefore rights are going to be given.
When we on these Benches saw these words we decided, after a reaction which I hope your Lordships can imagine and which therefore I do not have to describe, that the best way to deal with the matter was to delete them and to improve them with a constructive amendment. The constructive amendment appears as Amendments Nos. 35 and 36. Therefore the words would be that,
"the offence is likely to be committed in the area in which vehicles would be stopped if the road check was authorised during the period during which the road check would be authorised to continue".
In other words, we are saying that it is likely, from all the facts which the police know, that an offence will be committed in that area. There is no question of past pattern, future pattern, or present pattern. It is just that it is likely that an offence will be committed in that area. Therefore the power is given in those

23
circumstances. The suggested wording in these amendments is inoffensive. The wording which appears in the Bill as drafted is, to use an understatement, offensive.
Lord Molloy: I support both of the amendments of my noble friend Lord Gifford. When passing legislation I believe it to be fundamental that we should make certain that, so far as is right and proper, full assistance is provided to the police of our country in carrying out their difficult task. I do not believe that they can carry out that task on the banal assumptions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that all criminals emanate from London and that all the victims are in Hampshire. That to me is a criminal absurdity. Those of us who have experience of other lands know that eminent judges have given eminent reasons which have then been twisted by well meaning people. Therefore one ends up with something which can be encapsulated in one word: racialism. You stop a person who might have witnessed something because he is black.
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Molloy: That is what some people are saying. It is one of the reasons why a thorough investigation was conducted by one of our noble and learned friends in this House. We should ensure that in no way do we detract from the confidence which ordinary people have in our police. We should always bear that fundamental point in mind.
Lord Elton: With that sentiment I do not for a moment disagree, but as to the question of racialism, the noble Lord is perhaps thinking of another amendment, not this one. So I am sure he will forgive me if I revert to the main theme which we have been discussing and pick up the point which my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve so aptly made. I begin by saying that your Lordships will of course need to remember, in describing the appalling consequences that will flow from giving these liberal and unrestrained powers to the police, that not one of them is new, that everything that is in the Bill serves to reduce the powers of the police below what they now are. The power to stop vehicles is not in the—
Lord Molloy: The noble Lord the Minister asked me to give way, and I did so immediately. I had not finished what I wanted to say.
Lord Elton: I apologise for disappointing both the noble Lord and the Committee over what he has to say.
Lord Molloy: Knowing the noble Lord, I am sure that is true; but he rose in the middle of what I was saying, and because I do not believe in the practice of going on for another minute and then giving way I thought it right and proper to give way immediately. That is what I did. My point is that if one reads the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, one sees that there is evidence on this matter beyond all peradvanture. Let me take the case of the little boy of 16 who was arrested because he might have
24
witnessed something, because he was black and because his friends were black. I find that disturbing. We must not do anything that will detract from the confidence that ordinary people have in our police force. If this Bill became an Act, certain things could happen which would be injurious to the general public at large and detract from the good name of the police. It is in that respect that I support the arguments submitted by my noble friend Lord Gifford and the amendments which he moved so ably.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: Speaking for my own part, and I trust for those on these Benches, it would on the face of it appear that there was considerable force in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, in relation to both Clause 4(1)(b)—that is, a person who is a potential witness—and Clause 4(1)(c); that is, a person intending to commit such an offence. If I may deal first with the question of the witness, it would appear to be the case that the police already have the power sought, under Section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. That is a very wide power. It has never been defined, although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in 1964 in the case of Waterfield pointed out certain limitations to its use. But so far as I know—and I see the noble and learned Lord nodding his head in agreement—it would appear to be the case that there has never been any definition of that section's boundaries, and that they are certainly wide enough to cover the power of stopping a vehicle to establish whether there is a person who might be a witness to the type of offence referred to in Clause 4.
The second matter raised by my noble friend Lord Gifford is better founded in logic, in that he must be right when he says that there is no offence in the whole of our criminal law of a person intending to commit a criminal offence. One of course accepts readily what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, says; that an attempt to commit an offence, which is of itself a criminal offence, can occur before the very last act in the chain occurs, provided that it is sufficiently proximate to the ultimate intention of the miscreant. On the other hand, the Minister may take the view—and this is really my purpose in speaking at this stage—that it might be right to place some limit on the powers of the police here, in that to allow to the police the power to stop vehicles in order to establish whether there is a person who has the intention to commit a criminal offence might be going too far.
I wonder whether some form of wording which would make Clause 4(1)(c) read as follows,
"a person setting about to commmit such an offence",
might be nearer the mark. I do not pretend that that wording is perfect but the Minister may take the view that it leads properly in the right direction.
Finally, since I am on my feet, I will make one point in relation to Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 to which my noble friend Lord Mishcon has spoken. Does the Minister accept that in certain circumstances this qualification, which is a second limb to Clause 4(4)(c) in so far as paragraph (c)(i) is concerned may be too restrictive? In respect of a person who intends to commit an offence, the constable must have reasonable grounds for believing, first,
"that the offence would be a serious arrestable offence"

25
and secondly, in sub-paragraph (ii),
"that, having regard to a pattern of crime in the area in which vehicles would be stopped if the road check was authorised, the offence is likely to be committed in that area during the period during which the road check would be authorised to continue".
With the greatest of respect, I venture to suggest to the Minister that that may be unduly restrictive of the powers of the police in this particular regard.
Let me give an instance. Interpol, by information that has come to them suddenly, may pass on vital facts to the police operating in the area of Hampshire—since that county has already been chosen as an example. It may be a terrorist-type offence. Nobody would be able to say that it is in any way at all the type of offence that conforms with a pattern in the area. But as I understand it, the police would not be able to invoke the powers of Clause 4 in that regard. I therefore ask rhetorically the question: is the second limb of the pattern of events either necessary or desirable in this connection?
4.5 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: I find myself listening to this debate with an increasing air of astonishment. I wonder what kind of a world some of your Lordships live in. I am all for a code of practice for enforcement officers. I only wish that we could have a code of practice for the criminals; it would make life a great deal easier for many of us. I understand that one of the duties of our police force is to prevent crime as well as to detect crime and arrest crime. I will give your Lordships an example from my own area just a few nights ago.
A car which had been patrolling up and down the streets in the small hours was stopped by the police—not because the vehicle in question was obviously breaking any law but because the police were curious. When the car was stopped, the police found that it contained, not surprisingly, a great deal of stolen property. I only know of this because my next door neighbour's property was restored to him as a result. The police must have been acting on suspicion.
If we are to prevent crime, there is no other way than by acting with speed It is easy for us to sit here in this calm and detached atmosphere and discuss these matters, and it is easy for noble Lords who are lawyers and who are skilled in the art of changing words. As a magistrate, I have listened many times to pleas in court. I thought that I knew what crime was when I started hearing the case, but by the time a convincing barrister had finished, I was not quite so certain—which was obviously his intention.
But here we are making laws, We are making laws to protect innocent citizens. That is what we are making laws for. We are making laws in order that our enforcement officers may carry out their duties. It ill-behoves us to place any heavier restrictions upon the police. There is very little evidence that police powers are abused. The fact that any such abuses make news means that they occur only very rarely. I give this instance because we must be very careful before placing any restrictions upon our police force.
Lord Elton: I am most obliged to the noble Baroness—
Lord Inglewood: May I speak in support of the noble Baroness—particularly in respect of one point she made concerning the speed at which criminals move. If we are to have road checks, they must be set up instantly. It is not a question of a pattern that one can set out on paper. We must use men of experience who can move quickly and who can recognise offenders' strange ways and suspicious characters. We would not recognise them, but practised police officers recognise strange ways and characters, and can then check suspicious vehicles at the side of the road. Many criminals are caught in that way.
When speaking in the House of Commons in about 1829, Sir Robert Peel made that very same point. He observed that criminals were beginning to move around very quickly with the advantage that they had in those days. That goes to show that some truths remain from one age to another. We must be sure that we give our police the freedom to act; not to delay people for any great length of time but to move quickly in making such checks.
Lord Elton: Third time lucky! First, I should like to remind your Lordships of the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips; that we are constructing laws for the protection of law-abiding citizens and at the same time trying to see that we do so in a way that does not lead to affront or tension between those citizens and the police. It is our intention to protect the innocent, but not necessarily, I would have thought, to protect the guilty from the operation of the police.
Secondly, I should like to remind the Committee that the power to stop a vehicle rests in Section 159 of the Road Traffic Act and it is entirely at large. Therefore, what we are discussing is not whether we are permitting the police excessive new powers but surely whether we are excessively diminishing the powers the police already have. With that in perspective, I hope, I should like to turn to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord Lord Gifford, which I think are intended to remove entirely the power to set up a road check for the purpose of tracing a witness to a serious arrestable offence or to apprehend a person who intends to commit such an offence.
One of the principles underlying the whole of this Bill is that coercive powers should be used only where it is necessary for them to be used; and then only to the minimum extent that it is necessary for them to be used. I accept that we would expect all responsible members of the public who can provide the police with information about an offence—particularly about a serious arrestable offence—to come forward with it voluntarily, so we must be cautious to compel people to do what is, after all, their plain duty as citizens. It was for this reason that we decided not to accept the recommendation of the Royal Commission that the police should have a power to detain witnesses in the immediate vicinity of a grave incident. Subsection (1)(b) will only permit a road check in order to trace a witness to a serious arrestable offence. Taken together with subsection (1)(a) and (c), it represents a restriction of existing powers. I believe those powers are needed, and particularly this one.
Your Lordships will recall a particularly frightful case last year in which a young boy was sexually assaulted in Brighton. In their attempts to solve this

27
crime the police set up road checks, not with any expectation of finding the offenders but simply to try to find witnesses. I, for one, am convinced that they were right to do so. The noble Lord's amendment would make it impossible for them to do the same in future. There are other ways of trying to get witnesses to a serious crime to come forward: notice boards by the roadside saying, "Were you here last Tuesday?", "Can you help?", and things like that. But in certain special circumstances a road check may be the most effective and practical way of finding witnesses. The experience of the police is that, in general, notice boards are not an effective means of communication. Often people do not know that they may be important witnesses simply because without talking to a policeman they may not understand the significance of something they have seen, or, indeed, of something they have noticed not seeing in a particular case.
The second group of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, seeks to remove the power to set up a road check in order to discover an intending criminal. The amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, seek to leave that power intact but to remove its dependence on the existence of an observed pattern of crime suggesting that a serious arrestable offence is likely to be committed. The Royal Commission were quite clear in their report that there should be a power to set up road checks in these circumstances. They noted that the police sometimes find it necessary, where there is a spate of serious crime in a specific area, to mount such checks, and they expressly said that they saw the value of this procedure. They said that they understand and acknowledge the potential value of such a procedure to the police when a clear pattern of serious crime is observable.
The source of the power to set up the road check is, as I have already said, on the statute book already. I think those of us who live, or may live, in areas where there is a clearly detected pattern of crime would not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that it was in some way derogatory to have that recognised. If he was a turkey farmer in an area where turkey farming was common, and it was approaching Christmas, he would be quite clear that turkey rustlers are an amazingly expensive force battening on his trade; and if it was possible to apprehend a turkey rustler who had already lifted several lots of turkeys on his way to another with an empty car, he would welcome it. Of course, there are more serious crimes than turkey rustling. I only give that example, because I believe there are turkey farmers in Hampshire, which is a county which attracted the noble Lord's interest. There will always be outbreaks of serious crime in particular areas. If the affliction of an area by crime makes road checks necessary, then, in our view, they should be possible.
Nonetheless—and I turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—the phrase "pattern of crime" in subsection (4)(c) has come in for a fair amount of criticism in the past few months. As I said, "a clear pattern of serious crime" was the phrase used by the Royal Commission as the basis for their recommendation, and with reason. Let us imagine,
28
not turkeys but a series of sexual assaults taking place in a particular area, or a series of robberies at building society branches. The police do not know who is responsible for them, but a pattern is discernible. There are reasonable grounds to suspect that another assault or robbery will take place in accordance with the pattern; and if a road check is established there is a chance that the offender will be found or, indeed, deterred.
On the noble Lord's amendments I should like to clear up one thing. The effect of Clause 4(4)(c)(ii) is to add a second restriction to 4(1)(c) checks. The first restriction is that the expected offence would be "a serious arrestable offence" if it was committed. That is in Clause 4(4)(c)(i). The second, which is the subject of the noble Lord's amendment, is not only that the commission of the offence is likely but that that likelihood arises, as the Royal Commission recommended, from an existing pattern of crime. It is this latter condition which he seeks to remove. Any expectation would do for him, not one based on a pattern of crime. That is in fact a weakening of the restrictive power, and I should like to know if it is what he intends before I further say what I think of his amendment. I think I have made it clear that the others do not commend themselves to us.
Baroness Gaitskell: May I ask the Minister a very short question? What is the matter with us? We seem to be frightening ourselves into fits since the stop and search debate. We are talking about things that we have known about all our lives. We have not been particularly frightened, only frightened occasionally. I do not understand anything that has been said this afternoon about this. It is absolutely incomprehensible. Why are we making such a fuss about this? What has happened to our country that we have to make such a fuss about this?
Lord Elton: May I try to put in a nutshell the answer to the noble Baroness? What has happened is a series of events culminating in the Brixton riots which led us to realise that, although the law was very strong and specific in dealing with crime, it allowed crime to be dealt with in ways which were sometimes counterproductive because they offended the innocent and thereby the public lost confidence in the police in certain areas and the work of the police was made more difficult. One of the areas we are now looking at is the power that the police already have to protect us from serious crimes and other things by means of setting up a road check. The purposes of these amendments bear on the new ground in the Bill. The new ground in the Bill is to restrict the use of those powers which already exist where they are used to find people, not things—whether witnesses, offenders or intending offenders. Noble Lords are anxious to restrict those more than the Government are; that is why we are so excited.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for that courteous intervention. May I make one observation before I say something specific in answer to the question that the noble Lord the Minister asked me?
I have said before, and it has been said by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, that there is no

29
difference between the two Front Benches as to their ends. Both are in favour of law and order and it seems a most curious thing for any reasonable person even to discuss it. The only thing we feel that we must very carefully do—and the noble Lord the Minister said this for his Front Bench and for all his noble friends—is to make absolutely sure that we can keep as near as we can a correct balance between catching the criminal, which all of us want to do, protecting the public, which all of us want to do, and infringing upon the rights of citizens, without doing so where that infringement should not take place. It is against that background, I make it perfectly clear, that all the discussion will take place so far as my noble friends and I are concerned.
To go to the direct question which the Minister put to me, if I may be frank I am not very sure that it is right to take Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 with the amendments very properly raised, as he independently did, by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. But these arrangements were put before us and we did not demur. Therefore, we are in the position that Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are now being taken.
I was asked whether in this amendment we were really endeavouring to increase the rights of the road check by the police because we were interfering with the wording of (4)(c)(ii) at the top of page 7. My answer is this. I would prefer that reasonable grounds for thinking that a serious arrestable offence had been committed, or was about to be committed, should stand by itself rather than that the words should occur which do occur at the top of page 7 in paragraph (c)(ii). The Minister was very fair and endeavoured to give examples to the Committee of what might happen at Christmas time in regard to turkeys in certain areas. That is all very well and it sounds very feasible. If the words in this clause had referred to patterns of a specific crime, or of a certain quality or category of crime, I and my noble friends might have stomached it a little better than we do the actual wording of this clause. The actual wording is:
"a pattern of crime in the area".
That means general crime. That means it is a criminal area; that it is a thug area. It is those words—
Lord Elton: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. He referred to a particular category of crime. He will find in subsection (4) that it must be "a serious arrestable offence".
Lord Mishcon: I am sorry, but that makes it even worse. If it is to be "a serious arrestable offence" for it to be "a pattern of crime" in an area, it really means that it is an area where not just trivial offences are being committed but the sort of area where serious arrestable offences are committed. That is the designation and the label of the area. That is the offensive part. My noble friends and I are not trying, in this amendment, to limit the powers of the police. What we are trying to do, in a Bill which is supposed to deal with police powers and criminal evidence, is to stop offensive words occurring in a Bill which will be interpreted by the police, regardless of codes of conduct, as "Well, we have the right to set up road checks in this area for a serious arrestable offence. Everyone knows—even Lord Scarman found there were difficulties in the area of Brixton—that this must
30
be the sort of area to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was referring in the remarks he made in Committee which we have so carefully studied. It is that sort of interpretation which can be put on it by the police and it is that interpretation that, very properly, can be put upon it by people who live in certain areas. It is on that basis that I find these words objectionable.
Baroness Trumpington: I live in a perfectly respectable part of England, near Margate and Ramsgate. Occasionally I go to Brighton on holiday. I consider there is a definite pattern of serious crime on such days as bank holidays when gangs of youths come down not only to those towns but to the small town of Sandwich which does not have its own police force. These gangs terrorise and commit serious crimes—certainly serious arrestable offences.
Lord Inglewood: I do not believe that efficient, experienced police officers are going to be so impressed by these words in the Bill, whether or not slightly changed. There is something called ways and means which is well-known in certain police circles. If they thought there was some crime which they were by way of detecting they would be after it.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, questioned the wisdom of grouping these amendments together. It might be helpful if I give now an undertaking to consider very seriously the amendment which he has in this group of amendments. I tried to explain at the conclusion of my last intervention that, in our view, it limits the limitation on the police. I shall not expand on that but we are content to consider it. Perhaps the Committee would now like to return to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, who I know is anxious to enlighten the Committee with his views on what has transpired in the last 51 minutes.
Lord Gifford: I am anxious to be constructive in this debate which deals with an area of law which is confusing to many of us. Speaking for myself, I am not sure that the confusion about the existing law has been dispersed by what the Minister said. He said that this clause is not so much granting new powers to the police as restricting the unrestricted power which the police now have. I find that difficult to accept in view of the wording of Clause (4)(16) which states:
"Nothing in this section affects the exercise by police officers of any power to stop vehicles for purposes other than those specified in subsection (1) above".
As I understand it, therefore, we are to keep all the powers that the police now have and add to them the powers in Clause (4)(1).
Lord Elton: That is not the case. We are to keep all the powers that the police now have for purposes other than finding people. The noble Lord will see in Clause 4(1) that:
"This section shall have effect in relation to the conduct of road checks"—
they are defined in subsection (2) as the exercise of the power to which I have referred—
"for the purpose of ascertaining whether a vehicle is carrying"—
four classes of people are then given. If the road check is for that purpose it is to be limited by the terms of

31
Clause 4. That is the limitation imposed. Previously, both the power to look for people and the power to do other things were all at large. Clause 4 now brings the power to search for certain classes of people within bounds. Therefore, it is a limitation on the power of the police. It does not claim to be a limitation on their power to stop vehicles for other purposes.
Lord Gifford: I am following carefully what the Minister says and I expect he will further enlighten us when we come to the amendment to delete Clause 4(16) and we might find out a little more about the other powers to be preserved intact. However, I still have this confusion. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that at the moment there is an unrestricted power to stop vehicles for reasons pursuant to the Road Traffic Act. But I do not understand that to be an untrammelled power to stop any vehicles for any purposes. According to the Royal Commission's statement of the law, paragraph 25, the existing law is:
"By Section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1952, however, a police constable in uniform may require any person driving a motor vehicle to stop the vehicle, and this is a general power. The constable must be acting in the execution of his duty, that is to say his conduct must be authorised by statute or recognised at common law and not involve any unjustified use of the powers associated with the duty".
It is not right to say that at the moment there is a general, unrestricted power. I gave certain examples in moving the amendment, and I still maintain that the police are not acting within the law. I gave the example of the mining communities today when the police set up a variety of road blocks.
However, I have listened with care to what has been said on the two subsections to which I referred. I think that different considerations apply to each of them. So far as witnesses are concerned, a number of noble Lords have referred to the desirability of asking potential witnesses whether they have noticed something relevant to the commission of a crime. That is not a power that I see giving rise to grave abuse. No doubt people would be pleased, if the power is properly used, and at any rate not excessively, to answer the question if they are stopped. I do not therefore intend to pursue that amendment.
I am far more concerned about Clause 4(1)(c)—
"a person intending to commit … an offence".
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, gave the game away a bit when he said that it is necessary to apprehend people intending to commit an offence. There is no power to apprehend people intending to commit an offence. As I listened to the various noble Lords who gave examples of how they felt that this power would be useful, it seemed to me that all the examples could be taken account of by reference to Clause 4(1)(a), which deals with the apprehension of criminals.
The gang of robbers coming from London to burgle the house in Hampshire—to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, referred—would have committed the crime of conspiracy. Under Clause 109(5) a conspiracy to commit a serious arrestable offence is itself a serious arrestable offence. The gangs of robbers referred to by the Minister could be the subject of a road check if it was thought that they were going to commit a further offence. Indeed, the very reference to a pattern of crime in an area, which is
32
intended to justify this clause, means that we are looking for criminals—people who have committed crimes—and it is not necessary to have a special clause which talks about people intending to commit a crime.
The difficulty with a clause which gives the power to the police to look for people intending to commit a crime is that the police are then allowed to try to go into the motives and the future intentions of people driving around the roads, and then, one asks oneself rhetorically, do what? Since there is no power of arrest, they cannot arrest someone who is intending to commit a crime. One assumes that the only power that the policeman can exercise, if he has stopped somebody who he thinks is intending to commit a crime, is to tell him to go back to where he came from. That is exactly what is happening at the moment in the road blocks in Nottinghamshire. Whether or not they are intending to commit crimes or breaches of the peace, people are being told to go back home.
That leads us to the danger that the passage of traffic along the road of people who are in fact obeying the law but who the police think are intending to commit crimes will be impeded to a degree which is not warranted. Therefore we ask ourselves, is this power necessary? If it can be accommodated either by Clause 4(1)(a), or by some amendment to Clause 4(1)(c) which restricts it, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, suggested, we shall be much more reassured and better off.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in addition to saying that he will examine the definition in Clause 4(4)(c)(ii) of "a pattern of crime", will respond not only to myself but to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and, I think, my noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan, by looking at this description of,
"a person intending to commit … an offence".
Certainly I would be happy to withdraw the amendment if there is to be another look at this arm of the law and so long as we can keep open—and the Minister will keep open—the question of whether,
"a person intending to commit … an offence",
is to remain without any change at all in this Bill. I do not know whether the noble Lord can help me on that.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Elton: I can help your Lordships to this extent. What the noble Lord has now said seems to boil down to this. He will correct me if I am wrong. It seems to boil down to a belief that, if there is a pattern of crime, the people who are next going to fall into the projected pattern will be the same people who committed the crimes before. What he is really saying, I think, is that there is a power already under Clause 4(1)(a) to catch somebody who has committed an offence, and the assumption is that when the police are after the turkey rustler, it will be the same turkey rustler who took the last lot of turkeys. That may or may not be the case.
The same is equally true—is it not?—of the example which my noble friend gave of the swarm of young people who come down on motor bicycles, etc. to seaside resorts, create mayhem and sometimes commit very serious offences. Whether those individual young people were the same people who came last year, and whether they go to the same place as last year, is very much open to doubt. What the noble Lord

33
is saying is that, if the police expect that an event like this is going to take place and do not know that it will be caused by or composed of the same people, they will have simply to watch them go by or stop them for some other reason. But the purpose of this clause is to control the way in which the police stop vehicles to ascertain whether particular classes of people are inside or on them.
Therefore it seems to me a pity that the noble Lord should be prepared to deny the police the powers, which are preventive powers, to stop vehicles where they think serious crime is likely to be committed but they do not know that it has been committed in the past by the same people who are now in the vehicles. I think that that would be a mistake, and I hope that I have persuaded your Lordships of that.
Lord Gifford: Perhaps I am not making myself clear, but the noble Lord is not meeting the point that I seek to make. The point that I seek to make is that what is being given in this Bill is too wide a power. If it even risks being too wide a power, one must see whether there are in fact other powers which deal with the evils which are being contemplated. The gang of hooligans that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, described, had undoubtedly committed, or will be suspected of having committed, conspiracies to contravene breaches of public order. So far as the turkey rustlers are concerned, they will be squarely within Clause 4(4)(a), because there will be grounds for suspecting—not for knowing for sure; that is not the criterion—that criminals are in the area, and whether or not it turns out that they are criminals does not matter.
A lot of concern has been expressed, not only by myself, about the potential ambit of this clause. The only question is whether we see what the Government's ultimate intention with regard to this clause is when they have examined it—or at any rate part of it—or whether we divide on this amendment now. I am prepared to see what the noble Lord finally comes up with when he has looked at the criterion in Clause 4(4)(c)(ii) to see what we are finally left with so far as this part of the Bill is concerned. But I ask the noble Lord to realise the potential evil of allowing the police to set up road blocks purely to find people who they think have crime in their minds is going very far and should be resisted.
Lord Elton: I will be very brief, too, and I shall quote the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, as closely as I can. What do we think we are about? We are not inventing a thought police. We are enabling them to take quick preventive action when they have good reason to believe that a serious crime is going to be committed in a particular area within a particular time. I think the Committee will mostly agree with me that they should be empowered to do that.
Lord Mishcon: May I make the position clear on Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 because I think it will help the noble Minister and the Committee. The noble Lord the Minister has given a very clear indication that he recognises, without necessarily conceding them, the arguments that have been put forward as to the use of words to which this amendment objects. In those
34
circumstances I am grateful to him. Therefore, I hope that something can happen between now and Report stage. It would be my intention when Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are reached to say that they will not be moved in view of what the noble Lord the Minister has said.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If my noble friend examines Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 and if he discovers, as he has suggested he might discover, that the powers of the police would be increased as a result of the adoption of those amendments, may I express the hope that he will adopt them?
Lord Gifford: I, too, would wish to wait and see what happens with regard to Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 and to that part of the Bill before finally asking for any view to be taken about this part of the Bill. I beg leave—well, I will not beg leave quite yet.
Lord Elton: I do not wish the noble Lord to be encouraged to think that I shall be meeting him in any way on his amendment. I am not sure what that will make him decide to do now, but I cannot tell him that deciding to do nothing now will put him in what he will think is a happier position at Report stage.
Lord Gifford: I understand that and I have not taken anything that the noble Lord has said as any undertaking or assurance. However, I want to know what is the final form of this clause before commenting in the Committee on how acceptable it is. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 6, line 24, after ("any") insert ("reasonable").
The noble Lord said: If the Committee pass on to Clause 4(2), we come to the nature of the power which is conferred once one of the grounds set out in Clause 4(1) exists. The power conferred is the exercise of the power conferred by the Road Traffic Act, that is to say, to stop a vehicle, in such a way as to stop all vehicles or vehicles selected by any criterion. My amendment seeks, I hope reasonably, to insert the word "reasonable" between "any" and "criterion".
Once there is a pattern of crime or once there is a suspected offender, whatever the ground may be, for a police officer then to have untrammelled, unfettered power to decide by any criterion in the world which vehicle should be stopped cannot be right. It would allow an officer to stop a vehicle on a criterion, however unreasonable, however biased and indeed—and I now come to what my noble friend Lord Molloy said—however racist the criterion may be.
I have already quoted live police officers from the PSI report expressing themselves in a racist way in the exercise of powers to stop. So we are not talking about something mythical or unlikely. The difficulty that "any criterion" imposes is that the citizen who is stopped and who believes that he has been selected according to a criterion which is biased or which is unreasonable, has then no right of redress. No doubt

35
he can go to the record. He can ask for the record which is provided under another part of the Bill, and find out why the powers were exercised in the first place. He may agree that the exercise of the power in those circumstances was in principle reasonable.
However, he may still want to say, "Why did you pick on me?" If the policeman's answer is allowed to be, "I do not even have to give the reason why I picked on you. I picked on you because of an unreasonable reason", or, "I picked on you because although there was nothing racial about the suspected offence, you were black", or "I picked on you because you were driving a Rolls-Royce and I do not like posh cars", or whatever unreasonable criterion it might be, that person would have no redress.
Some people are going to be inconvenienced. Some people are going to be delayed, or miss appointments, or be queuing up along the roadsides when these road blocks are exercised. That is inevitable. The people who are inconvenienced in that way need to know that the power is being reasonably exercised and, if it is not being reasonably exercised to be able to exercise their right to complain or bring a civil action. However, if the criterion does not even have to be reasonable then they are left without a remedy and, what is worse, the police are left with an arbitrary power to stop people because they selected the criterion without reference to what might be reasonable in the circumstances.
Of course, "reasonable" has a very wide meaning and in the long run would be interpreted by a judge or jury. It may be reasonable in some cases to stop every tenth car. It may be reasonable in some circumstances to stop every car. There may be choices which could then be judged in the light of the emergency which motivated the search. However, there must be some criterion of reasonableness.
In the exercise of most statutory powers, particularly when they are exercised by Ministers, the law demands that they should be exercised reasonably. It may be that one could make a case that a power has to be exercised reasonably. Maybe that is what the noble Lord the Minister will say. If that is right, let its put it in the Bill. Let us not have an open power to select by any criterion. Let us put in the word "reasonable", which cannot in any way hamper the powers of those police officers who use these powers for reasonable purposes in reasonable ways. I beg to move.
Lord Somers: I cannot understand this widespread horror at a motorist being stopped by a policeman. If I were driving along the road and were stopped by a policeman, the only feeling that I should have would be anxiety to be of some use. The only regrets that I should have would be if eventually I found that I was not of any use. Surely the only person who can regret being stopped by a policeman is the man who has something to hide from the police. I cannot understand this idea that if the police stop a motorist in their effort to combat crime—which, incidentally, is growing to be a very serious matter in our society today—it should give any offence at all.
Lord Elton: If the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, would bear with me, the principal concern which he expressed, and one upon which he said I might be able
36
to reassure him, was whether by some other provision in the law the conduct of the police in a case like this had to be reasonable, and if so he would still wish it to be in this Bill. So I may be able to curtail this debate by directing him to subsection (4) which makes the authorisation of a road check under subsection (3) the responsibility of a police officer of at least superintendent rank—and I see that others would wish it to be higher. That is in subsection (3). Subsection (4) makes it necessary for him to have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a serious arrestable offence has been taken. So the mechanism wanted is there. "Reasonable grounds", which is the requirement the noble Lord wanted, are on the face of the Bill. They are not, as it were, in the hand of the constable on the road; they are in the hand of the authorising officer in the station. He may feel that that is a more experienced, senior and responsible hand.
As to the question of people taking it amiss if they are stopped, the noble Lord, Lord Somers, is right in almost every respect. However, some people do feel that they are being picked on. It is the extent of that feeling which has led to the tabling of this Bill and many amendments to it. I only say that inevitably there are going to be what appear to be surprising decisions as far as the people stopped are concerned. For instance, since the noble Lord chose a case where the colour of a person's skin was important, if a black male prisoner escapes from, let us say, Parkhurst or Albany, it is not unreasonable for a police constable to stop a tractor and a trailer in the district if it is driven by a white female. It will suffice for the person to know that a convict has escaped and that the police are looking for him. In view of the fact that the reassurance that he wants is on the face of the Bill, I wonder whether I need address myself any longer to the noble Lord.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Gifford: I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will continue. If what he says is right—and it is—that would be a reasonable criterion for stopping the man. My question is, why should not "reasonableness" be contained in the Bill? It is not enough to say that the officer has to have reasonable grounds to believe that an offence is going to be committed or has been committed. It may be as clear as day that there is a serious arrestable criminal in the vicinity, but we need to extend the criterion of reasonableness to the judgment of who is stopped. I fail to see so far why that should not be done. There is no harm in it. It would give that protection and provide an answer to anyone who chooses to complain that he was picked on. If he was unreasonably picked on, should he not have redress? Will the noble Lord explain why the amendment is not acceptable?
Lord Elton: I am not entirely certain that I follow the noble Lord. I think that what he says is that the Bill provides that the purpose of the road check should not be frivolous, but must be based on reasonable grounds. He then says that the constable must have reasonable grounds for the basis on which he picks an individual vehicle to stop. He asks us to put this into the Bill out of a fear, I think, that constables may stop only black drivers or Rolls-Royces. I find it difficult to imagine

37
the constable would stop only black drivers if he was aware that a crime had been committed but not aware of the ethnic appearance of the person who committed it. Equally, I would be puzzled if, knowing that a crime had been committed by a white person and that that person was driving a car and would be visible, he should then stop cars driven by black people. However, as no constable can actually see who may be on the floor of a car until it has been stopped, I do not honestly see that the noble Lord's amendment would advance his case.
Lord Molloy: What the Minister says flies completely in the face of the Scarman report. We cannot in the early part of the year laud that report and then have this Police and Criminal Evidence Bill which throws it all to one side.
Lord Elton: I really must ask the noble Lord to give way. This Bill is very largely a response to the Scarman report. I doubt whether the noble Lord can have read the Bill, if he has not seen the provisions in it. All that we are arguing is whether it is a sufficient response. It is not a rebuttal. It does not cast the report aside. It is a measured and important piece of legislation designed to reassure people on exactly the grounds that Scarman showed they needed reassurance.
Lord Molloy: I cannot imagine the ordinary people of this country being enamoured of the Minister's argument that he is opposed to the word "reasonable"; and he is opposed to that word. There have been many debates in this Chamber when Members on this side have charged the Government that their inclusion of the word "reasonable" is not explicit enough, is not sufficiently explanatory, whereupon the Government have courageously gone on record and have stated what they mean in that instance by being "reasonable". Let them do the same now. Any Government should do that. I see nothing wrong in having the word "reasonable" put into the Bill. I shall tell the Committee why. A number of senior police officers to whom I have spoken tell me that they do not want what they call draconian or massive powers, but want at all times to appear to be really reasonable in the exercise of their very responsible duties. I am simply supporting my noble friend Lord Gifford—
Baroness Macleod of Borve: May I suggest to the noble Lord that he is being completely unreasonable?
Lord Molloy: I am sorry, but I missed what the noble Baroness said.
Lord Elton: My noble friend said that the noble Lord himself was perhaps being a thought unreasonable. I wonder whether I may just ask the noble Lords, Lord Gifford and Lord Molloy, to take account of this further consideration. The precise effect of the amendment may not be exactly what is intended. Subsection (2) places restrictions on the use of the Road Traffic Act power. The effect of the amendment would be to remove them from unreasonable cases of its use. If that is so, perhaps the noble Lord will spare us pursuing it further and consider between now and Report stage whether he has got it right.
Lord Molloy: I wish to make this point. If I was almost totally opposed to everything that the Government had done, I would let them leave it as it is, so that I could go outside and argue that the Government and their Front Bench are opposed even to anything that contains the word "reasonable". I do not want to do that. I want this Government who, in the general sense, are also my Government, to be able to say that they are at all times sensible and reasonable in the wording of legislation. I believe that the overwhelming majority of senior police officers would welcome the term "reasonable" simply because it is a well-known term in British jurisprudence which, by and large, we all applaud.
Lord Gifford: I do not want to raise controversy in the debate. I have so far accepted the integrity of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in seeking by this Bill to redress the grievances which gave rise to the Brixton disorders and which are monitored in the PSI report. It is totally in that spirit that I move the amendment. In asking the Committee to accept that the requirement of reasonableness adds something to the Bill, and adds something that it needs, I go no further than to repeat a couple of quotations from the PSI report which indicate how some officers select whom to stop. It is the criterion of whom to stop that we are dealing with.
The first quotation concerns three experienced police officers:
"All three insisted that it was reasonable to stop any black people in cars because nine times out of 10 they would have drugs".
That means to say that if there was a suspected drug peddler—there could be a serious arrestable offence involved if there was substantial gain—whose colour was unknown, these officers would go round stopping black drivers only. It would be unreasonable, and there should be a redress.
The second quotation was:
"If I saw a black man walking through Wimbledon High Street, I would definitely stop him".
No doubt, the same officer would also stop him if he was driving through Wimbledon High Street and there was an alert out that a serious burglar of unidentified colour was in the area. Again, it would be unreasonable and, I am sure, contrary to the code of practice. But there would he no redress because the law allows that officer to select by any criterion.
I believe, further—
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has been kind to me in interrupting. The point is that the code of conduct is enforceable by the disciplinary code, and so there is, in fact, a redress.
Lord Gifford: That raises entire questions of whether the disciplinary code is enough. I want the complainant to be able to have a redress if the criterion for his being stopped was unreasonable; if he was stopped, let us say—because these are the examples I have given—on a racist criterion. The amendment is to Clause 4(2) which provides that the power to stop vehicles can be exercised for the purposes of this clause in such a way as to stop either all vehicles—one accepts that this may be necessary in some cases—or vehicles selected by any criteria. All that I seek to do is to insert "reasonable" into those criteria.
Lord Elton: I must detain your Lordships' Committee for a moment longer to elaborate on what I have said. The effect of Clause 4(2) is to de-limit those parts of the powers of the Road Traffic Act which operate under this clause. At the moment the power operates on all stops of all vehicles or vehicles selected on any criterion. The noble Lord would have it operate only on those which were selected by any reasonable criterion and not by any other. So the amendment is defective. However, I cannot dissuade the noble Lord.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder if I can be of some assistance, and if I am not, then at least I shall have wasted only one minute. A considerable time has been spent on what I am sure is an important amendment. Would the noble Lord the Minister consider the words:
"in such a way as to stop all vehicles or vehicles selected by any criterion"
necessary at all? Would he not think that the subsection could read:
"For the purposes of this section a road check consists of the exercise of the power conferred by section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1972?"
Then we do not have to worry about anything other than the fact that the law exists as set out in the Road Traffic Act 1972 and will be so exercised in the course of these provisions. I should have thought that that might be a sensible way in which to deal with the matter.
Lord Elton: That is not a solution that is on the Marshalled List and it is one that I would be prepared to consider.
Lord Foot: I wonder if I could try to come to the assistance of the Minister because I think that he is right about this and that a lot of what has been said on this side of the Committee is incorrect. As I understand it, if we look at Clause 4 we find in subsection (1) the circumstances in which the clause shall have effect. As I understand it, subsection (2) is an attempt to define a road check. It says that a road check is:
"the exercise of the power conferred by section 159 of the Road Traffic Act";
that is, the power to stop vehicles of any kind in any circumstances. It goes on to say that a road check is the exercise of that power when it is done,
"in such a way as to stop all vehicles or vehicles selected by any criterion".
If one reads the words:
"vehicles selected by any criterion"
in this way: "vehicles selected by a criterion", one finds that a road check is defined as, first, a check to stop all vehicles or, secondly, a more limited check—that is, a check of certain types of vehicles or vehicles selected according to a more limited criterion. As the Minister has already pointed out, one then goes on to find that subsections (3) and (4) amply set out the fact that that power can only be exercised on the authority of a superintendent, and the superintendent can only exercise the power at all as long as he is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so. That seems to me to be perfectly sensible and reasonable and I
40
cannot understand why we have occupied however long it may have been discussing a matter of this nature.
Lord Gifford: If the noble Lord tells me that my amendment is defective then I feel that it is my duty to find out why, although at the moment I am bound to say that I cannot see why the Bill should not contain a clause or a limitation on the power to select what vehicles to stop, which imports a requirement of reasonableness. Nothing that the noble Lord has said has indicated to me that he is prepared to allow that criterion of reasonableness. We shall come back to this matter. I shall find out whether this amendment is defective and if it is I shall put an effective one down at the Report stage. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 6, line 26, leave out ("superintendent") and insert ("assistant chief constable").
The noble and learned Lord said: Along with amendment No. 32 it may be convenient also to discuss Amendments Nos. 37, 37A—if the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has no objection—and Amendment No. 39.
Amendment No. 37: Page 7, line 10, leave out ("superintendent") and insert ("assistant chief constable but not below the rank of inspector").
Amendment No. 37A: Page 7, line 10, leave out ("Superintendent") and insert ("Inspector").
Amendment No. 39: Page 7, line 38, leave out ("superintendent") and insert ("assistant chief constable").
Clause 4(3) of the Bill confers on a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above the power to authorise in writing a road check. It is an important power. The police already and currently use their powers to stop vehicles where a person whose arrest is sought in connection with a serious offence may be known to be moving in a particular area. That power already exists. The Royal Commission, upon whose report so much of this Bill is based—or ought to have been based—recommended in paragraph 3.31 that such road blocks:
"should be confined to particular types of serious crime and should be regularised by the introduction of a measure of supervisory control".
The supervisory control that they were initially contemplating was the requirement of the authorisation of a magistrate's warrant.
The commission took very seriously, and quite rightly, the importance of the setting up of road blocks. Road blocks can obviously seriously disrupt the community and the movement of traffic upon the roads and, of necessity, the effect of a road block holding up a stream of traffic inevitably means that a large number of innocent people are disturbed upon their way or upon their business. Therefore, the setting up of road blocks is an infringement of a person's liberty to go about his business.
Therefore, it was for reasons of concern that the power should be under proper scrutiny that at any rate consideration was given not to the giving of the power to a police officer of certain rank but indeed to a magistrate's warrant. That, however, was ultimately

41
rejected by the Royal Commission for a reason which certainly appeals to me; namely, that the police in such a matter should take responsibility for an operational decision of that kind. That, if I may say so, is a sensible conclusion.
But the Royal Commission proposed that the decision with regard to setting up a road block should be by a police officer of rank not less than assistant chief constable. That is a measure of the importance that the power should not be used excessively—I shall not use the ugly word "abused"—when a person whose arrest is sought in connection with a grave offence is believed on reasonable grounds to be moving in a particular area. The Royal Commission's recommendation is quite specific and quite unambiguous upon this matter and we think that it is right to adhere to it.
There seems to us to be also practical reasons why the power of decision should be in the hands of an assistant chief constable or, of course, the chief constable himself. As the Bill stands, it will be possible for road checks to be set up on many parts of the same police area at the very same time. Let us take as an example Lambeth. Lambeth has four divisions—Brixton, Clapham, Kennington and Streatham—with a superintendent in charge of each. Under the clause as it stands it would be possible for superintendents in each of those divisions to set up checks without knowing that there are checks already in place in the other divisions. If a development of that kind took place, road movements in the whole of this considerable area would be brought to a wholesale halt. Therefore, in our view—and it was certainly the strong view of the commission, expressed in very clear terms—it would be more prudent and, indeed, more effective if the decision as to road blocks came from the level of chief constable or his assistant, who have an overall view of the requirement of the situation and of the area. It is because of the recommendation by the Royal Commission that this amendment ought to commend itself to the noble Lord the Minister, and it is because of its practicability and its reasonableness that I move it.
Perhaps I should say in passing that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, proposes to lower the level at which road checks should be authorised. I imagine that he has in mind the argument of availability of inspectors as distinct from superintendents, and, least of all, as distinct from assistant chief constables. However, I submit that the importance of this decision and its possible practical effects point to the wisdom of the recommendation of the Royal Commission itself that this should be a decision of the assistant chief constable. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I should like to respond to what the noble and learned Lord opposite has just said. I have tabled my amendment to replace the rank of superintendent with the lower rank of inspector on purpose. However, I am not quite sure that I have the words in the right place later in the Bill. It appears to be the wish of the noble and learned Lord opposite to raise the level at which authority can be given to set up a major road check. I believe that was the noble and learned Lord's point. He mentioned Brixton, where blocks might be sited to cover a large area. That
42
situation would be entirely different from quite a small check, especially if, say, an important terrorist or other criminal was being sought.
One of the most important aspects in this case would be speed. The moment there is reason to check traffic in this way, a block must be set up at once. The next most important point is that a more senior officer should have a chance to assess whether or not it is reasonable, and for how long the check should be maintained. I must not describe any personal experiences, but perhaps I may be permitted just one sentence. Not very long ago I went to Germany, and the Germans gave me the opportunity, all on my own, with an officer the rank of sergeant and two juniors, immediately to set up such a check. We decided the criteria to be selected. We never heard a single word from anyone, and after ensuring that the check was happily proceeding, we closed it down.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Perhaps I could draw the noble Lord's attention to the provisions of Clause 4(5) of the Bill, which, in an urgent situation, allows an officer below the rank of superintendent, without specification—
Lord Inglewood: I have already said that I did not think my words were in the right place, and I had that subsection in the back of my mind.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I was merely drawing the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the emergency scene is covered by Clause 4(5) of the Bill.
Lord Denning: My noble and learned friend has referred to the metropolis; I want to refer to Hampshire. In Hampshire we have a chief constable, a deputy chief constable and an assistant chief constable. They deal with the whole county and have their own provinces of jurisdiction. However, the north of Hampshire covers an enormous area, and the superintendent lives just at the top of the hill beyond us. He keeps jolly good control over everything; he can deal with everything. He is much the best person to decide whether or not there is to be a road check. We should not bother the chief constable about it but leave it to the superintendent.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I think that there are, indeed, practical arguments relating to this amendment, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, suggested in moving it. But in fact they are practical arguments which are in the opposite direction to the one which the noble and learned Lord favours. Following the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I want to deal with a particular problem which would arise if the rank was that of assistant chief constable. There are 13 police forces in England and Wales which have only one assistant chief constable, and a deputy chief constable and chief constable on their establishments; all the other forces have more than one assistant.
I should like to deal with this practical problem. It is impossible to assume that a chief constable will always be in his own force area. He obviously will not be; he may be at a meeting of ACPO in London; he may be at a regional conference of chief constables.

43
His deputy may be on holiday. Therefore, there would be only one officer of the rank of assistant chief constable or above who, in terms of this amendment, would be authorised to make this decision. I am bound to say that in a large police force area, such as the county of Suffolk, the sheer difficulty of a junior officer getting hold of that officer, who may be 70 miles away from his force headquarters, and of explaining to him the circumstances in which he believes it is necessary to introduce some form of road check would, in certain circumstances, create very serious problems indeed.
Therefore, I believe that it would be a mistake to pass this amendment, notwithstanding the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, made, perfectly correctly. that the Royal Commission indeed recommended it. That is undoubtedly true. However, for the reasons that I have given, I believe that to limit ourselves in this way would not be advantageous; it would create massive practical problems in implementation. For that reason, I very much hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Plant: I support the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in opposing this amendment. The three police trade unions are well content with the word "superintendent". It would be a great inconvenience to forces where there is only one assistant chief constable if ACCs were given these powers instead of superintendents. For reasonable management it is right and proper that the word "superintendent" should remain. The Police Federation is quite content with that. I do not believe that it would wish to have "inspector" instead of "superintendent" inserted in the Bill, unless many more inspectors were to be appointed. The superintendents' association is quite happy, and the Association of Chief Police Officers would, I think, be gravely concerned if this amendment was carried. I shall oppose it.
Lord Elton: The noble and learned Lord has moved this amendment in view of the large powers embraced within Clause 4. I have already explained to your Lordships that they are not new powers and that Clause 4 embraces only those where the search is for people, and I shall not tread that ground again. It is also necessary to remember that there are two circumstances in which a road check may be needed. One of them is the circumstance of urgency, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood has mentioned. In those circumstances, the decision must be taken immediately as near the spot as possible, and a road check set up as soon as notice of a murder, a child abduction, or whatever, with the suspect proceeding in a particular direction, reaches the officer in charge at the moment. Therefore, I do not think that Amendment No. 37 in the name of the noble and learned Lord will work, because one cannot tie an instant decision to a particular and senior rank by saying, "not below the rank of inspector" in subsection (5). For practical reasons, I think your Lordships will agree that that will not work.
That brings us simply to the question of whether or not a superintendent is a sufficiently senior rank for the purposes of this clause. I listened to what the noble
44
Lords said, and I also listened to the cogent arguments of those who disagreed with them. I almost wonder whether it is necessary for me to add to them. It seems to me that the rank of superintendent is a senior rank, and it carries day-to-day responsibilities which are at least commensurate with the matter we are now talking about. Whatever rank in practice one selects, if the chief officer starts getting complaints, whether from his police authority or from members of the public, that the power to check vehicles is being irresponsibly or too frequently used in any area, it is the chief officer who is going to take steps, so he will be alerted very early.
There is of course a further provision in Clause 5 which will enable the police authority itself to see how many road checks are occurring and why, and with what results. It would be a rash chief constable who allowed his divisional superintendents to expose him to warranted criticisms there. With the greatest respect, I think that the noble and learned Lord may feel, on this occasion, that he has probed far enough to find that he should not go further.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am not sure that I have. We set up a Royal Commission to investigate this and other matters. That Royal Commission, over a period of years, heard massive evidence, and on the police front they heard witnesses from the following police organisations: the Association of Chief Police Officers; the Police Federation of England and Wales; the Police Federation of the Sussex Police Joint Branch Board; and the Police Superintendents' Association. I have no doubt that all those witnesses spoke about these matters—whether they dealt directly with this particular point of course I cannot say—and we have in their conclusions the benefit of the evidence that they have taken.
We cannot hear the evidence here. Some noble Lords who have put the case for the police authorities have put it rightly and properly, but the advantage the Royal Commission had was that it heard the submissions of evidence to support their conclusions. We will be ill-advised to depart from the recommendations of the Royal Commission in the consideration of this Bill unless there are powerful reasons for doing SO.
As at present advised—perhaps some new advice will come from heaven on this matter any moment now—I am disposed to invite the noble Lord to think again about this. I do not know whether he would be willing, in the light of the attention I have drawn to the extent of the evidence that the Royal Commission heard in this field—I will not say on this very point—to in turn think again before giving a final negative to the amendment.
Lord Elton: I only want to intervene on a point of theology. I regret that I never have advice from heaven, and I am told very often that where I get advice from is closer to purgatory as the night goes on. The noble and learned Lord asks us to take a course which was rejected twice in the other place. It is not a new departure. The reasons against it seem to me to be cogent and persuasive and to come from all round the Committee. Therefore I leave the noble and learned Lord with no comfort as to my view.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am quite impenitent about having raised this matter. It was in the Royal Commission, and we should only depart from the Royal Commission's recommendations on the clearest possible occasions. I shall think again about this. For the moment, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 to 37A not moved.]
5.25 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 7, line 32, leave out ("seven days") and insert ("48 hours").
The noble Lord said: I can move Amendment No. 38 shortly. Once authorisation has been given by the senior officer—
Lord Elton: I rise only to be helpful, if I may, to ask the noble Lord whether he is also speaking to Amendment No. 40? I think that that is his intention.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: Yes, the two go together. I am most obliged to the Minister for his assistance.
Amendment No. 40: Page 7, line 41, leave out ("seven days") and insert ("48 hours").
The point is a short one. Once the senior officer—in this case the superintendent—has decided that there should be such a road check, then by virtue of subsection (11) of Clause 4 he
"shall specify a period, not exceeding seven days, during which the road check may continue".
Then so far as subsection (12) is concerned, it reads:
"If it appears to an officer of the rank of superintendent or above that a road check ought to continue beyond the period for which it has been authorised he may, from time to time, in writing specify a further period, not exceeding seven days, during which it may continue."
The arguments in favour of the amendments, which seek to substitute a period of 48 hours in both cases for the period of seven days, are as follows. First, the Royal Commission does not seem to have envisaged that a road block should ever be maintained for the length of period referred to in subsections (11) and (12). Secondly, one remembers the type of exercise that is involved in relation to Clause 4, which is the apprehension of a person who has committed a serious arrestable offence:
"a person who is a witness to such an offence; a person intending to commit such an offence; or a person who is unlawfully at large".
I am sure that the Committee would accept that there is broad common sense in the supposition that if results are to be fruitful they are likely to be fruitful in the first 24 hours, and at the most within 48 hours.
Road checks are serious interferences not only with private liberty but with the convenience of ordinary people. As the Minister has said time-and-time again this afternoon, this part of the Bill deals with restricting powers which are already existent in our law. It is on that basis that the Minister has invited the Committee to consider this very clause.
That being so, it would be right to limit the exercise of this power, which at the moment means that a superintendent can say that it shall be there for seven days and can, ad infinitum, prolong it by seven day renewals. It is right that that should be severely
46
circumscribed. The practicality of the powers that have been granted to the police by this clause would in no way be impaired. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The amendment may well have considerable relevance in respect of road blocks set up in urban areas. But as I listened to the noble Lord I was inclined to think that he was overlooking the kind of situation which has frequently arisen in the past few years in the remoter country districts. The noble Lord and your Lordships will recall that there have been several cases recently of dangerous and desperate men—murderers, kidnappers and the like—who have taken to the woods and who have been hunted over considerable areas of country for periods longer than 48 hours. We should be unnecessarily handicapping those who have to deal with this very difficult situation, if we were to restrict the period of the road blocks in those cases to 48 hours, albeit that there is, as has been pointed out, the power to renew. The power to renew is there and it is a good thing, but it seems unnecessarily bureacratic.
There are situations when it is quite plainly necessary to hold blocks for some days, and, hopefully, those are in areas where the amount of traffic held up is little, where there are roads serving a stretch of fairly wild country or, in particular, woods. I feel that the seven-day rule, though it may not be necessary in many cases, sensibly takes account of those.
Lord Plant: I oppose this amendment very shortly. Let me give an example of something that has happened not once but on many occasions. Prisoners have escaped from Dartmoor, fog descends on the moor and it is foggy for four days. If there is a road block which has to be lifted after 48 hours, do the police allow the escaped criminals to go free?
Lord Elystan-Morgan: It may save time if I intervene. I think the noble Lord is labouring under a misapprehension that at the end of 48 hours the powers contained in this clause come to an end. They do not, because they can he prolonged under subsection (12) for another 48 hours, and another 48 hours, ad infinitum.
Lord Plant: This Bill is supposed to make things easier for the police; it is supposed to codify police instructions to make the issue reasonably straightforward for the police to follow. I think we are making things a little more difficult and confusing. If I believe that "seven days" is right, I cannot agree to "48 hours". Admittedly one can extend the period of 48 hours. If we can extend it ad infinitum, then I must ask what is wrong with "seven days"? I ask the Minister whether this Bill will apply to Northern Ireland? If it does, the IRA will feel that things are looking up. But I oppose the amendment.
Lord Elton: I am obliged to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Plant, for putting the practicalities before us. We are not dealing with a draconian power or a new power, therefore I think the sensitivity as to its duration is perhaps not entirely necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Plant, is correct that it would mean the renewal of an approach to a senior

47
officer every 48 hours rather than once a week, and senior officers have a very great deal to do.
We must remember that road checks may be continuous or intermittent. Therefore, a power to have a road check for seven days may amount to a small interference in the freedom of traffic to circulate. We must also be aware that circumstances change and the fog does come down and lifts on Dartmoor.
There is the other aspect of this which comes again to the matter we were discussing a moment ago about the expectation of a serious crime being committed. Here the power to renew does not seem to me to get us out of the difficulty that the noble Lord, Lord Plant, has put before his noble and learned friend Lord Elystan-Morgan. The justification for the use of the power must be that a serious arrestable offence is expected to take place within the period during which the road block continues. If it did not happen in the first 48 hours, the justification for the road block would have, as it were, fallen, so the curtailing of this period is difficult in that respect as well. I think that my noble friend has been eloquent on this, and I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue it.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: May I take the Minister's last point first, when he seeks to argue that, if the period of 48 hours were substituted for the period of seven days, that would appear to be the maximum period in the operation of Clause 4(4)(c) (ii). In other words the words,
"during the period during which the road check would be authorised to continue".
means the first period that will be authorised. I am sure that the Minister is putting a heavy gloss, an unwarranted gloss, upon those words. It would seem to me that the period during which the road check would be authorised to continue would be the period that the officers have in mind when they set it up. They may have several renewals in mind at that time.
For all the admiration that I have for the Minister's powers of argument, and indeed for his balance, if I may say so—my admiration for the exercise of his fairness and judgment is considerable—I am afraid that on this occasion I am not impressed by the attitude he has taken. Why was seven days chosen? It is a purely arbitrary figure. What virtue has seven days over two days? If it was one final period of time, and no renewal, I could understand that one would say seven rather than two. But what is the difference between a renewable seven and a renewable two? The Minister may say that two is arbitrary. Was it the Book of Genesis that led the Government to choose seven days rather than 14 or 28 days? With the greatest respect to the Minister, I do not think that the case for seven days has been made out.
Since we are dealing with the precious issue of human liberty, and since there is a question here of infringement upon the privacy of ordinary individuals, tens and hundreds of thousands of individuals perhaps in a year, I ask the Committee to consider that 48 hours may be more appropriate than seven days in this context. However, that is not a matter upon which I am prepared to go to the stake because the renewability factor means that one can renew 48 hours
48
as often as one likes, making the same period in the end. Nevertheless, I should be grateful if the Minister would, between now and Report stage, give the matter further thought. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 not moved.]
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 8, line 10, after ("entitled") insert—

("(a) to be informed of the name of the constable who has stopped him and the police station to which he is attached;

(b) to be informed of the purpose of the road check; and

(c)").

The noble Lord said: Clause 4(15) deals with the rights of the driver who is stopped at a road check. It is the only clause which deals directly with those rights. It limits those rights to the right to obtain a written statement on application within 12 months from the date one is stopped. The written statement would be a statement of the purpose of the road check. I have no quarrel with that so long as the written statement of the purpose of the road check is not just a form of words. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Elton, can help on that: whether the written statement which is to be given would just be the form of words set out in Clause 4(1), or whether it would give some detail of the purpose of the road check.
However, my amendment seeks to increase those rights in two ways: to require the police officer who stops the driver, first, to tell the driver his or her name and the police station from which he or she comes, and, secondly, to inform him of the purpose of the road check. In other words, what the amendment seeks is what I am sure we would all wish to hear if we were stopped at a road check, that is a police officer courteously saying "Excuse me, my name is Sergeant Dixon, of Dock Green Police Station. We are checking to see if there are any witnesses in the car to a serious crime which took place", or whatever the purpose may be.
If the officer does not give that information the driver, first of all, does not know who has stopped him, which can be serious if the stop is carried out in an officious way. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said a short time ago that it would be a disciplinary offence to stop someone on the basis of a purely racist criterion. It would only be redressed if the person aggrieved knew who it was who had stopped him. So far as the purpose is concerned, the public are surely entitled to know, if they are being stopped, broadly speaking the reason why and what is the purpose, and not just to have an officer looking into their car or looking at them without being told anything of the reason why. So it would seem that those rights would be valuable.
There is no provision for a code of practice, as I understand it, as far as road checks are concerned, so that any provision would have to be built into the Bill. When we dealt with the powers of stop and search we saw that the people who are going to be stopped and searched had those rights. People who are stopped and searched in the street will be entitled, according to the Bill, to be informed of the name of the constable who is stopping them and will be entitled to be informed of the reasons for the stop. If that is the right to be given to those who are suspected of carrying stolen or

49
prohibited articles, how much more should it be given to drivers who are not suspected of anything and who are going to be the object of these road checks? It would very much conduce to good relations between drivers and the police if this information had to be given. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: May I remind your Lordships first that we are looking at the power to check and not to search. If the police constable were to wish to look inside the vehicle and search, then, under Clause 2(2), the requirements that the noble Lord seeks will already bite. We are only talking about a road check. Even if what the noble Lord wanted done only took 15 seconds, that is an extra quarter of an hour delay for the traffic with every 60 stops, if my arithmetic is right. Therefore, I have to ask myself whether this is a sensible thing to do or a necessary thing to do. Establishing the officer's name would only be useful if the person stopped wanted to pursue a complaint that he had exceeded his powers. But the stopping of a car at a road check does not require or imply any reasonable suspicion of that car.
If the road check has been properly authorised then the constable cannot have exceeded his powers in stopping the car. If the check has not been properly authorised, then a requirement of the kind proposed (which only arises in the case of an authorised check) would not be of much value; so that, as far as the purpose of the check is concerned, it would be good police practice when stopping a vehicle for the officers to explain to the driver the need for the road check there and then. It may simply be, "Have you seen a runaway horse?"—and no further explanation may be needed. I think it is better to rely on good practice than to require this rather elaborate procedure to be gone through when on so many occasions it will be unnecessary and will cause delay.
Lord Gifford: I do not intend to press this matter but I am anxious to know how these powers (which are now more closely defined) will be exercised. Will there be any guidelines, short of a code of practice, as to how the public will be addressed or is it to be left completely to the discretion of the police constable exercising the stop? A check implies that there is going to be some communication between the police officer and the driver. One would have thought that there ought to be in normal circumstances some explanation given to the member of the public. I am wondering whether any kind of guidelines, even if there is not going to be a code, will be applied to this power.
Lord Elton: We deliberately framed the drivers' entitlements in terms of a written statement and not necessarily of a copy of the superintendent's authorisation which must set out the grounds. This is because in the case of serious crime such as terrorist crime it may be desirable not to let out too many clues as to what the police expect and where.
Lord Gifford: One would have to see how this operates. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 8, line 14, leave out subsection (16).
The noble Lord said: The amendment I seek to move in this matter is not moved out of any feeling of hostility towards subsection (16) at all but out of a deep and abiding desire for information on this matter. It is a probing amendment on this basis. The Government in another place—and we have heard that refrain echoed several times today by the noble Lord the Minister—have said that the power in Clause 4 to set up road checks is a restrictive power in that it reduces the power which the police already have under Section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. Yet the clause specifically, by subsection (16), preserves what appears to be wider powers. I should be very grateful, as I am sure would many noble Lords, if the noble Lord the Minister would explain to the Committee what other powers are saved by subsection (16) additional to the powers that are already set out in the clause.
My noble friend Lord Plant says that this is a codifying clause simplifying the law as far as police officers are concerned. If that is its motive, then, with the greatest respect, I fear that it will not succeed in that particular purpose. Nevertheless, if it be the case that this subsection does not add anything to the other powers contained in the clause, then there is no reason why it should remain in the statute.
Recently, in the context of the miners' dispute, the Government have stated that the police have extensive common law powers to stop vehicles. As I understand it, there are two sets of powers in relation to the stopping of vehicles. One is the common law power which enables any constable—or, indeed, for that purpose, any citizen—to act, using such force as is reasonably necessary, to prevent the commission of a crime. Secondly, there is the power in the statute that we have heard so much about this afternoon under Section 159 of the Road Traffic Act. Therefore, it is out of a feeling of uncertainty that I would respectfully ask the Minister to define exactly what wider powers, if any, are contained in subsection (16). I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Subsection (16) of Clause 4 makes it clear that its provisions are without prejudice to the ability of the police to stop vehicles for purposes other than the arrest of wanted persons or the tracing of witnesses to crime. There is a wide range of circumstances in which the police may wish to obstruct roads, and therefore to stop vehicles, for which the restrictions set out in Clause 4 are not appropriate. These circumstances range from the obstruction of a road that has been flooded to preventing vehicles from completing their journeys in order to prevent a breach of the peace.
The Royal Commission did not intend the restrictions they recommended to apply to the public order powers of the police. Indeed, they recognised that those powers were outside their terms of reference; and your Lordships will know that they are at present under review. But those powers are clearly necessary. They are also clearly not readily susceptible of statutory definition. Certainly they cannot be brought within the framework of the Bill, if only

51
because the whole basis of Clause 4 is the restriction of road checks to the prevention or detection of serious arrestable offences, whereas breach of the peace as such is not an offence under the general criminal law. It would of course make no sense to provide that, since the common law powers of the police cannot be brought within the scope of the Bill, they should therefore cease to exist—not that I think that that is what the noble Lord proposes. But Clause 4 accordingly preserves the common law powers of the police, which have proved their value in a wide range of circumstances. I think that that is probably the substance of what the noble Lord was asking.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his reply. I am not in any way surprised by anything he said. In fact, my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and other noble and learned friends indeed thought that that must be the legal position. But I asked the question, perhaps rather mischievously, on the basis…of what the noble Lord said about an hour ago when he said that he worried whether this clause would have the effect of,
"excessively diminishing the powers the police already have."
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord the Minister, I do not think that there can be any question of diminishing the powers which the police have. The Bill clarifies in a certain limited area those powers, but it does not diminish them and of course it does not restrict the other powers which are saved by subsection (16). For those ample reasons, I beg leave to withdraw gracefully.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Reports of recorded searches and of road checks]:
5.52 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 8. line 24. leave out ("set up") and insert ("authorised").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment which will bring the wording of subsection (1) into line with that of subsection (3) and Clause 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 8, line 35, at end insert—
("(c) the nature of the charges preferred in each such month in consequence of arrests in each category specified in paragraph (b) above.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 5 of the Bill deals with the various kinds of record that need to be made public about the matters which we have been considering. I am sure that it is part of the Government's case for the powers that are being taken by this Bill that the information about how they are being exercised year by year will be made available to the public as a matter of statutory requirement.
Subsection (2) deals with the information that has to be given about searches and requires that the total number of searches should be reported in the various reports and that the numbers of people arrested in
52
consequence of searches should be reported. I seek by this amendment also to require details not just of the arrests but of the charges preferred. I do so for the reason that in a great number of cases where the existing powers of stop and search have been used, people have been arrested in consequence of the search not because they have anything illegal on their person but because they are alleged to have obstructed the police in the exercise of the power that has been given; or to have assaulted the police; or to have committed some offence which is not an offence that they would have committed if it had not been for the approach of the police officer.
One needs therefore to separate those charges from charges which flow directly from the object of the statute—charges of carrying stolen goods: carrying an offensive weapon; or carrying goods which are for the use of theft. Therefore this amendment would enable us to monitor how successful these powers really are; in what proportion of cases, area by area and year by year, are people who are really guilty being stopped and searched and what proportion of people did not have any prohibited or stolen articles upon them. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The purpose of publishing information is to make the broad application of the powers subject to independent scrutiny. The relevant information here is the number of arrests, and the clause already provides for that. What charges, if any, are brought following an arrest is, in a sense, an incidental question. After an arrest is made, various things can happen. It may be decided that a prosecution shall not after all be brought but that the person shall be dealt with by way of a caution; or that the person is to be summonsed rather than charged, and the summons may be issued in the calendar year following the arrest so that the prosecution could not be picked up in the relevant annual report; or that the person is to be charged but charged with an offence not related to the search itself.
I think that the noble Lord is anxious to test his thesis that a high proportion of arrests relate not to the possession of unlawful articles but to obstructing an officer in the execution of his duty or to assault—that is, that the arrest is generated by the search itself and by the resentment it causes. I am not sure that I read the mind of the noble Lord correctly but I think I do.
Research into the use of stop and search does not in fact support this thesis and, even if it were true, it would not prove that the powers were unnecessary or, indeed, that they were being misused. For example, the fact that a certain proportion of persons searched for drugs may be found to have stolen articles, or vice versa, does not show that either power is not useful, and since there is a strong relationship between drugs and theft—very often the latter pays for the former—it would not be surprising if the powers did overlap in this way. So statistics of the kind that the noble Lord proposes would not provide a useful means of checking on the exercise of powers of search. The statistics would be of some interest but not of practical benefit and, if there were a need for them, they could be collected on an occasional basis by research based on sampling from time to time. Moreover, there

53
would be serious practical difficulties in requiring information about charges to be included in annual reports.
I have already referred to the difficulty relating to delay in the issue of the summons. More significantly, police filing and record-keeping procedures could not generate the information required without a very substantial exercise in collation, for which resources do not exist. There is one set of records which relates to the operational use of stop and search. These records terminate with the act of arrest. In the event of a prosecution, another set of records is opened. In principle, and with enough computer power, these different records can of course be matched, but I am advised that in practice this exercise would soak up a lot of additional police and clerical time which cannot, frankly, be spared and which would not, as I have tried to show, be usefully productive. So, while I sympathise with the interest of the noble Lord, I do not think I can help him on this.
Lord Gifford: I will consider carefully what the noble Lord has said but, before I withdraw my amendment—which I intend to do—I wonder whether he could help me about one matter, and, if he cannot help me immediately, he may be able to help me by writing. If someone is stopped by a police officer and is searched, and in the course of the proceedings—whether at the time of the stop or at the time of the search or at some time a little later—there is some obstruction, and the suspect is finally arrested for obstructing the police and not for anything which is found on him—let us say that nothing is found on him—would that be an arrest in consequence of the search? It may be that my fears can be allayed by being informed that it would not be an arrest in consequence of the search but would be an arrest in consequence of the behaviour of the individual. If that were the case, it might be that the Bill as it stands would provide for the information that we want.
Lord Elton: I think it would be best if I were to write to the noble Lord in answer to that question.
Lord Gifford: I quite understand that, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 8, line 38, after ("check") insert—
("() about the numbers of vehicles stopped in each of them; and
() about the duration of each of them;").
The noble Lord said: The necessity pressed by law upon the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and every chief constable to prepare and publish an annual report on the operation of his force is, in my submission, a very important constitutional phenomenon. It enables the possibility of public scrutiny upon various policies carried out by chief constables and it is a very substantial and necessary constitutional check upon the operation of a police force. Indeed, in Clause 5 the Government have legislated that every such annual report, among other things, so far as a road check is concerned, shall
54
include information (a) about the reason for authorising each road check, and (b) about the result of each of them. That, of course, could be a very full report but it might be something very, very scant.
To say that a road check has been conducted upon a certain road for a certain period, and that the result was blank, might not convey any useful or significant information so far as the ordinary subject was concerned. It is for that reason that the amendment proposes that there should be contained in that report a statement about the number of vehicles stopped in each such check, together with the duration of each check. I appreciate that a line has to be drawn between overwhelming detail that would place a wholly unnecessary burden upon a chief constable on the one hand and, on the other hand, such scant information as would not in any meaningful way convey to the public exactly what had happened. In my submission, this amendment would achieve a medial position between those two extremes, and it is on that basis that I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I should be very grateful if the noble Lord opposite would explain how the figure of the number of vehicles is necessarily to be arrived at as a matter of practicality. If you put a road block on a road that carries major traffic, very soon a very considerable accumulation of traffic builds up. Equally, once this is known, a number of vehicles that have been stopped there for a little time either turn round if they can, back away or in one way or another escape on to a side road. How police manning a road block when there is a large accumulation of vehicles held up by that road block are to provide the figure that the noble Lord suggests they should provide seems to me to be very difficult. Frankly, it seems to be a case of "think of a number".
Lord Elton: I was wondering whether the noble Lord has an answer. But while he is considering—
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I certainly would not quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, if in fact an approximate figure was to be calculated by the officers concerned. What I think is very important, however, is that there should be in that report something which gives an indication of the totality of the interference with private liberty that is involved. I would urge on the Committee that the sort of data which gives some indication of that factor is in fact the number of vehicles involved. If the noble Lord can think of a better criterion I will gladly accept it, of course. It is not a question of trying to make a nuisance of oneself so far as the police are concerned, but of conveying meaningful information that gives some idea of the scale and nature of the operation.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord's amendment does not, of course, say anything about an approximate calculation; it asks the police to provide the number of vehicles. We rightly expect of the police, when they are under a statutory obligation to supply material, to supply accurate material. With respect, to say, "Oh well, that is not really what I mean; they can think of a number" does not seem to me to justify this amendment.
Lord Elton: I always try at Committee stage to look at principles as well as practices. The noble Lord wants something more precise about the use of this power, but since the purpose of his inclusion of it in the Bill is to exercise some supervision of the police it seems to me a little questionable—although this is not on the Marshalled List, what he has suggested is in our minds—to give the duty of making an approximation of the use of the power to the person exercising the power. This does rather reduce the value of the control itself.
We are—are we not?—in this Bill (and it is impossible not be to be aware of it) contributing very considerably to the amount of paperwork and the bureaucracy that the police have to carry out. Therefore, we have to test proposals such as this very closely. I am not certain that what the noble Lord proposes, in either form, will really enable the public to reach a view as to whether a road block was necessary or properly carried out. The essence of the road check is that the police do not know which car contains the person they are looking for. If they did, of course, they would stop only one car. Therefore, it is a matter of totally fortuitous circumstances whether he is in the third, the 30th or the 300th car which they check. It may well be that he will be found early, late, or not at all. So I do not see that the number of cars that have to be stopped at a particular check is of great significance, and it would be quite wrong to infer that because a small number of cars were stopped in one road check that was in some sense better justified than a case where 300 or 400 extra cars were stopped. The same argument, of course, applies to the duration of the check because the police may be fortunate in putting the block on and immediately finding their man or woman, or they may be unfortunate in not finding him or her for perhaps three days or seven days.
Finally, I would not wish to impose on the police for this very doubtfully effective purpose the duty of counting every vehicle that they check. I think that would be to add unreasonably to their duties. Of course, it is a fact that I regard this power as a less alarming one than, apparently, the noble Lord does.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether I might be allowed to make just a very short contribution. It is not just a question of supplying information for the use of the motorist concerned. As I understand the position, there are separate authorities who are interested in congestion of traffic. There are separate authorities or organisations representing motorists which have a view as to whether road blocks and road checks are really being systematically and sensibly arranged and ordered by the police.
This sort of information, whether it is precise or approximate—and I do not quite see the difficulty, if you have a road block, of counting the maximum number of vehicles caught by the road block—is very vital information for various purposes other than the one closely limited by the provisions of this clause. What one would be able to do as a result of seeing this information is to argue: "You know, a terrific amount of congestion has been caused. We have looked at the instances where this has occurred. It was needless. It lasted for too long and the number of vehicles was so
56
huge". Without this information none of these representations can be made.
Lord Elton: I sympathise with the noble Lord's concern which he has made clearer to us, but I wonder how often he has been held up in one of these immense queues, because I cannot recall having been held up in one. It is not a matter of general complaint; it does not surface annually in the complaints made to the Police Complaints Board or, so far as I know, to the individual police authorities. It seems to me that the noble Lord is perhaps trying to provide a check upon something which does not need checking in the terms that he has stated. I do not think that the Automobile Association is always complaining about the length of queues produced by police road checks. I have not heard that.
Baroness Phillips: I would ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether he would extend this argument to the number of times that one is held up while demonstrations go down streets. If the motorists were to say that they did not want that, they would be described as extraordinarily obstructive, very difficult and undemocratic. I can recall many occasions—one not too long ago—when I had been endeavouring to get to a very reasonable function but when it took me twice as long to get there as the trip had usually taken and when, finally, I had to walk, because a group of people living in this country were demonstrating over something that they did not like about the government of the country from which they had come—a matter about which we could do nothing at all. In our country we pride ourselves on the fact that we are liberal and allow anyone to demonstrate. But I suggest that if we are to keep records of the number of times that we are held up, it will be equally relevant to keep records of the number of times that we are held up because of road diversions, which often happen quite quickly and on the spur of the moment.
Lord Mishcon: I appreciate the progressive intervention of my noble friend, but it could very well be that it is most interesting for the police—and they usually compile them—to have statistics as to the number of people in a demonstration. I always notice that the numbers seem to differ between those given by the organisers of a demonstration, who talk in many thousands, and those given by the police, who talk in as many hundreds. Nevertheless, we are always interested to know that. I am sure that one day somebody will argue—I hope not effectively—that, because of the interference with transport, demonstrations should be limited, should go off main roads, and so on; but without these statistics one cannot do anything.
May I, in answer to the noble Lord—and I am not taking this any further—point out that it is all very well to say that some of us may have been delayed, or none of us has been delayed, by a road block, to our inconvenience; but it is quite obvious that if road blocks take place there will be people who are inconvenienced. I remember so vividly what happens in Brighton on a bank holiday. If we are to have road blocks on a bank holiday because Brighton is to be known as a pattern of crime area, I assure the noble Baroness that there may well be objections by

57
motorists; but you cannot argue if you do not have the facts.
Lord Hooson: I should like to say from these Benches that we find it difficult to get steamed up about road blocks. There are many important matters in this Bill that excite our interest, and this whole matter ought to be put into perspective. Road blocks are not often introduced into this country, and when they are it is usually in a very serious situation. The Government have probably got it about right. We could spend a great deal of time on the details, but there must be a limit to the amount of bureaucracy that we place on the shoulders of the police; and I should have thought that on this part of the Bill we ought not to take it any further.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: Chastened by those words of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, we on these Benches certainly do not regard this as a matter of the utmost importance. I accept that there is a great deal of force in what the Minister said in that, by and large, road blocks have been conducted for decades in the United Kingdom without there being any great public outcry about them. But it is the Government who, in Clause 5(3), make it incumbent upon a chief officer of police to report about these matters. If they were matters so utterly unimportant as the Minister might suggest, then there would be no reason for subsection (3). It is he and his honourable friends who have put in subsection (3), and it is on the basis of subsection (3) that we on this side suggested that there might be more meaningful information put in. I cannot strengthen my case without the sin of further repetition, and I do not intend to do that; nor do we intend to divide at this stage, though we might just about return to it on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Foot: Before we leave this clause, I wonder whether I may put a question to the Minister about subsection (3). I agree with what he said just now about its not being very informative for the public to be told how many vehicles were stopped, or the duration of the road check, but the two matters referred to in this subsection—that is, the reason for authorising each check and the result of each of them—are matters in which the public would be extremely interested. What I do not fully understand is what is meant by the words "the result of each". Do they mean that, if a road check is set up and nothing comes of it, it has to be stated that the road block was ineffective? That is not necessarily so. Do they mean that if somebody is arrested or some information is obtained by the road check, that is what is supposed to be given as a result of the road check, or what? I should like to know what the Government have in mind when they talk about "the result of each".
Lord Elton: Of course, a chief constable can say only what he knows, and if the result has been something which he does not know, such as the prevention of a crime which he was not to know was in preparation,
58
then he will not be able to put it in his report. But if a person is identified or a crime is solved, then obviously he will put that in the report. I do not doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would want him to say, "Lord Mishcon was made late for his dinner as well", if that was the result; but that is not what is meant by the Bill.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Statutory undertakers etc.]:
6.17 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 9, line 2, at end insert ("if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an arrestable offence has been or is intended to be committed".)
The noble Lord said: In Clause 6 there is a reference to statutory undertakers and I hasten at once to tell your Lordships that my understanding is that it does not refer to the Treasury. The statutory undertakers are police employed by statutory authorities; namely, the transport authorities and various other authorities which have police whom they administer. The extent of this clause is seen in, for example, subsection (3) which reads
"any person appointed under the Special Constables Act 1923 to be a special constable within any premises which are in the possession or under the control of British Nuclear Fuels Limited shall be deemed to be a constable deputed by a public department".
We are now dealing not with the police employed upon criminal matters in the normal course, not with the Metropolitan Police, and not with the police employed by county authorities.
Under this clause, the constables employed by the statutory undertakers may,
"stop, detain and search any vehicle … in the premises of the statutory undertakers through a designated exit."
There the provision ends. Especially because one is dealing with this class of constable, for whom I have nothing other than respect, but not with the constable whom we are normally dealing with under this Bill, your Lordships may well think that before such constables are given this power to stop and search vehicles, then at the very least within the wording of this amendment they must have,
"reasonable grounds for suspecting that an arrestable offence has been or is intended to be committed".
I stress the fact that in this amendment I have not said, "serious arrestable offence". I have said, "arrestable offence". I have not said that a crime has been committed; there have to be reasonable grounds for suspecting that a crime has been committed. I have even gone so far as to use that dreadful word, "intended" which was referred to earlier this afternoon. Therefore I have given the broadest possible power, within certain limitations, to the constables we are dealing with—the employees of the statutory undertakers. But there must be some stop upon the all-pervasive power of constables employed by statutory undertakers to stop and search vehicles. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: I hope your Lordships will not accept the amendment. When I was very young I prosecuted many cases on behalf of the railway company. Their

59
constables are first rate. As constables, they have to take the oath. I wrote a police manual for them when I was very young. We must remember that with vehicles going in and out of the great goods depots of London there is bound to be colossal pilfering. Nobody knows the extent of it; it runs into millions of pounds. How is one to check it? The police officer at the gate of the depot cannot say that he has reasonable cause to suspect each vehicle. He has to make a random check. This is the only way to enforce discipline: not because you think that everybody is necessarily criminal but because you have to make a random check of certain vehicles in order to see that all is going well. The power which is given in the Bill seems to me to be just about right. No qualification of it is needed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: May I ask my noble friend the Minister about the words in the clause at the point at which it is proposed to add the amendment. It appears to limit the power of the constable to stop and search to cases where a vehicle leaves by a designated exit. If a vehicle were to leave other than by a designated exit—by a back door, by pushing down a fence or by some other irregular means of egress—surely there would be a still stronger argument for stopping and searching because it would seem, prima facie, quite likely that an offence was being committed. I cannot see the point, although there is no doubt a perfectly good answer, for limiting this power to cases where the leaving is by a designated exit.
Lord Renton: Would my noble friend agree that his argument would apply especially in those cases where the exit was marked, "No Exit"?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I, too, hope that these words will not be added. If they were included they could interfere with good management. The example given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is very clear. Another example would be hotel kitchens where, as part of good management, it is expected that people will have their bags looked at before they leave the hotel kitchen, otherwise all the staff in that kitchen are held responsible for any shortages which may arise. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said, the random check is accepted. It is sensible. If you have to suspect that somebody is a thief before you provide the necessary precautions in order to make certain that the hotel kitchen is properly run, it will be to the disadvantage of everybody concerned. These words would I believe cut across what is normal practice, which is part of the test of showing that it is reasonable and sensible.
Lord Inglewood: Am I not right in thinking that the powers contained in Clause 6 are all new powers? There is no reason for getting pressure up about this. The power to stop, search and detain is a power which has existed for such undertakers for a very long time.
Baroness Trumpington: Subsection (1) deals with the search powers which are necessary to prevent and detect crime in the premises of statutory undertakers—as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, in the premises of railways, docks or harbours. The
60
powers conferred by the clause will be exercised only by constables employed by the statutory undertaker, such as the Port of London police or the British Transport police, and will not affect the general public. They will be used to ensure that stolen goods are not smuggled out in goods vehicles by allowing regular checks to take place. I am most grateful for the words of the noble and learned Lord. Lord Denning, who justifies the present state of the Bill.
As is explained in the note on this clause, in order to deter and limit theft in premises such as railways and docks where substantial quantities of goods are stored and handled, it is conventional for a system to be employed under which the details of the authorised movement of any goods are entered on a pass given to the driver of the goods vehicle carrying them. All vehicles leaving the premises, or designated warehousing area within them, are then liable to be checked by the undertaking's police force to establish whether the goods on them match the pass. If, in answer to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the vehicle tried to leave through an undesignated exit, the power under Clause 1 would apply and there would be reasonable suspicion. I hope that answers my noble friend's point.
I do not believe it is necessary that such searches should require reasonable suspicion that the individual vehicle concerned is carrying stolen or prohibited goods. Clause 6 accordingly differs from Clause 1 in not incorporating the reasonable suspicion test as well as in extending beyond public places. However, I ask noble Lords to note that the power which it confers is confined to vehicles. If a constable employed by the relevant undertaking proposes to search any person in the vehicle, the test of reasonable suspicion must be satisfied and the search must be recorded in accordance with Clause 3.
There is clear precedent for such powers in the form of Section 27(2) of the Aviation Security Act 1982. This provides for the searching of vehicles leaving the cargo areas of certain airports. The important point about this power is that it does not depend upon reasonable suspicion of the individual concerned. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would impose a reasonable suspicion test in the form of a requirement that there be such suspicion that an arrestable offence has been or is intended to be committed. But it is of the essence of the Clause 6 power, like that under the 1982 Act, that regular and random checks should take place. In their very nature, reasonable suspicion will not usually be present. The checks are preventative, not investigative.
This measure in the Bill is new, which is why, in answer to my noble friend, I have gone into it in rather more detail than probably I needed to do. In view of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope my noble friend will take her explanation a little further. As I understand it, if the vehicle which is suspect is coming out by the back door, to use a colloquialism, my noble friend's argument is that the powers under Clause 1 arise. Clause 1 deals with the exercise of powers by ordinary police constables whereas the clause we are discussing provides powers for the constables employed by the

61
statutory undertaking. I do not want to waste the time of the Committee by pressing this point further, but I suggest to my noble friend that she and her noble friend ought to look at the words, "through a designated exit" in Clause 7 and see not only whether they serve any useful purpose but whether they are not perhaps positively dangerous.
Baroness Trumpington: In answer to my noble friend I would point out that in Clause 5(1) he will find that one has to have reasonable suspicion, and the taking of a lorry through a back door would seem to me to be grounds for reasonable suspicion and for stopping and searching the vehicle.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps my noble friend will reconsider whether the words "by a designated exit" are necessary and, if they are not, will consider removing them at a later stage. With reference to my noble friend's comment about Clause 5, in that clause one is concerned with an ordinary policeman and not with a constable employed by a statutory undertaker. With respect, my noble friend has not answered my point.
Baroness Trumpington: I have now been given a translation. Statutory undertakers' constables may exercise the power because they are constables, as I thought I had said before. They can exercise the power to stop and search because they are constables, as well as being railway or port authority constables.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Can my noble friend then explain why the words "by a designated exit" are in the Bill? If she is right on that point, then that is wholly unnecessary verbiage.
Lord Elton: It is simply a question that Clause 1 contains a specific power where an offence is suspected, and Clause 6 contains a random power which is not given to constables generally, but is given to constables in this particular circumstance. The random power applies to the designated exit because the constable can then stop a vehicle leaving on a random basis. If the vehicle is leaving from a "No Exit" exit, then he does not need that power because he already has ample grounds for suspecting an offence.
Lord Renton: Would it not be enough to say,
"before it leaves a goods area included in the premises of the statutory undertakers"?
That is all one needs.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: I only want to say, apropos nothing in particular, that none of the undertakers with whom I have dealings employs constables. Thank heaven they do not, because we are told quite enough what to do without their having the law behind them.
Baroness Trumpington: As I said, this is a new measure and we are quite prepared to look at that part of the clause again, if the Committee wish.
Lord Mishcon: When the noble Baroness was courteous enough to answer my speech, I heard from
62
this side of the Dispatch Box the remark, "My turn has come". May I congratulate her? I want to tell her here and now that the answer she gave me as to why the words in question were omitted from the Bill was a very satisfactory one. I heard the point and it has sunk home. From that point of view, I can well understand why the words have been omitted and I shall be happy to say something in a moment about applying for leave.
Only so that the debate will be complete on this matter, I should myself like to contribute to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I shall do it in a different way and, therefore, probably quite wrongly. Before I do so, I recall that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was reminiscing that in years gone by he prosecuted for the railway police. I also have the uptmost admiration for them because for a period of many years I happened to be their legal adviser. I, too, had precisely the same high opinion of them as did the noble and learned Lord.
In regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—and I bring this forward only so that it may be dealt with subsequently, in general consideration, I should have thought that if a vehicle is seen leaving by a non-designated exit, there would be reasonable grounds for suspecting that a crime was about to be committed, or had been committed, and therefore it would not require any power under this statute. Any ordinary civilian could himself stop the vehicle and call for an arrest: it would not call for any special power in those circumstances. I throw that point into the arena so that it may be gathered up together with the others. No doubt we shall hear about it at some later stage, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Part I—supplementary]:
6.35 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 9, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I am delighted to preface my remarks by saying that this is a probing amendment and therefore I ask for the Committee's sympathy in the course of the probe. We are faced with a subsection which I venture to believe will not meet with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, whom I would ask merely to resume his seat in order to see whether or not he supports me. If he decides not to support me, then I will give him leave to depart from the Chamber immediately.
The words which face us by way of legislation and which the police are supposed to understand, which laymen are supposed to understand, and which your Lordships are supposed to understand, are these:
"(2) There shall also cease to have effect—
(a) so much of any enactment contained in an Act passed before 1974, other than"—
and I assume, from that point of view, that we have to go back to the beginnings of Parliament—

"(i) an enactment contained in a public general Act; or

(ii) an enactment relating to statutory undertakers, as confers power on a constable to search for stolen or unlawfully obtained goods; and

63
(b) so much of any enactment relating to statutory undertakers as provides that such a power shall not be exercisable after the end of a specified period."
What kind of research are your Lordships required to make in order to be satisfied that you know what you are passing when this subsection gets into an Act of Parliament? I venture to tell the Committee that I have myself tried to undertake a little research. I finished up somewhere around the middle of the eighteenth century, but felt that I had still not completed my labours.
This clause cannot stand as it is, I should have thought. But as I said, this is a probing amendment, and it may be that we shall have explained to us two points: first, what this wording means; and, secondly, why this provision cannot be explained more simply and clearly.
Lord Renton: I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, not only for drawing our attention to this rather strange subsection, but also for intercepting my departure from the Chamber in order to attend a public function—which, alas, I have to do tonight. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take careful note of what the noble Lord has said. It is a very strange provision, and indeed subsection (2)(a) seems to be a roundabout way of doing what is normally done in a statute law revision Act. It is a very unsatisfactory way because we do not really know what we are doing. It would be only one of those computers—on which. I am happy to say, many statutes are now recorded—which could give the answer to this: and I do not believe that the computer would find it easy.
Baroness Trumpington: I rise to try to serve as an interpreter. Subsection (2) distinguishes three categories of enactment conferring on constables powers of stop and search: public general Acts, Acts relating to statutory undertakers as defined in subsection (3), and other Acts. As to public Acts, the subsection has the effect of preserving powers of stop and search, other than those listed for repeal in subsection (1), which are either obsolete or superseded by Clause 1. As to statutory undertakers, the subsection provides that powers of stop and search conferred in relation to statutory undertakings should continue in force without limit of time. Some, but not all of, such powers are at present so framed that they lapse after a certain date unless re-enacted.
For example, the powers of stop and search in relation to railway premises conferred on the British Transport Police by Section 54(3) of the British Transport Commission Act 1949, which have been periodically re-enacted, are now in force until 1985. Subsection (2) provides that all such powers now in existence should no longer need periodic renewal, and I think that that is a very good principle. As to Acts promoted by local authorities, subsection (2) repeals powers of stop and search conferred by all such Acts passed before 1974, which are, in any event, due to lapse (unless re-enacted) on 3rd December 1984 by virtue of Section 269(9) of the Local Government Act 1972. The powers of stop and search conferred by local Acts passed since 1974, which relate to
64
Merseyside and the West Midlands, are repealed by subsection (1).
This amendment would delete this repeal provision. As far as statutory undertakers are concerned, the powers of stop and search have always been re-enacted and are provided for specific purposes. They have proved their usefulness, and I really do not see why we should insist that they be re-enacted from time to time. I believe that we can now be satisfied, for example, that the powers of stop and search exercised by the British Transport police to which I have already referred are necessary and will remain so for the foreseeable future. All these powers will in future be subject to the safeguards contained in Clauses 2 and 3.
So far as other private Acts are concerned, the existing powers are replaced by the powers conferred in Clause 1. They are no longer needed and I would advise your Lordships to agree to their repeal as is provided by this subsection. Following my remarks, I hope that the noble Lords whose names are attached to this amendment will agree to withdraw it.
Lord Renton: I venture to suggest that, despite that painstaking explanation which my noble friend has been so good as to give to your Lordships, it really comes to this. It would be much simpler to repeal the various measures which the Government suggest do not need to remain on the statute book. We have already got a very lengthy repealing schedule, as is usual in cases like this, and to add another page, or even two pages, to its length would not matter greatly. But, if she can tell us that the various measures are already contained in the repealing statute, let us make that clear in this subsection.
Baroness Trumpington: May I just say that on drafting grounds we are willing to look at this matter again?
Lord Mishcon: I hope I shall not appear discourteous if I add the words, "So I should hope!" I do ask leave to withdraw in view of the fact that the noble Baroness the Minister has said that this drafting is going to be looked at again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Power of justice of the peace to authorise entry and search of premises]:
The Deputy Chairman (Lord Ampthill): Before calling Amendment No. 48: I should point out that, if the Committee agrees to it. I cannot call Amendments Nos. 49 or 50.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 10, line 4, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("(1) A constable may for the purposes of criminal investigation obtain access to material which is likely to be relevant evidence, other than material which consists of items subject to legal privilege, by making an application under Schedule 1 below and in accordance with that Schedule.").
The noble Lord said: I should be very grateful if I may speak in relation to Amendments Nos. 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58 at the same time as dealing with Amendment No. 48.
Amendment No. 50: Page 10, line 4, leave out ("a justice of the peace") and insert ("a person empowered to exercise the jurisdiction of a circuit judge")
Amendment No. 53: Clause 9, page 10, line 38, leave out subsection (1).
Amendment No. 54: Page 11, line 7, leave out from ("material") to end of paragraph (c).
Amendment No. 55: Schedule 1, page 99, line 11, leave out ("special procedure").
Amendment No. 56: Page 99, line 13, leave out ("special procedure").
Amendment No. 57: Page 99, line 17, leave out ("special procedure").
Amendment No. 58: Page 99, line 18, at end insert—
("and
(v) that it does not consist of items subject to legal privilege or excluded material").
Lord Elton: May I ask the noble Lord whether it is therefore his intention not to speak either to Amendment No. 59 or to Clause 14 stand part, just so that I do not get lost?
Lord Elystan-Morgan: Not on Clause 14 stand part, but certainly in relation to Amendment No. 59. I am grateful to the Minister. That should be added to that fairly lengthy list that I threatened to deal with.
Amendment No. 59: Page 99, line 32, leave out ("or special procedure material").
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I can assure the Committee these amendments are not as complicated as they seem. I think that they can be summarised in this way. The main amendment is Amendment No. 48. The effect of accepting Amendment No. 48 would be to impose in two situations the very careful provisions of Schedule 1 to the Bill. This deals with the special procedures, first, in relation to the authorising of entry and search of premises, and, secondly, as is already the case in the Bill in relation to the powers that are contained in Clause 9 of the Bill—that is, access to excluded material and special procedure material. Certainly, that is so so far as special procedure material—that is, the second part of Clause 9—is concerned.
If Amendment No. 48, which is the wide-net provision, were to be carried, Amendment No. 50 would not he necessary. Amendment No. 50, however, is a more modest alternative to Amendment No. 48 and would make it necessary, before even a power of entry to premises was granted, for an application to be made either to a circuit judge or to a recorder or an assistant recorder. The other amendments are all consequential upon Amendment No. 48.
The powers of entry that are contained in Clause 8 are a very serious invasion of privacy. This has been readily accepted by the Royal Commission, and indeed so much emphasis did the Royal Commission place upon this particular matter that, in Chapter 3.42, the Royal Commission recommended in these terms:
"A compulsory power of search for evidence should be available only as a last resort. It should be granted only in exceptional circumstances and in respect only of grave offences. The seriousness of the intrusion could also be marked by making the issuing authority a circuit judge."
It is on that basis that we put forward these amendments. The special procedures are carefully
66
drafted to ascertain that they only apply within those highly justifiable circumstances that are defined in Schedule 1. I shall not go into the detail of those. Furthermore, one very important aspect as noble Lords will know, is that, where the special procedure applies, it is necessary for notice to be given to the person who is the owner or the occupier of the premises—in other words, that the application should be inter parses. Where the special procedure does not apply, then of course the application can be made without notice being given and without, indeed, the owner or occupier of the premises being aware of such application being made.
The position under Clause 8 as it now stands is that the application to enter premises to search for the most intimate material is to be made not to a circuit judge but to a justice of the peace. Secondly, that application, as I understand it, does not have to be made in open court but can be made quite privately.
Let me assure the Committee that I in no way seek to minimise the tremendous contribution made to the administration of justice by our lay magistracy nor, indeed, to cast the slightest doubts upon the competence and the integrity and the standing of that lay magistracy, which we know is responsible for the disposal of something like 96 per cent. of all criminal cases that come before our courts.
But the case that we put forward from these Benches is this. There are circumstances where a private conversation—for that is what we envisage it could well be—between a police officer and a justice of the peace is not the appropriate tribunal for deciding grave and weighty matters which are involved in the provisions of Clause 8—namely, the question whether private premises should be searched in the terms envisaged by this particular provision. The Royal Commission appreciated the importance of it. The Royal Commission, which I am sure had as much respect for the magistracy as any body could have, dealt with a not dissimilar situation, or at least a comparable situation, in Chapter 3. paragraph 33, of its report. There is dealt with the question of whether or not an application should he made to a magistrates' court before a road block is set up. We have just been dealing with that in Clause 4. The report reads:
"One of our number takes the view that in relation to this and a number of other powers the police should be required to obtain the authorisation of a magistrate's warrant, so that the use of the power could not become too common. The police should not be able to undertake such activity on their own authority and without outside scrutiny."
There then follow these words:
"The rest of us consider that for operational matters such as this the magistrates can do little other than endorse a policy request".
That is not to say that magistrates would be acting other than with total integrity in the matter. But the point is made by the Royal Commission that there is a danger that a magistrate, sitting alone and in private, would say to himself, "Well, this police officer is a decent chap. I have known him for many years. He is a competent fellow. He knows what he is talking about. He wants to exercise these powers and I do not see why I should not allow him so to act". In short, that is the case against allowing the matter to be decided, privily almost, by a justice of the peace.

67
The alternative is that the special procedures should be invoked: we say that in Amendment No. 48. If the Committee were to say, "No, those are too elaborate"—and we see no reason why the Committee should say that—then Amendment No. 50 is the alternative. Amendment No. 50 stipulates that all applications should be made to,
"a person empowered to exercise the jurisdiction of a circuit judge".
It has been deliberately drafted in that way so that it enables the applications to be heard not just by a circuit judge, but also by a recorder or an assistant recorder; with both of those of course exercising the full jurisdiction of a circuit judge. Therefore, in our respectful submission, there is no paucity of persons who could hear such applications. They deal with grave and weighty matters. They involve massive trespasses upon private liberty. There are some very subtle, complicated and convoluted issues to be considered.
I ask the Committee to bear in mind for a moment the matters that are dealt with in Clause 8(1). The justice of the peace would have to be satisfied that,
"a serious arrestable offence had been committed".
That, in my submission, involves the consideration of some very weighty matters of law. Secondly, he must be satisfied,
"that there is material on premises specified in the application which is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the investigation of the offence".
Again, that can be a very complicated task. Indeed, it might involve some understanding of what lawyers call "similar fact evidence".
Thirdly, he must be satisfied,
"that the material is likely to be relevant evidence".
In relation to that one has to read subsection 3, which states:
"'relevant evidence', in relation to an offence, means anything that would be admissible in evidence at a trial for the offence".
Is it right that an ordinary justice of the peace, however well versed in the usual matters dealt with by him in his normal jurisdiction, should have to decide such complicated matters of admissibility, as can so often arise in this respect?
There is endless detail which I could go into. There are many examples that I could tender for the attention of the Committee, but I do not do so because I think that the Committee is well aware of the principle which is here at stake. There is no power of appeal and no provision for challenging the decision of the magistrate under Clause 8. That, we say, is in itself a very considerable weakness, especially bearing in mind that in our law the most trivial decision of a magistrate is normally challengeable by way of appeal in the Crown Court. But there is no appeal here and, in any event, very probably appeal machinery, as such, would not be appropriate because by then the goods will have been seized and the police will be party to that information. We say that if the recommendation of the Royal Commission, solemnly considered before it was made, that the decision should be that of a professional judge is conceded, then that would be a proper substitute for appeal machinery. I beg to move.
Lord Hooson: The force of the argument of the noble Lord. Lord Elystan-Morgan, arises from the fact that the whole of Part II is so badly drawn up. It is very complicated and very difficult. How on earth a constable or a justice of the peace is to understand it, I do not know. I shall come to that argument presently on the Question whether the clause shall stand part. My noble friends and I considered it virtually impossible satisfactorily to amend this part of the Bill: that is, Clauses 8 to 14.
I am bound to say that I prefer the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, and his noble friends, rather than to leave the clause as at present drafted. Let us look at the power of entry in Part II, under the heading.
"Powers of Entry, Search and Seizure",
and simply take Clause 8(1)(d). We see that the magistrate has to consider,
"that it does not consist of items subject to legal privilege. excluded material or special procedure material".
Therefore, to what does the magistrate have to address his mind? He has to address his mind to the definition of "excluded material", which is in Clause 10. He has to consider Clause 11, which is headed:
"Meaning of 'items subject to legal privilege' ".
He has to consider other matters—the meaning of "special procedure material", and so on. He has to consider whether the application can be properly made to him, or whether it ought not to be made to the circuit judge. The whole matter is far too complicated. It is complicated enough for a circuit judge. It will be very difficult for the ordinary lay magistrate to follow if he is to discharge his duties correctly and properly. Therefore, I have to say that as this part of the Bill is drawn up at present there is a great deal to be said for the amendment.
Lord Denning: I hope that your Lordships will consider this amendment with much sympathy. It is a fundamental principle of our law, as has been said by Lord Coke, that,
"an Englishman's house is his castle",
not to be entered into by any authority, except by a proper warrant. Your Lordships may not remember the great case of the general warrants of 200 years ago when the Secretary of State ordered the King's messengers to go into the house of John Wilkes and seize all his private papers. They took them all away in a sack and his pocket-book filled the mouth of the sack. That is what the King's messengers did then.
In a great judgment Lord Camden declared that these general warrants were completely unlawful, and it was a power completely abhorrent to our English laws that a person should enter a man's house and seize his papers in that way. That has come down the centuries, but how it has been invaded!
What is clear now is that a search warrant should be issued only on judicial authority. That has been maintained in many statutes. I have to say that there is power given in statute after statute for a search warrant on application by a constable to a magistrate. Indeed, those warrants are given in cases where there are stolen goods, drugs and explosives—prohibited articles. In the appendix to the Royal Commission

69
report there are 10 pages concerning search warrants under various statutes that can be given by the magistrates on application for searches to be made for such prohibited articles. That is by a magistrate.
What the Royal Commission was considering was the further step—not in order to look for or to seize prohibited articles but to search for relevant evidence, such as the murder weapon, the blackmailer's notes, or, it went on to say, for fraud or deception in company accounts, and the like. That is relevant evidence, which is very different from prohibited articles. In that respect the Royal Commission said that we must be very careful, and we ought to have the judicial authority of a circuit judge before that is done. It makes that perfectly clear.
The Royal Commission drew attention to the large category which I mentioned:
"The existing powers are mainly confined to entry and search for items which it is an offence knowingly to possess (we refer to these as prohibited goods): for example, stolen goods, drugs, firearms, and explosives. We reaffirm the principle of the present law that such powers are justified and should be retained".
We find that preserved by the very last subsection here. All the existing powers are retained. Clause 8 is dealing with the exceptional powers to search for relevant evidence, such as I mentioned before—company documents, murder weapons, or the like.
This is what the Royal Commission says about that:
"A compulsory power of search for evidence should be available only as a last resort. It should be granted only in exceptional circumstances and in respect only of grave offences. The seriousness of the intrusion could also be marked by making the issuing authority a circuit judge".
Let me give an illustration which we had in the courts only three or four years ago. A statute gave to the revenue authorities a power to search for documents which they thought might be evidence of a tax fraud. That was the wording of the statute. Without any notice to the company—this is the Rosminster case—or the individuals, they mounted a military-style operation by which 70 or more civil servants went to the company's premises, ransacked them and took 13 vanloads of documents to their own premises to search and ransack through them. That was not done by any warrant issued by a magistrate. It was on an application to a circuit judge. It happened to be the Common Serjeant of the City of London. An application was made to him and he granted it. In the Court of Appeal we held that that was invalid, but the House of Lords held that that was right because the statute permitted it—only because the statute permitted it.
Clause 8 is really only an extension. It is not really stating the whole law. It is filling in a gap which existed before. I should have thought that the right thing was to fill in gaps for exceptional circumstances. The proper course is, as the Royal Commission said, to make application to a circuit judge for that purpose. It is all the more important when, as has been said, it is so complicated.
The person hearing the application has to consider whether it is an arrestable offence. He has to consider all these details. An ordinary magistrate is not the sort of person whom you would expect to do that. He may have his clerk with him, but this is such a complicated procedure that it ought not in this case to be a
70
magistrate. I would suggest that it should be a circuit judge, his deputy, or another alternative, as the case may be.
In other words it would be a good thing not to have this special procedure—we are coming on to that—but this is an exceptional class of search. It is a search not for offending documents or prohibited goods but for evidence. It will often be, I am afraid, a search of documents and papers to see whether there is any incriminating stuff there; or, on the other hand, whether there is any excluding material. All that should be dealt with not by an ordinary magistrate but by a circuit judge, as the Royal Commission recommended.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: We have had very sound advice from our legal colleagues. The point ought to be reinforced by the Committee noting the fact that one does not need legal training to see that Clause 8 is putting much too onerous a burden on the average magistrate. One has only to read it to know that. If it is necessary to consider all the evidence that is set out in the clause before permission is given for the search, the person considering all the intricacies should be someone who is more competent than the normal magistrate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said that no doubt the magistrate would have his clerk beside him: but the clause as it stands does not include even that protection. It says that the magistrate sitting alone in his own house can make the decision. We do not even have that protection.
I merely want to say to my noble friend that, in the light of all that we have heard, I feel that Amendment No. 50 at least should be included. I do not know enough about the matter to comment on whether we should have Amendment No. 48. But on the evidence that we have heard—my noble friend points to her watch; yes, I can tell the time. I am perfectly capable of doing that. I think that the issues involved in this clause need the support of more than one side of this Committee. That is what I wish to do, in the absence of any other noble Lord making that contribution.
Amendment No. 50 would seem to be the minimum that should be included in the Bill if this sort of burden is to be put on anybody who is to make the decision that the evidence calls for.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I wanted to say a word or two, but before my noble friend replies, let me say only this. May I ask him, please, not to refer to "ordinary magistrates", as other Members of the Committee have done? We are not ordinary.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Unusual.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: We are not unusual either. We are hard-working, unpaid people, who have very many years of experience behind us.
Lord Elton: I am obliged to both my noble friends for giving both perspectives on this issue. I do not hold it against either of them that they have intervened.
Noble Lords have rested part of their case on the complexity of Clause 8, which requires a magistrate to

71
consider whether the material for which a constable seeks a search warrant is sought under circumstances where it is reasonable to suppose that a serious arrestable offence has taken place (and that is not a difficult matter); that the material on the premises specified in the application would be of substantial value to the investigation of the offence (and that is not a difficult matter); and that the material is likely to be relevant evidence (that is not a difficult matter). All those aspects are points to which the magistrates are accustomed to addressing themselves.
There is a further requirement that the magistrate shall decide whether or not the material falls into any of three categories which are described in subsequent clauses of the Bill—accurately listed by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. If they do, they will proceed no further because it is no business of theirs. If they do not, there is requirement on the magistrate to consider whether any of the conditions under subsection (2) apply. Those are really conditions which say that it is necessary to proceed by a warrant and that no other method will do.
So although I accept that there is intricacy in the provisions, I think that the Committee will agree with me that the only intricacy lies in the interpretation of the three categories with which a magistrate is not empowered to deal. Those categories are set out in clauses to which we shall shortly address ourselves, which are listed, and to clauses dependent on them. I say that by way of preface because I do not think that now is the time to embark on an exposition of the way the whole of the part of the Act works. I do not think that that would be too difficult but it is not the appropriate time. With regard to that objection to the Bill as it is drafted, it merely lies on me to say that if there are complexities they lie after Clause 8. It will be proper for the Committee to try and set them right in those clauses.
I therefore have to turn to the principal issue which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, with his usual and incomparable lucidity, introduced with a name which I am happy to assure him is familiar to historians as well as to lawyers. That is the case of Wilkes. It was indeed a watershed if it was not also a turning point—whether or not the two can be combined I do not know. However, I think it stood in a different order of importance from the issues which we are now considering.
I know that the noble and learned Lord may not agree with me but I will ask him to bear with me for a moment. The amendment before the Committee seeks to provide that applications for search warrants under Clause 8 are heard by circuit judges or their equivalents rather than magistrates. The rest of the amendments go further and provide the protection at present given only to special procedure material to any evidence, provided it is not exluded or legally privileged. This was of course the recommendation as I acknowledge, made by the Royal Commission in paragraph 3.42 of its Report; and the Committee will know that in the case of material which is held on a confidential basis we agree with the Commission that the possibility of interference with contractual or ethical obligations requires a hearing at judicial level.
72
We believe however that where considerations of confidentiality and hence of public policy do not arise, there is no need for the kind of safeguards, including the involvement of the judiciary, contemplated by the Commission. Indeed, serious anomalies would arise if the new power to search for evidence were divorced from existing powers of search under a magistrate's warrant. Parliament has entrusted the power to hear search warrant applications to the magistracy for over 100 years. Magistrates are people of great experience. Existing provisions enable magistrates to issue warrants to seize a wide range of unlawful articles and evidence of a wide range of offences. But it is by now well known that there are gaps in these provisions. For example, there is provision for the issue of a warrant in relation to offences of criminal damage but not to offences against the person. This is because the law has developed piece by piece, and as legislation has been introduced powers of search under warrant have been included as and where they have been considered necessary. In the case of the major offences of violence and dishonesty either there has never been such legislation (and the offences remain at common law); or the basic legislation precedes modern conceptions of the role of the police in investigating crime and the growth of organised crime, and the opportunity has not been taken when offences have been redefined and new offences created to hold a systematic review of the investigative powers necessary for effective enforcement.
It is agreed that there are gaps in the law and that the Bill can and does fill them. But it does not provide the new departure, the as yet untested power that some of its critics appear to attribute to it. The power for the police to enter and search the premises of someone not suspected of any involvement in crime is already on the statute book and already in use. It is provided in the Theft Act 1968, which recognises that stolen property may be secreted on the premises of people completely unimplicated in the crime in question. The noble Lord may say, "That is a power to search for the proceeds of crime. I am concerned with evidence". In that case, I must refer the noble Lord, for instance, to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 13 years ago. That gives a power to search for evidence whether or not the owner or occupant of the premises is involved in the crime. Therefore if the argument in favour of the amendment is to be that it is the novelty of the power which I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, describe as a massive trespass on the private individual, if it is the novelty of that power that justifies the amendment, then of course the justification must fall.
However, let me re-assure the Committee by another example. Section 6 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 empowers a magistrate to issue a search warrant in respect of anything which has been used to cause criminal damage, which might easily be an article which a suspected offender had borrowed from and returned to a third party with no knowledge of the offence. So the fact that Clause 8 is cast in terms of evidence of crime, and a huge range of things could in certain circumstances constitute such evidence, is no reason itself to depart from the principle that the normal issuing authority for search warrants is a magistrate, bearing in mind also the considerable new

73
safeguards imported into the procedures for applications for and the execution of search warrants by Clauses 15 and 16 and the draft code of practice. If the amendment were accepted it would result in strange anomalies so that, for instance, the police, on a magistrate's warrant, would be able to search a casino for evidence of an infringement of the Gaming Act but they would require a judge's warrant to search the same casino for evidence that the staff had burnt down a rival establishment.
The arguments against these amendments were aptly and cogently summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when we considered a similar amendment during Committee stage on the Video Recordings Bill. The noble Lord then pointed out that Parliament was either right or wrong to give a magistrate the right not only to convict of quite serious offences but also to send citizens to prison. That right was given as a result of our faith in their judgment and impartiality. Parliament was either right or wrong about that. As the noble Lord said, if Parliament was right about that, then is not a magistrate able to be trusted to make a decision about the question of search of premises? The noble Lord considered that it was right in the case of video recordings, and I hope that, with his assistance already so ably if unsuspectingly given, I can persuade your Lordships that it is also right in this case. If I am wrong—if he fails—I shall welcome him in the Division Lobby if the Bell rings.
Let me add this argument which the noble Lord also advanced. The right of search will often be useless if it is long postponed. Normally it is of value if expeditious action follows. While it may and should be perfectly easy to find a magistrate to hear an application, it may not be very easy to find a circuit judge as a matter of urgency.
These are powerful arguments which in my opinion apply to this Bill even more strongly than they did to the Video Recordings Bill where of course they were very much better put. Here we are dealing with evidence of serious crime. The points made by the noble Lord on that occasion helped persuade the Committee that a magistrate should be empowered to issue search warrants under the Video Recordings Bill, and I hope that they will be equally efficacious on this occasion.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord the Minister has been most courteous in his reference to my utterances. He might as well inform the Committee that, on that occasion, he differed from me.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, with great charm, mildly chastised me and a number of other noble Lords who had used the term "ordinary magistrates". We did so as mere lawyers, drawing a distinction between stipendiary magistrates and those who do not belong to the stipendiary magistracy.
I shall not try to meet every argument made by the Minister. They were clever arguments. They were technical arguments. But, in my respectful submission, they did not meet the principle. That was dealt with by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who appreciates that a principle of massive worth. a principle that involves the whole issue of
74
human liberty and the sanctity of privacy, is at stake. I do not think that I need say more, other than to remark that I was enthralled and inspired by the speech of the noble and learned Lord and that it has made us all the more determined to press this matter to a Division. I shall therefore seek to move Amendment No. 50. The other amendments to which I have spoken will not be moved. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 48.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 10, line 4, after ("constable") insert ("with not less than four years' service").
The noble Lord said: We are still dealing with Clause 8—a sensitive part of the Bill. This amendment could have wider applications than in the narrower sense it has as now printed. It limits certain jurisdiction of less experienced police constables. I should like my noble friend the Minister to consider whether a check such as I suggest is appropriate. The tasks of a young police constable are accepted by everyone to be difficult. It is always hoped when a young police constable is out on duty that there can be dual manning, but it is not always possible. I can assure noble Lords that I shall take no longer than noble Lords opposite, and that my remarks will be brief.
However, dual manning is not always possible, and a young constable may be called upon to exercise his full powers from the first half-hour. We have the shortest training period in Europe, while police duties are becoming more exacting. When dealing with searches of private property, the problems can be extremely complicated. A precedent exists whereby a young man, up to the end of his two-year British probation period, has certain checks on his jurisdiction. If we look further afield we see that there are other European countries where similar checks apply. I should like the Government to consider whether it might not be possible to limit the powers of the very young constables and to have such matters handled only by older, or experienced, constables. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I am sure your Lordships will agree that the application should not be made lightly. Your Lordships have already made that clear. The power to enter and search the premises of someone who may himself be innocent of any involvement in crime is a necessary, but also coercive, one. I do not disagree that only experienced officers should decide that an application for such a warrant be made. However, I am not sure that my noble friend is right in the way that he seeks to bring it about. The fundamental safeguard is that of the scrutiny of the application by a magistrate. If a premature or unnecessary application is made, then the magistrate may, and should, dismiss it. But the question of which officer makes an application can properly be dealt with, as an essentially operational matter, in the code of practice for the searching of premises which the Home Secretary will be required to issue under Clause 63.
The search code printed in the booklet already available begins on page 50. Paragraph 1.4 states that,
"No application for a search warrant may be made without the authority of an officer of at least the rank of inspector (or, in a case of

75
urgency where no officer of this rank is readily available, the senior officer on duty). No application for a production order under Schedule 1 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 may be made without the authority of an officer of at least the rank of superintendent".
Clause 64(8) states that an officer who breaches the codes will be liable to disciplinary proceedings.
My noble friend will see that this is a more restrictive provision than what he proposes. And the requirement that an application for a search warrant must be authorised by an officer of at least inspector rank applies not only to applications for warrants under Clause 8, but to all warrants. I hope that provides him with the reassurance he wants.
Lord Inglewood: I am glad that my noble friend accepts the principle. I have not heard it debated in the Chamber previously, on other Bills. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. However, should I see any further opportunity on this Bill or later, I may raise the matter again.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 50:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Lord Elton: In two minutes, I want to clarify one point because the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, courteously but effectively, swept aside everything that I had said. The noble Lord remarked that I was concerned with clever technicalities, that what mattered was the major issue and that the major issue was something new and terrifying. I listened with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. It seems to me, however, that the new issue is that we are about to take away from magistrates a power that they have had for 100 years in cases where there are serious arrestable offences. If that is really what the noble Lord asks us to do, I am sure that I shall have little difficulty in persuading your Lordships to disagree.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: The Royal Commission on this matter had no hesitation, having heard ample evidence all round. I doubt very much whether by this amendment we are in any way circumscribing the powers that magistrates already have. The ordinary power to issue a warrant to search for stolen goods, to search in relation to drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, to search in relation to firearms—all those powers will remain. Clause 8 proposes a power to snoop for evidence on private property. We say that that power should never be used until a judge has considered all the highly complicated and convoluted issues that are bound up with that matter. I see that the noble and learned Lord. Lord Denning, wishes to speak again. I am glad to give way.
Lord Denning: I should regret it if any of the existing powers of magistrates were taken away. I assumed that all existing powers remained absolutely intact by virtue of subsection (4), which states:
"The power to issue a warrant conferred by this section is in addition to any such power otherwise conferred".
76
Surely, that retains every existing power in all the statutes which have been given to magistrates down the years. I should very much regret any impairment of the powers of magistrates. I have the greatest respect for all that they have done. It is only because this is what I regard as an exceptional new power that I suggest that the application should be to a circuit judge.
7.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 50) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 68.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Amherst, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Attlee, E.

Lockwood, B.

Aylestone, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Barnett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Blease, L.

Meston, L.

Bottomley, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Brockway, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monson, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Collison, L.

Northfield, L.

Craigavon, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Denning, L.

Rhodes, L.

Diamond, L.

Rochester, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Shackleton, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stallard, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Stedman, B.

Foot, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Gifford, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stone, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hunt, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham E.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Jeger, B.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Atholl, D.

Digby, L.

Auckland, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Avon, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Eccles, V.

Bellwin, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Beloff, L.

Elton, L.

Belstead, L.

Faithfull, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gisborough, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Cairns, E.

Gridley, L.

Caithness, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Cathcart, E.

Halsbury, E.

Chelwood, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Coleraine, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Colwyn, L.

Inglewood, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Killearn, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kilmany, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kintore, E.

77

Lane-Fox, B.

Plant, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Long, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sharples, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Sudeley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Merrivale, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Middleton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Moloson, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Munster, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Orkney, E.

Wise, L.

Pender, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.37 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Lord Denham: On the Motion that the House be resumed, it should be said, for the benefit of noble Lords who are interested in this Bill, that we shall not resume the Committee stage before 8.30.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Agricultural Holdings Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS AND AMENDMENTS TO BE MOVED TO CERTAIN COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to [Bill 110] as first printed for the Commons]

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 1, page 2, line 11, after ("holding") insert ("and its related earning capacity").
2 line 14, leave out (" "productive capacity", in relation to the holding") and insert (", relating to the holding—
(a) "productive capacity" ")
3 line 20, at end insert—
("; and
(b) "related earning capacity" means the extent to which, in the light of that productive capacity, a competent tenant practising such a system of farming could reasonably be expected to profit from farming the holding.").
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 en bloc. Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 introduce specific reference to "earning capacity" in relation to the productive capacity of the holding, but without preventing an arbitrator from taking account of earnings from non-farming activities as a relevant factor. This in no way changes the terms of the rent
78
formula adopted by your Lordships' House on Report, but clarifies the position in relation to earning capacity.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, your Lordships will know that when the Bill was first brought before us it contained this provision. I do not know the nature of the persuasion or the blandishments that came from behind the noble Lord, but they succeeded in removing the provision. I have here about 36 columns of Hansard containing argument that seeks to bring it back in again. When one thinks of the amount of time, paper and everything else that has been spent to put back something which the noble Lord took out, it seems to be slightly ridiculous. However, that was what was required in the agreement between the NFU and the CLA. I should have thought that to leave it out and to say nothing about earnings would have simply broken the pact that was made between the two bodies.
Perhaps I may show how necessary it is to include this provision. At the Report stage in another place it was said that because of the milk quota a situation could arise today in which a landlord who has let a farm as a dairy farm is told by a tenant, "I have been very badly hit by this milk quota and will not manage to make a profit in milking cows, so I want to go out of dairy farming". If the landlord refuses that request, a very difficult situation will arise. Not many cases such as that will arise, but they could. It is absolutely essential that this provision is included, and we are glad that ultimately the Government gave way and put it back in the three amendments which the noble Lord has just moved.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, when Ministers have to eat their words it is very often astonishing how they lack any sense of contrition. I suppose they always say, "It only goes to show how much we have listened to your Lordships". But in this particular case the change of mind has been quite dramatic. This issue was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on 22nd November in the Committee proceedings. At col. 1 7 I of Hansard he said:
"The Bill should make it clear to all laymen that in assessing the rent to he paid the arbitrator must look not only at what the farm is doing in the hands of a competent tenant but what it might do in the hands of a similarly skilled farmer who might farm it in a more profitable manner".
The noble Earl was talking about the earning potential of the holding when he made that speech; but the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said, "This is terribly dangerous heresy; it is radical nonsense." He said that this would leave it open for the rent to be assessed on the basis of the farmer using extreme methods—he used the phrase "any methods"—which would make the farm more profitable.
Of course, that is precisely what it will do. It will introduce more of the free market, which the noble Lord has been resisting throughout. I am astonished that my noble friend Lord John-Mackie is so fond of this. It will bring into the rent assessment the issue of what the farmer could do if he wished, if he had more capital, or whatever, to make the farm more

79
profitable. That issue must be taken into account when assessing the rent.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was strong in his recommendation. It is sad that he has been nobbled and made a Minister so that he cannot be present tonight to say how delighted he is that his Minister is now accepting what he turned down at the Committee stage of the Bill. Even the Liberal Benches and the Social Democratic Benches, which are now deserted, were united in opposing this issue at the Committee stage. Perhaps I may quote what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said at col. 173 of Hansard on 22nd November. The noble Lord said:
"I think that it would be very wrong to have rents assessed on some theoretical potential which a well equipped, highly skilled and specialist tenant could make use of".
With great respect, that is what the amendment will now do. These issues on what the farm can produce with a suitable system of farming, undefined—because the new Section 8(4), set out in Clause 1, says:
"practising a system of farming suitable to the holding",
which might be more intensive than the present tenant's farming method—must be taken into account in fixing the rent. How right this amendment is! And with great respect, how wrong the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was to resist exactly this amendment when it was moved at the Committee stage by his noble friend.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, earning capacity is expressed in these amendments as being related to the productive capacity of the holding, and it is particularly defined in Amendment No. 3. As we have just been reminded, the question of earning capacity was discussed in the House at the Report stage, and the view was then taken that it was not necessary to include it in the Bill. However, I can see that there might be cases when the full productive capacity of a farm might not be capable of being realised through, for example, the operation of some quota mechanism. There might be a farm with a good potato-growing potential but where the tenant could not obtain a basic acreage allotment from the Potato Marketing Board, and in that case the earning capacity might not match the productive capacity of the farm. Therefore, my own view is that this amendment is acceptable.
In speaking just now to these amendments, my noble friend the Minister satisfied me on the question of unrelated earnings, but I should be very grateful if my noble friend would clarify this point and perhaps emphasise it for me. It would be perfectly possible for there to be a holding with an earning capacity not directly related to its productive capacity. The holding might be situated near a popular tourist resort, and there might be a good earning potential from, for instance, the provision of holiday accommodation. Surely that must be relevant to the rent assessment. However, from the wording of the first three amendments, at first sight, it seems that that should be disregarded by an arbitrator. That cannot be intended. I would assume that such a factor as I have described could be caught under those very useful words "all relevant factors", if not under the words:
"the character and situation of the holding (including the locality in which it is situated)".
80
I wonder whether my noble friend could give me that assurance.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this part of Clause 1, which gave rise to many hours of debate by all of us who are taking part in this final stage of the Bill, once again brings us back to a short but important exchange of views. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, whose expertise on these matters has been of the very greatest help in getting this Bill into shape, and with whom I usually agree, if he would look back over the previous proceedings in this House he will see that the alteration which he ascribes to the changes which the Bill has undergone in another place really has not quite had the effect that the noble Lord said it would. In other words, I am saying that when the Bill left this House it was perfectly possible for the productive capacity of the holding to be taken into account. The change which was made, and the amendments with which we are now dealing, include earning capacity as well. In another place right honourable and honourable Members felt that that change clarified the position relating to the rent formula.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, if the noble Lord would be kind enough to give way, perhaps I may ask him to look at Amendment No. 7, which was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on 22nd November last, which was:
"leave out ("productive") and insert ("potential productive and earning")".
That is exactly what the amendment before us wishes to do, and it is one which the noble Lord turned down.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the noble Lord looks back at those very long debates, I think he will find that at that time my noble friend Lord Caithness was trying to include earning capacity in all its various facets. That brings me to the point which has been made by my noble friend Lord Middleton, because my noble friend is concerned that, in putting (as another place has done) earning capacity into the Bill and tying it to the productive capacity of the farm, that may throw some doubt upon the position of earning capacity when it is related to non-farming activities.
The reply which I want to give to my noble friend Lord Middleton is that, although the related earning capacity in these amendments does not include earnings from non-farming activities—for instance, tourism—activities of this sort would (as my noble friend has quite correctly divined) be one of the relevant factors which the aribtrator would be bound to take into account. The rent formula, as it is now amended, therefore spells out only the specific relevant factors which apply in every case. The effect of the formula, as amended, enables actual earnings from non-farming activities to be taken into account as relevant factors. I am very glad to have the opportunity to clarify that once and for all.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
4 Page 4, line 21 at end insert—
("(140A) Where under an agreement between the landlord and the tenant of the holding (not being an agreement expressed to take effect as a new contract of tenancy between

81
the parties) provision is made for adjustment of the boundaries of the holding or for any other variation of the terms of the tenancy, exclusive of those relating to rent, then, unless the agreement otherwise provides—

(a) that provision shall for the purposes of subsection (8) of this section be treated as not operating to terminate the tenancy, and accordingly as not resulting in the commencement of a new contract of tenancy between the parties; and

(b) any increase or reduction of rent solely attributable to any such adjustment or variation as aforesaid shall be disregarded for the purposes of paragraph (b) of that subsection.")

5 line 37, leave out from ("1977") to end of line 43.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. These two amendments provide that adjustment of boundaries or any other variation of the terms of the tenancy (except those relating to rent) will not trigger off the start of a new three-year rent cycle unless the agreement giving effect to the changes specifically provides for it. The new Section 8(11)(d) is inadequate, and is therefore deleted. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead)
On Question Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
6 Clause 3, page 7, line 19, leave out from ("tenancy") to ("and") in line 20 and insert ("and derived (whether immediately or otherwise) from the interest from which that tenancy was derived").
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. With the leave of the House, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23, 50, 51, 52 and 53. Amendments Nos. 6 and 50 provide parallel provisions in Clause 3 and Schedule 2 preventing a successor's position being weakened by the creation of a reversionary tenancy by the landlord which, on the death of the original tenant, comes between the freehold and the successor's new tenancy so as to make that tenant a sub-tenant.
Amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23, 51, 52 and 53 provide for the Agricultural Land Tribunal automatically to specify a new relevant time of up to three months where the direction is given after the original "relevant time". The definition of "prescribed period" is also amended to ensure a sufficient interval from the giving of the direction to allow a notice to be served demanding arbitration.
Moved. That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
7.53 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
7 Page 7, line 28, leave out (" "within the meaning of Part II of the Agriculture Act 1967" ") and insert ("from "within" to the end of the paragraph").
8 Page 8, leave out lines 24 to 33 and insert—
("(3C) Schedule 3A to this Act, which specifies—

(a) kinds of occupation that are to be disregarded for the purposes of paragraph (c) of the definition of "eligible person" in subsection (2) above; and

82

(b) circumstances in which a person is deemed to be in occupation of land for those purposes;

shall have effect.").
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, and I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 24, 24A, 24B, 28, 32 and 32A. I feel I must apologise to your Lordships, because it is at this moment that the Government are asking your Lordships to agree to three amendments which the Government are hoping that the House will agree to make and send to another place, but I hope that your Lordships, after allowing me to make a brief explanation, will agree that it is in a good cause.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, together with 20, 24, 28 and 32, clarify the operation of the commercial unit occupancy test to ensure that a would-be successor already farming a commercial unit should not be eligible to succeed to a tenancy under Part II of the 1976 Act, or under the new inter vivos arrangements. That is probably fairly familiar ground. However, we came across a difficulty after the Bill left another place, and this is the subject of Amendments Nos. 24A, 24B and 32A.
The effect of these three new Government amendments is to amend the commercial unit occupation provisions in the new Schedule 3A to the 1976 Act—that is Amendment No. 24—and the inter vivos succession arrangements in Schedule 2 to the Bill, which is Amendment No. 32. The purpose is to cover the point that where the death of a tenant is anticipated, or where a retirement is planned under the inter vivos succession, it would be possible for a potential applicant who occupies a commercial unit to grant one of the forms of excluded tenancy or licence under paragraphs 2(1)(a) to (e) of the new Schedule 3A to somebody else, thereby ceasing to be in occupation of the land technically for a short period during which he could establish eligibility and succeed to the tenant's holding. It is to prevent that happening that these three amendments will be moved. I beg to move that this house doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead)
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised an interesting point. It is something that could be used, as it is unfortunately in the buying of council houses, which the Government are keen on. Somebody with an elderly person in the family steps in and helps them to buy the house, in anticipation, as the noble Lord said, of the death of the tenant. It is the same picture when you come to what can he done to get the tenancy of a farm. It is a real point that has been picked out, and certainly we would support preventing this sort of thing happening. That is all I want to say about it. It is an essential thing to do, and we shall leave it at that; but one can see the difficulties that can arise in these matters.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, may I express my appreciation? This was an issue in respect of which the noble Lord was kind enough to write to me and say that the Government were having great difficulty in

83
drafting this while the Bill was before your Lordships, and he had to say that it had to wait until the Bill went to another place before they could get something on to paper. It shows how complicated it is that even then it was not quite right, and the Government have found yet another loophole that has to be stopped up.
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I can only take it on trust that all this is now right, because it is so essentially complicated in drafting that laymen would quite easily be misled. I am sure that a lot of work has gone into this, and I can only again express my gratitude that at last this point has been cleared up.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, when I said earlier that I was indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, it was no mere politeness because in the whole area of eligibility we are under the commercial occupancy rules, and we will all remember that what we managed to do in this House was to get the new definition of commercial occupancy, but we did not manage to dig into the eligibility rules at all. It was on those that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, had done a great deal of work, and made more than one speech as the Bill was going through your Lordships' House.
I am glad that in another place we were able to bring forward these eligibility rules, but we missed this particular loophole which we are now trying to stop up by deeming. Not only has the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, been good enough to welcome this group of amendments, including Nos. 24A, 24B, and 32A, but the Agricultural Law Association was particularly anxious that the effect of the three amendments with "A" attached to them should be inserted. I therefore hope and believe that we are on the right lines.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, I am not entirely sure that we are on the same ground on these amendments as we are with council houses. There are rather different eligibility rules so far as the right to buy council houses is concerned; but I am not going to go down that road just now.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
9 Page 8, line 41, after ("of') insert ("any of the following persons, namely")
10 Page 8, line 42, leave out ("or of the landlord") and insert (", the landlord or the secretary of the Tribunal,")
11 Page 8, line 43, leave out from ("any") to ("determine") in page 9, line 2, and insert ("relevant land")
12 Page 9, leave out lines 8 to 11 and insert—
("In this subsection "relevant land" means agricultural land which is—

(a) occupied by any person falling within the said paragraphs (a) to (d) (whether he is, where the request is made by a person so falling, the person making the request or not); or

(b) the subject of an application made under section 20 of this Act by any such person.")

Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 to 12; and, with your Lordships' leave, I would speak also to Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 35 and 57. Together these amendments extend the arrangements for requests for a commercial unit
84
assessment so that all of the parties concerned in a succession application and the agricultural Land Tribunal, through its secretary, may make such a request, and to take account of the new rules on eligibility. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
13 Page 10, line 25, at end insert (", and a notice to quit within subsection (6) shall not be invalid by reason of its terminating at a date other than the end of a year of the tenancy.")
14 Clause 6, page 10, line 34, leave out ("responsibility") and insert ("responsibilities")
15 Page 11, line 21, leave out ("was") and insert ("is")
16 Page 11, line 41, at end insert—
("(6A) The following subsection shall be inserted after section 2(3) of that Act—
"(3A) For the purposes of Case B no account shall be taken of any permission granted as mentioned in paragraph (a) of that Case if the permission—

(a) was granted on an application made by the National Coal Board; and

(b) relates to the working of coal by opencast operations: and

(c) was granted subject to a restoration condition and to an aftercare condition in which the use specified is use for agriculture or use for forestry.

In this subsection "restoration condition" and "aftercare condition" have the meaning given by section 30A(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971." ")
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16 en bloc. These are minor drafting and technical amendments to clarify the provisions on notices to quit in relation to bad husbandry, retirement of statutory smallholders and opencast coal operations.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments. (Lord Belstead)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
17 Clause 11, page 14, line 14, after ("(3)") insert (", (3A)").
18 Page 14, line 24, at end insert—
("(bb) section 10(2) and Schedule 4 so far as relating to section 1(2) of the 1948 Act, section 2 of the Agriculture Act 1958 and Case H in Section 2(3) of the 1977 Act;").
19 Page 14, line 25, at end insert—
("(3A) Section 6(6A) above shall be deemed to have come into force on 1st March 1984.").
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19. Amendments Nos. 75 to 87 inclusive relate to these amendments.
These are minor technical amendments and repeals consequential upon the provisions of substance in the Bill. If your Lordships wish, I can give a little more information on the various groups, but I think that that really is the case.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
20 Schedule 1, page 18, line 20, at end insert—
("Continuing eligibility of applicant
3A. In section 20(2) of that Act, for the words "that the applicant is an eligible person" there shall be substituted—

"(a) that the applicant was an eligible person at the date of death, and

(b) that he has not subsequently ceased to be such a person;".").

21 Page 19, line 24, leave out from ("to") to ("and") in line 36 and insert ("the holding at any time after the beginning of the period of three months ending with the relevant time apart from this subsection ("the original relevant time"), then—

(a) if the direction is given within that period, the Tribunal may, on the application of the tenant, specify in the direction, as the relevant time for the purposes of this and the next following section, such a time falling within the period of three months immediately following the original relevant time as they think fit;

(b) if the direction is given at any time after the original relevant time the Tribunal shall specify in the direction, as the relevant time for those purposes, such a time falling within the period of three months immediately following the date of the giving of the direction as they think fit;").

22 Page 19, line 38, after ("24(2)") insert ("—(a)").
23 Page 19, line 40, at end insert ("; and
(b) in the definition of "the prescribed period" for the words from "and the" onwards there shall be substituted the words "and—

(a) the end of the three months immediately following the relevant time; or

(b) the end of the three months immediately following the date of the giving of the direction; whichever last occurs.".").

Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 23, which are consequential. I have already spoken to them and I beg to move en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
24 Page 29, line 40, at end insert—
("7. The following Schedule shall be inserted after Schedule 3 to that Act—
"SCHEDULE 3A OCCUPATION OF LAND FOR PURPOSES OF STATUTORY SUCCESSION
Preliminary
1.—(1) In this Schedule "the occupancy condition" means paragraph (c) of the definition of "eligible person" in section 18(2) of this Act.
(2) For the purposes of this Schedule a body corporate is controlled by a survivor of the deceased if he or his spouse, or he and his spouse together, have the power to secure—

(a) by means of the holding of shares or the possession of voting power in or in relation to that or any other body corporate, or

(b) by virtue of any powers conferred by the articles of association or other document regulating that or any other body corporate;

that the affairs of that body corporate are conducted in accordance with his, her or their wishes, respectively.
(3) Any reference in this Schedule to the spouse of a survivor of the deceased does not apply in relation to any time when the survivor's marriage is the subject of a decree of judicial separation or a decree nisi of divorce or of nullity of marriage.
Excluded occupation
2.—(1) Occupation by a survivor of the deceased of any agricultural land shall be disregarded for the purposes of the occupancy condition if he occupies it only—

(a) under a tenancy approved by the Minister under section 2(1) of the 1948 Act or under such a tenancy relating to the use of land for grazing or mowing as is referred to in the proviso to that provision;

(b) under a tenancy for more than one year but less than two years;

(c) under a tenancy not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above and not having effect as a contract of tenancy;

(d) under a tenancy to which section 3 of the 1948 Act does not apply by virtue of section 3B of that Act;

(e) as a licensee; or

(f) as an executor, administrator, trustee in bankruptcy or person otherwise deriving title from another person by operation of law.

(2) Paragraphs (a) to (e) of sub-paragraph (1) above do not apply in the case of a tenancy or licence granted to a survivor of the deceased by his spouse or by a body corporate controlled by him.
(3) References in the following provisions of this Schedule to the occupation of land by any person do not include occupation under a tenancy, or in a capacity, falling within paragraphs (a) to (f) of that sub-paragraph.
Deemed occupation in case of Tribunal direction
3. Where a survivor of the deceased is, by virtue of a direction of the Tribunal under section 20 of this Act, for the time being entitled (whether or not with any other person) to a tenancy of the whole or part of any agricultural holding held by the deceased at the date of death other than the holding, he shall, for the purposes of the occupancy condition, be deemed to be in occupation of the land comprised in that holding or (as the case may be) in that part of that holding.
Joint occupation
4,—(1) Where any agricultural land is jointly occupied by a survivor of the deceased and one or more other persons as—

(a) beneficial joint tenants;

(b) tenants in common;

(c) joint tenants under a tenancy; or

(d) joint licensees;

the survivor shall be treated for the purposes of the occupancy condition as occupying the whole of the land.
(2) If, however, the Tribunal in proceedings under section 20 of this Act determine on the survivor's application that his appropriate share of the net annual income which the land is, or was at any time, capable of producing for the purposes of section 18(3A) of this Act is or was then less than the aggregate of the earnings referred to in that provision then, for the purpose of determining whether the occupancy condition is or was then satisfied in his case, the net annual income which the land is, or (as the case may be) was, capable of so producing shall be treated as limited to his appropriate share.
(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above the appropriate share of the survivor shall be ascertained—

(a) where he is a beneficial or other joint tenant or a joint licensee, by dividing the net annual income which the land is or was at the time in question capable of producing for the purposes of section 18(3A) by the total number of joint tenants or joint licensees for the time being;

(b) where he is a tenant in common, by dividing the said net annual income in such a way as to attribute to him and to the other tenant of tenants in common shares of the income proportionate to the extent for the time being of their respective undivided shares in the land.

Occupation by spouse or controlled company
5.—(1) For the purposes of the occupancy condition and of paragraph 4 above, occupation—

(a) by the spouse of a survivor of the deceased; or

87

(b) by a body corporate controlled by a survivor of the deceased;

shall be treated as occupation by the survivor.
(2) Where, in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) above, paragraph 4 above applies to a survivor of the deceased in relation to any time by virtue of the joint occupation of land by his spouse or a body corporate and any other person or persons, sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of that paragraph shall apply to the survivor as if he were the holder of the interest in the land for the time being held by his spouse or the body corporate, as the case may be.
Ministerial statements as to net annual income from land
6. The reference in the definition of "relevant land" in section 18(6) of this Act to agricultural land which is occupied by any such person as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of that definition includes a reference to any agricultural land which is deemed to be occupied by him by virtue of this Schedule.".")

AMENDMENTS TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 24
24A Line 95, at end insert—
(" (4) Where by virtue of paragraph 3 above any land is deemed to be occupied by each of two or more survivors of the deceased as a result of a direction entitling them to a joint tenancy of the land, the preceding provisions of this paragraph shall apply to each of the survivors as if the land were jointly occupied by him and the other survivor or survivors as joint tenants under that tenancy.")
24B* Line 110, at end insert—
("Deemed occupation in case of tenancy or licence granted by survivor, spouse or controlled company
(5A.—(1) Where—

(a) any agricultural land is occupied by any person under such a tenancy as is mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 2(1) above or as a licensee; and

(b) that tenancy or licence was granted by a survivor of the deceased or a connected person (or both), being at the time it was granted a person or persons entitled to occupy the land otherwise than under a tenancy, or in a capacity, falling within paragraphs (a) to (f) of paragraph 2(1);

then, unless sub-paragraph (2) below applies, the survivor shall, for the purposes of the occupancy condition, be deemed to be in occupation of the whole of the land.
(2) Where the tenancy or licence referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above was ganted by the person or persons there referred to and one or more other persons who were at the time it was granted entitled to occupy the land as mentioned in paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph, subparagraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 4 above shall apply to the survivor as if the land were jointly occupied by him and the said other person or persons as holders of their respective interests for the time being in the land.
(3) In this paragraph "connected person", in relation to a survivor of the deceased, means—

(a) the survivor's spouse; or

(b) a body corporate controlled by the survivor;

and for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above and the provisions of paragraph 4 there mentioned any interest in the land for the time being held by a connected person by whom the tenancy or licence was granted shall be attributed to the survivor.")
Lord Belstead: I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24. I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 24, 24A and 24B, and I beg formally to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24, as amended by Amendments Nos. 24A and 24B (Lord Belstead)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
25 Schedule 2, page 20, line 10, leave out ("sixteen months") and insert ("one year, but not more than two years,").
26 Page 20, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 13 and insert ("the principal paragraphs of this Schedule").
27 Page 20, line 14, at end insert ("and subject also to paragraph 2A below.").
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27, and, with leave, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 29 to 31, 36 to 38, 40, 42 to 44, 48, 49 and 54 to 56.
These amendments improve the procedures in Schedule 2 for facilitating statutory succession on the voluntary retirement of the sitting tenant. They include extensions of the period for giving notice of retirement so that it is analogous to the timetable for notices to quit and arrangements for dealing with notices to quit given before and after the retirement notice.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
28 Page 20, line 39, leave out ("or, if he is, he occupies it as a licensee only").
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28. This is consequential.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
29 Page 20, line 49, at end insert—
(" "the principal paragraphs of this Schedule" means paragraphs 3 to 9 below (except paragraphs 4(9) and 5(6), which are of general application);").
30 Page 21, line 1, after ("means") insert ("(subject to paragraphs 2(4) and 2A(3) below)").
31 Page 21, line 3, at end insert—
(" "the retirement date" means the date specified in the retirement notice as the date as from which the proposed succession is to take place;").
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 29 to 31 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments on Amendment No. 25.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
32 Page 21, line 25, leave out ("and") and insert—
(" (aa) Schedule 3A to that Act (which provides for the disregarding of certain kinds of occupation as well as specifying circumstances in which a person is deemed to be in occupation of land) shall apply in relation to the nominated successor as it applies in relation to a survivor of a deceased tenant, but subject to the following modifications, namely—

(i) references to the occupancy condition shall be read as references to the said paragraph (b),

(ii) the reference in paragraph 4(2) to section 20 of that Act shall be read as a reference to paragraph 4 below, and

(iii) paragraphs 3 and 6 shall be omitted; and")

AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 32
32A Line 14, after ("3") insert (", 4(4)")
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32. Amendments Nos. 32 and 32A I have already spoken to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the Amendment No. 32, as amended by Amendment No. 32A.—[Lord Belstead.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
33 Page 21, line 32, after ("of") insert ("any of the following persons, namely")
34 Page 21, line, 33, leave out ("or the landlord") and insert (", the landlord or the secretary of the Tribunal,")
35 Page 21, line 44, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(aa) or (b)")
36 Page 22, line 7, leave out ("following") and insert ("principal")
37 Page 22, line 45, after ("holding") insert ("or a related holding")
38 Page 22, line 46, after ("holding") insert ("or a related holding")
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33 to 38 en bloc. These amendments are consequential and I have already spoken to them.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
39 Page 22, line 49, leave out from ("(e)") to end of line 50 and insert ("subject to sub-paragraph (1B) below, if at the retirement date")
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39 and, with leave, would speak also to Amendments Nos. 41, 45, 46, and 47.
Amendments Nos. 39, 41 and 45 together provide for inter vivos succession on grounds of ill-health before the tenant reaches the age of 65. Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 enable a landlord to contest an application for inter vivOs succession on the grounds of greater hardship. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
40 Page 23, line 10, at end insert—
("(1A) In sub-paragraph (1)(d) above "related holding" means in relation to the holding, any agricultural holding comprising the whole or a substantial part of the land comprised in the holding.").
41 Page 23, line 10, at end insert—
("(1B) The principal paragraphs of this Schedule are not excluded by sub-paragraph (1)(e) above if the retirement notice is given on the grounds that—

(a) the retiring tenant or (where the notice is given by joint tenants) each of the retiring tenants is or will at the
90
retirement date be incapable, by reason of bodily or mental infirmity, of conducting the farming of the holding in such a way as to secure the fulfilment of the responsibilities of the tenant to farm in accordance with the rules of good husbandry; and

(b) any such incapacity is likely to be permanent; and that fact is stated in the notice.").

42 Page 23, line 11, leave out ("following") and insert ("principal").
43 Page 23, line 20, at end insert—
("(3) If on the date of the giving of the retirement notice the tenancy is the subject of a valid notice to quit given before that date and including a statement that it is given for any such reason as is referred to in Case B, D or E in section 2(3) of the 1977 Act (not being a notice to quit falling within sub-paragraph (1)(c) above), the principal paragraphs of this Schedule shall not apply unless one of the events referred to in sub-paragraph (4) below occurs.
(4) Those events are as follows—

(a) it is determined by arbitration under the 1948 Act that the notice to quit is ineffective for the purposes of section 2(3) on account of the invalidity of any such reason as aforesaid; or

(b) where a counter-notice is duly served under section 4(2) or (3) of the 1977 Act—

(i) the Tribunal withhold consent to the operation of the notice to quit, or

(ii) the period for making an application to the Tribunal for such consent expires without such an application having been made;

and where one of those events occurs the relevant period shall for the purposes of this Schedule be the period of one month beginning with the date on which the arbitrator's award is delivered to the tenant, with the date of the Tribunal's decision to withhold consent, or with the expiry of the said period for making an application (as the case may be).
Notices to quit restricting operation of Schedule
2A.—(1) If the tenancy becomes the subject of a valid notice to quit given on or after the date of the giving of the retirement notice (but before the Tribunal have begun to hear any application by the nominated successor under paragraph 4 below in respect of the retirement notice) and the notice to quit—

(a) falls within Case C in section 2(3) of the 1977 Act and is founded on a certificate granted under section 2(4) of that Act in accordance with an application made before that date; or

(b) falls within Case F in section 2(3);

the retirement notice shall be of no effect and no proceedings, or (as the case may be) no further proceedings, shall be taken under this Schedule in respect of it.
(2) If the tenancy becomes the subject of a valid notice to quit given on or after the date of the giving of the retirement notice (but before the Tribunal have begun to hear any application by the nominated successor under paragraph 4 below in respect of the retirement notice) and the notice to quit—

(a) includes a statement that it is given for any such reason as is referred to in Case Bin section 2(3) of the 1977 Act; or

(b) includes a statement that it is given for any such reason as is referred to in Case D in section 2(3) and is founded on a notice given for the purposes of that Case before that date;

the retirement notice shall be of no effect and no proceedings, or (as the case may be) no further proceedings, shall be taken under this Schedule in respect of it unless one of the events referred to in sub-paragraph (3) below occurs.
(3) Those events are as follows:—

(a) it is determined by arbitration under the 1948 Act that the notice to quit is ineffective for the purposes of section 2(3) on account of the invalidity of any such reason as aforesaid; or

(b) where a counter-notice is duly served under section 4(2) or (3) of the 1977 Act—

(i) the Tribunal withhold consent to the operation of the notice to quit; or

(ii) the period for making an application to the Tribunal for such consent expires without such an application having been made;

91
and where one of those events occurs, and the notice to quit was given before the time when the relevant period would expire apart from this sub-paragraph, that period shall for the purposes of this Schedule expire at the end of the period of one month beginning with the date on which the arbitrator's award is delivered to the tenant, with the date of the Tribunal's decision to withhold consent, or with the expiry of the said period for making an application (as the case may be).
(4) For the purposes of this Schedule an application by the nominated successor under paragraph 4 below which is invalidated by sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above shall be treated as if it had never been made.").
44 Page 23, leave out lines 23 to 28 and insert ("any notice to quit the holding or part of the holding given to the tenant thereof (whether before or on or after the date of the giving of the retirement notice), not being a notice to quit falling within any provision of paragraph 2 or 2A above.").
45 Page 24, line 3, at end insert—
("(2A) If the retirement notice includes a statement in accordance with paragraph 2(1B) above that it is given on the grounds mentioned in that provision, then, before the nominated successor's application is further proceeded with under this paragraph, the Tribunal must be satisfied—

(a) that the retiring tenant or (as the case may be) each of the retiring tenants either is or will at the retirement date be incapable, by reason of bodily or mental infirmity, of conducting the farming of the holding in such a way as to secure the fulfilment of the responsibilities of the tenant to farm in accordance with the rules of good husbandry; and

(b) that any such incapacity is likely to be permanent.").

46 Page 24, line 21, after ("shall") insert (", subject to subparagraph (5A) below,").
47 Page 24, line 22, at end insert—
("(5A) The Tribunal shall not give such a direction if, on an application made by the landlord, it appears to the Tribunal that greater hardship would be caused by giving the direction than by refusing the nominated successor's application under this paragraph.").
48 Page 24, line 27, after ("application") insert ("by the nominated successor").
49 Page 24, line 32, at end insert ("for a direction").
50 Page 25, line 13, leave out from ("tenancy") to ("and") in line 14 and insert ("and derived (whether immediately or otherwise) from the interest from which that tenancy was derived").
51 Page 25, line 38, leave out from second ("the") to end of line 41 and insert ("retirement date, except that—

(a) where such a direction is given within the period of three months ending with the retirement date, the Tribunal may, on the application of the tenant, specify in the direction, as the relevant time for the purposes of this paragaph, such a time falling within the period of three months immediately following the retirement date as they think fit;

(b) where such a direction is given at any time after the retirement date, the Tribunal shall specify in the direction, as the relevant time for those purposes, such a time falling within the period of three months immediately following the date of the giving of the direction as they think fit;

and any time so specified shall be the relevant time for those purposes accordingly.").
52 Page 26, line 10, leave out ("the end of') and insert ("—(a) the end of the").
53 Page 26, line 11, at end insert—
("; or
(b) the end of the three months immediately following the date of the giving of the direction;
whichever last occurs.").
54 Page 26, line 18, leave out from ("after") to end of line 19 and insert ("giving the retirement notice.").
55 Page 26, line 23, after ("and") insert ("no proceedings, or (as the case may be)").
56 Page 26, line 30, after ("above,") insert ("but before the relevant time (within the meaning of that paragraph),").
57 Page 27, line 16, leave out from first ("reference") to end of line 17 and insert ("in the definition of "relevant land" to agricultural land which is occupied as mentioned in paragraph (a) of that definition included a reference to agricultural land which is deemed to he occupied by the nominated successor by virtue of this paragraph.").
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40 to 57 en bloc. These amendments are consequential on amendments to which I have already spoken. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
58 Page 30, leave out line 34.
59 Page 30, line 36, leave out ("and") and insert—
("(aa) for the words from "for the supply" to "the Minister" there shall be substituted the words "executed on the holding for the purpose of complying with the requirements of a notice under section 3 of the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act 1956 (provision of sanitary conveniences and washing facilities)"; and")
60 Page 31, leave out lines 7 to 12 and insert (", in paragraph (a), after the word "fixture" there shall be inserted the words "(of whatever description)".")
61 Page 31, line 13, leave out first ("subsection") and insert ("subsections")
62 Page 31, line 14, at end insert—
(" "(4AA) Subsection (1) of this section applies to a fixture whether it was affixed to the holding for the purposes of agriculture or not; but this section shall not be taken as prejudicing any right to remove a fixture that subsists otherwise than by virtue of this section.")
63 Page 31, line 44, leave out ("(1)")
64 Page 31, line 45, after ("etc.)") insert ("—
(a) in subsection (1),")
65 Page 32, line 2, at end insert ("; and
(b) at the end of subsection (2) there shall be added the words "; and any person so appointed may, on production of evidence of his appointment, enter the holding at all reasonable times for the purpose of making any such record." ")
66 Page 34, leave out lines 5 to 8.
67 Page 34, line 13, leave out ("that date, for those purposes,") and insert ("31st December 1900, for the purposes of his trade or business as a market gardener,")
68 Page 34, line 43, leave out (" "six" ") and insert (" "eight" ")
69 Page 34, line 48, at end insert—
("18A. — (1) Section 77 of that Act (arbitrations under the Act) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for the words "the Sixth Schedule to this Act" there shall be substituted the words "any order under this section, together with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to this Act (as for the time being in force)".
(3) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (2) to (4) —
"(2) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision as to the procedure to be followed in, or in connection with, proceedings on arbitrations under this Act.
(3) An order under this section may in particular—

(a) provide for the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to this Act, exclusive of those mentioned in subsection (4) of this section, to have effect subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order;

(b) prescribe forms for proceedings on arbitrations under this Act which, if used, shall be sufficient;

(c) prescribe the form in which awards in such proceedings are to be made.

93
(4) An order under this section shall not make provision inconsistent with the following provisions of the Sixth Schedule, namely paragraphs 1 to 5 and 10 to 12, the proviso to paragraph 13, and paragraphs 17, 19, 20A, 20B and 24 to 28.
(5) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) In this section "modifications" includes additions, omissions and amendments." ")
70 Page 35, leave out lines 4 and 5.
71 Page 36, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
("(2) The following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 1(1)—
"(1A) Any such appointment by the Minister shall be made by him as soon as possible after receiving the application; but where the application is referable to a demand for arbitration made under section 8 of this Act any such appointment shall in any event not be made by him earlier than four months before the next termination date following the date of the demand (as defined by section 8A(2) of this Act).".")
72 Page 38, line 7, at end insert—
("The Opencast Coal Act 1958 (C. 69)
28A. In section 24(6) of the Opencast Coal Act 1958 (tenant's right to compensation for improvements etc.), in proviso (b), for each of the words "four" and "five" there shall be substituted the word "eight".")
73 Page 39, line 29, after ("appointed") insert ("by agreement between the parties, or (in default of such agreement) an application may be made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to that Act for the appointment of an arbitrator,")
74 Page 39, line 33, leave out from ("for") to end of line 35 and insert ("the making of any such appointment by agreement or application as is there mentioned or, where any such appointment or application has been duly made," ")
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 58 to 74 en bloc. With leave, I speak to Amendments Nos. 59 to 74.These are minor technical amendments to improve the working of the existing legislation in relation to the removal of fixtures, powers of entry, time limit for settlement of claims and procedure on arbitrations.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
75 Schedule 4, page 42, line 13, column 3, at beginning insert ("In section 1(2), the words from" of Agriculture "to" "the Minister") ")
76 Page 42, line 17, column 3, leave out from ("it,") to ("and") in line 19.
77 Page 42, column 3, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert ("Section 91.")
78 Page 42, line 48, column 3, leave out ("paragraph 28.") and insert ("paragraphs 15, 27 and 28.")
79 Page 42, line 48, at end insert—

("14 & 15 Geo. 6. c. 18.

The Livestock Act 1951.

In Section 1(2)(b), the words from "in paragraph" (where first occurring) to "1948".

4 & 5 Eliz. 2. c. 49.

The Agriculture (Safety Health and Welfare Provisions Act 1956.

Section 3(10)

6 & 7 Eliz. 2. c. 71.

The Agriculture Act 1958.

Section 2.")

80 Page 43, line 14, column 3, leave out ("to "1967" ") and insert ("onwards")
81 Page 43, line 18, column 3, at end insert (", and in Case EI the word "appropriate", in the first two places where it occurs, and the words from "In this Case" onwards.")
82 Page 43, line 23, column 3, leave out ("paragraph 5(2)") and insert ("paragraphs 1(2) and (6) and 5(2), and in paragraph 5(3) the words from "for "section 25(1)" "to" and".")
83 Schedule 5, page 44, line I, after second ("Act") insert ("—

(a) subsection (5) shall, in relation to any time before the commencement of this Act, have effect with the substitution for the words from "as a result" to "grant or assignment" of the words "the holding or a related holding became let under a new tenancy thereof granted by the landlord, with the agreement of the outgoing tenant, to a person who, if the outgoing tenant had died immediately before the grant,"; and

(b)")

84 Page 44, leave out lines 8 to 14.
85 Page 44, line 31, at end insert—
("(bb) subsection (6A) applies to notices to quit given after the commencement of that subsection, but does not affect any such notice which took effect before the date on which this Act is passed;")
86 Page 46, line 5, at end insert—
("Forms for arbitrations
13A. Any form specified in pursuance of paragraph 15 or 27 of Schedule 6 to the 1948 Act and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall have effect as if prescribed by an order under section 77 of that Act, as amended by paragraph I 8A of Schedule 3 to this Act, and may be varied or revoked accordingly.")
87 Page 46, line 7, at beginning, insert—
(".—(1) In paragraph 1 (1A) of Schedule 6 to the 1948 Act, as amended by paragraph 28(2) of Schedule 3 to this Act, the reference to an application which is referable to a demand for arbitration made under section 8 of that Act shall not extend to an application made before the commencement of this Act.
(2)")
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 75 to 87 en bloc. These amendments are consequential on Amendment No, 17, to which I have already spoken. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead)
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I wish to make the point that along with the Bill I received some corrections to the Bill. One of the corrections states:
"Page 20, line 14, "the" should read "his".
I have a family of two girls who do not like the word "his", but would prefer "his or hers".
Lord Northfield: My Lords, before we part with these Commons Amendments I should like to ask the Minister whether he is now satisfied that in the proceedings in another place all the points we talked about but could not finally draft, or agree upon terms of drafting, have now been picked up in the Commons? There were so many under the heading of eligibility, retirement, and so on, where we were breaking new ground that I must confess that at the end of the proceedings I was not sure whether we had finally buttoned everything up. Is the Minister fairly happy to say that everything was picked up, so far as he now knows?
Lord Belstead: The answer, my Lords, particularly on retirement and eligibility, is that there is no question about it. I think the noble Lord will have recognised the points as we have been going through the list. I think that all the points that the Goverment expected would be picked up were indeed picked up. In addition to those two areas, there is the matter of the rent formula. We have discussed this already and

95
I think the noble Lord will feel that another place gave their view and that view we have now agreed with.
My answer to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie is that I have always been told that when "his" instead of "hers" is used, or "he" instead of "she", under the Interpretation Act of the last century the masculine embraces the feminine.
Lord Middleton: Before we finish, may I from this side of the House add my comments to those of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, who, a few minutes ago, expressed gratitude for the drafting work done in respect of Clause 3 and its related schedule. The agricultural industry as a whole should be grateful to the noble Lord, to his department and to the draftsmen for the immense amount of work that has gone into the drafting of the whole of the Bill and the very many amendments. It is enough to ask for certain things to be put into a Bill, but it is quite another issue to express those matters properly in legal form. The great length and the complexity of these amendments are sufficient witness.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to all noble Lords for taking part in this final stage—I trust it is the final stage—in your Lordships' House. I thank my noble friend Lord Middleton for what he has said. His words will be appreciated by those who have worked officially on this comparatively short but extremely complicated Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill returned to the Commons.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn during pleasure until half past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.11 to 8.30 p.m.]

Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 8.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 10, line 32, at end insert—
("() A warrant under this section may authorise persons to accompany any constable who is executing it.,")
The noble Lord said: I think I am right in saying that this sentence, or something very similar, was included in a version of this Bill. I feel that it would be an improvement if we could put back words to this effect, if not in this clause, then at least in another place, or in more than one place in Part II. The reason is very simple: a man who is named or who is known simply as "any constable" can normally execute a warrant, but there are many occasions when there is an advantage in two men executing a warrant because even if the constable is not anticipating great trouble, he would prefer a witness. It is a great waste of police power that you should have your witness drawn from the very limited number of available police constables.
96
There could again be an advantage in having a second person who had knowledge of the districts where they were going and, furthermore, of the technical business which lies behind the offence and the warrant: for example, where accounts are likely to be found in a house and where the man accompanying the constable would probably have much greater knowledge than the others in sorting very rapidly through accounts and deciding which ones to take away and which have no value. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will tell me that there could be advantages—not on every occasion—where an authorised person is named in order to go with a constable to execute a warrant. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord is entirely right about the desirability of somebody being able to accompany the constable on certain occasions. His amendment woud make that possible under Clause 8. But Clause 16(2) already contains this provision and applies to any warrant, including Clause 8 warrants. So the provision he wants is there—as he put it, elsewhere in the Bill—and the constable can be so accompanied. I hope he will find that that is a reassurance.
Lord Inglewood: I think that what the noble Lord has said meets my amendment. Clause 16(2) says:
"Such a warrant may authorise persons to accompany any constable who is executing it."
I presume that it is the police who give the authority and that if they were not sworn-in special constables, they would be authorised by the police. Perhaps the noble Lord can help on that point.
Lord Elton: If the noble Lord will bear with me, I think that the reassurance I may give him in this case may be qualified by terms which I cannot exactly detect at the moment. The authority is given not by the police, but by the warrant. It will enable anybody to go with the police provided he is authorised by the warrant.
Lord Inglewood: It is written on the warrant and the police can ask for that person. I thank the Minister very much. In view of the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I wish to raise a matter on Clause 8. The noble Lord the Minister will not be surprised to know that I am going to relate it to what we did recently in regard to Clause 17 of the Video Recordings Bill, which provides for powers of entry, search and seizure. It seems to me, from what study I have been able to give to the matter, that there are two categories of entry, search and seizure. One is the more complex, difficult probe into possible fraudulent activities and so on, which appears to be covered by Clause 8. This provides for the conditions to be satisfied in the event of reasonable grounds for believing that a serious arrestable offence has been committed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in quoting from the supplement to the report

97
of the Royal Commission, suggested to me that the other kind of entry, search and seizure is for prohibited goods and that apparently a whole string of Acts of Parliament provide for this form of remedy in regard to offences, as in the cases of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and the Video Recordings Bill of last week, which has not yet in fact passed its final stages in Parliament.
What we provided for in Clause 17 of the Video Recordings Bill had nothing to do with "a serious arrestable offence". It was concerned with in certain circumstances having merely trading activities in prohibited goods or outlawed goods; for example, an unclassified video tape. Clause 17 does not even provide for evidence to be given to the magistrate by a constable. It says merely:
"If a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting".
It does not even say from whom the evidence on oath might come, but one presumes that it is from a constable. I can quite see that some of the enormous problems, lengthy searches and ransackings of homes and offices that can take place in some cases will probably not apply to the more straightforward and simple case of going in to see whether there are prohibited articles.
But in the case of prohibited articles it does not end there. The noble Lord will remember that I wanted to include in the Video Recordings Bill, in regard to going in to search and seize, a stipulation that there should be some definition of what might be seized. I wanted to restrict it to the prohibited articles, such as unclassified video tapes; but, no, Clause 17 of the Video Recordings Bill states:
"17(2) A constable entering or searching any premises in pursuance of a warrant under subsection (1) above may use reasonable force if necessary and may seize anything found there which he has reasonable grounds to believe may be required to be used in evidence in any proceedings for an offence under this Act").
In debate it emerged that they might be looking for trading records. The prohibited goods might not be on the premises at all. It may be that what they may be searching for would be evidence of transactions in video tapes which fell within the offences defined in that Bill.
It seems to me that the two types of entry and search and seizure cannot be differentiated by saying that those covered by Clause 8 of the Bill now before us are the important and complicated kind where the military operations may be mounted, and all the rest of it, and the others littered about in various statutes are the simple kind, where you just go in and smell, or look or whatever and take it out. It is not as simple as that: yet, as I understand it, the provisions of Clause 8 need not apply to seizure undertaken under Clause 17 of the Video Recordings Bill and other similar provisions in Acts which are already on the statute book.
So I now turn to Clause 8(4) which says:
"The power to issue a warrant conferred by this section is in addition to any such power otherwise conferred."
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said a few moments ago that he was glad to see that there, because what that did was to protect all the provisions of Acts of Parliament which allowed for entry and
98
search and seizure of prohibited articles. My noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan said that he wanted to protect the right to go to a magistrate to get a warrant for that kind of entry but that he wanted to safeguard the more complex, difficult and sensitive kind of raid and entry by going to a circuit judge.
So we are going to have two lots of authorisations of seizure: one by a circuit judge for difficult cases, so-called, and one by a magistrate for the more simple and straightforward cases. I should imagine, as a matter of fact, that the more complex ones would be on the people of weight and power and the others would be on the simple citizen or the small businessman. I reckon that they would be divided very much into those two categories.
However, what does it mean under subsection (4) when it says:
"The power to issue a warrant conferred by this section is in addition to any such power otherwise conferred"?
Does it mean that it is not in substitution for that? I thought that we were getting in this Bill a standardisation of practice. Complaints were made during the Second Reading of this Bill that there were too many statutes containing provisions for powers of the police and it was desirable to get them all, or as many as possible, into this comprehensive and historic Act when it reaches the statute book.
It seems to me that we are leaving a very wide range of cases of entry and seizure which are not going to be protected at all by this Bill, unless the Ministry are going to assure me that the provisions of Clauses 15 and 16, for example, are going to apply to all cases under any statute and not only under this one. It seems strange to me that we should differentiate between one type of break-in, ransacking and seizure, and another. Why should we have different conditions for them? Why should not Clause 8 apply to the lot? Why should it not replace all the provisions in all other Acts of Parliament (apart from revenue cases probably, which are of a different type altogether) certainly as regards a search for prohibited articles and some other things?
I am very confused. I think there are two standards here somewhere and I have done my best to expose what they are. I have said so many harsh things about the Video Recordings Bill that I hate to repeat any of them—my vocabulary has run out—but we are sticking this in a Bill which is before Parliament at the present time. We were debating this only last week, and it is an extraordinary thing that the speech I have heard from my own Front Bench tonight on the general question and the principle of the matter was strangely absent when we were dealing with video recordings. Oh yes: we did not hear it then. What we heard was quoted extensively by the noble Lord in reply to the amendment only a few moments ago. At least one can say that there are two sets of values, two voices on my own Front Bench and confusion all round. So I now look to the Minister to clear it all up.
Lord Elton: I am sure we shall be in stereo before we have finished; but I think the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, wants to speak.
Lord Hooson: I am most grateful to the noble and experienced parliamentarian, Lord Houghton of

99
Sowerby, who I would guess has rescued me from an unfortunate absence. I apologise to your Lordships that I did not get back to my place in time, because your Lordships have proceeded with greater despatch than was apparent before we adjourned for dinner. I have given notice, together with my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, that we would oppose clause stand part on Clauses 8 to 14 inclusive. I indicated during my speech on Second Reading why that was so. In a very complicated Bill, in my submission, Clauses 8 to 14 are the most complicated of all. This is the most complex and least readily intelligible part of the whole Bill.
If your Lordships will look at the construction of this part of the Bill, Clause 8 gives power to apply to a justice of the peace for a search warrant to search premises. Clause 9 provides that access can be obtained to excluded material or special procedure material by a special procedure laid down in Schedule 1, which is virtually an application under certain very strict terms to a circuit judge. Clause 10 defines "excluded material", and that is a clause of considerable complication. Clause 11 defines the meaning of "items subject to legal privilege". That again is a clause of complications. The meaning of "personal records" is defined in Clause 12. In Clause 13 we have a definition of the meaning of "journalistic material".
This is highly complex. This Bill was intended to simplify the law, to make it clear to the constable on the beat and the lay magistrates what powers there were and how they were going to be defined, and so on. It is small wonder that the Association of Chief Officers of Police, in a memorandum they have sent around to a number of your Lordships, heavily criticise this part of the Bill. Let me point out that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who is in his place, has already made the most valuable contributions to our debates, and on the last matter mentioned the evidence given by the chief officers of police to the Royal Commission. They were seeking a new power, which is the power to obtain search warrants to search for evidence. The words used—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, quoted them in his speech—were: "the right to search for evidence." It was the confusion between the term "evidence" and material that would help in a criminal investigation that has clouded the whole issue on this part of this Bill.
In the criticisms, which I do not think have been met at all, the chiefs of police said:
"The power to search for evidence should be so designed as to attract solely those items which can be adduced by a police officer who has seized them".
That is a very simple principle. What the chiefs of police wanted, in the evidence that they gave to the Royal Commission, was the right to search premises occupied by a third party—very often, an innocent party. For example, if I may take what I suggest would be the kind of circumstance, one could ask a friend to keep a case on his premises. The police might have information that within the case was contained a revolver which had been used in a bank robbery. That would be very important evidence, and it is a matter of common sense that, if they had that information, the
100
police should be allowed to search those premises to look for that evidence.
The truth is that when this part of the Bill was drafted in the first Bill which came before Parliament, prior to the general election, it attracted an enormous amount of criticism, because priests, doctors and journalists were all concerned about the search of their premises and what use might be made of material which, in normal human relationships in a civilised society, has always been regarded as confidential.
The chief officers of police—and I make no apology for quoting them, because they argued this matter on paper as cogently as anybody could—said:
"The original proposals were designed to provide a power for the police to search for and obtain evidence, such as a murder weapon, bloodstained clothing or even a dead body which is concealed in premises or held by some third party, whether innocent or not, and including such matters held on an undertaking of confidence".
They added:
"There has never been a suggestion that the police should have a power to examine confidential records, such as those held by doctors or priests, nor has it been proposed that police should have a power to seize such items".
What happened was that having started on the wrong route the Home Office produced, with the aid of the draftsman, a Bill on certain principles which the chiefs of police did not want at all. It widened the ambit of what was proposed so that they could search—and here I am quoting Clause 8(1)(b)—for
"material on premises specified in the application which is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the investigation of the offence".
This is something totally different. It has never been envisaged that they would have the right to search for that kind of information.
After all, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, reminded us of the judgment in the John Wilkes case in the 18th century. I cannot remember who was the learned judge who dismissed the matter and, in a very famous judgment, pronounced that there was no right under our law to search premises to look for incriminating material, with no grounds at all for that kind of investigation. The police, quite rightly, point out they should in common sense have the right to apply for a warrant and to search premises where they have reason to believe that a serious arrestable offence has been committed and that evidence is available; or where they have reasonable grounds for thinking that it is on the premises of a third person it is right that they should have the right to search the premises to find that evidence. But the whole matter has been complicated by the way in which this part of the Bill was drawn up in the first place.
I have spoken about the complication of this part to a number of police officers, and I was recently lecturing to a group of inspectors. Without exception, they were very alarmed by this part of the Bill. The noble Lord the Minister knows that the chiefs of police asked the Home Office to reconstruct the whole of this part, and the Home Office refused to do so. The reason why my noble friend Lord Hutchinson and I gave notice that we would oppose the clauses standing part of the Bill was to give the Home Office a chance to think again.
I know that it is very late in the day, but looking at this power under Clause 8, and going on to Clause 14,

101
it is highly complicated. It is said that the ordinary constable must understand it. He has to make an application, he has to be authorised in certain instances by an inspector, and so on. But he has to know the meaning of personal records, of journalistic material and of excluded material, before he determines which way he will apply—whether to a circuit judge, a magistrate, and so on. It is my submission that, in the interests of the police as well as of the public, we all ought to know what these powers are. They ought to be drafted as simply as possible. Indeed, the chief officers of police suggested that the provisions of Clauses 8 to 14 should be deleted and that a further attempt should be made to produce a power to search for evidence, as originally envisaged in the evidence given to the Royal Commission and subsequently recommended by their report. That must be right.
Also there is an important viewpoint which I should like to express on behalf of the public. It would be quite wrong for a lay magistrate to act as a rubber stamp in these proceedings, and I am sure that the noble Lord will entirely agree with me on that. Nevertheless, what the magistrate has to consider—no doubt, approached ex parte in his or her house—are the very complication provisions of this part of the Bill. Very often, he will not have them to hand, and they will he put before him. He can no doubt be assured immediately that a serious arrestable offence has been committed, and so on; but the remaining requirements are an enormous burden to thrust upon a lay magistrate.
I know that the noble Lord told me on Second Reading that the chiefs of police are now satisfied, but I do not accept that. Of course, I accept the statement that there must have been an indication that they were no longer, as it were, pursuing their objection. But the truth is that their detailed criticisms, which I found the most cogent criticisms of the Bill that I received from anybody, have not been met and that the criticisms remain. So it is up to this Committee to do what it can to put that matter right. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and his colleagues have tried to amend this part of the Bill to make it more acceptable, to make more sense of it, to try to simplify it, and so on. But the truth is that the whole of this part of the Bill needs to be reconstructed on the simple principle that the Minister should go back to what the police officers wanted in their evidence to the Royal Commission.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I should like to support this Motion. I suggest to your Lordships that the Minister was far too blasé, too dismissive and too bland when he replied earlier this evening to the last amendment about the complexity of what the magistrates will be asked to do under this part of the Bill. They are asked to make decisions, first, in privacy, alone with a police officer in their rooms, on matters which I suggest no lay person should be asked to decide. As your Lordships have seen, over and over again they will have to make decisions on difficult matters of law. They will have to have their clerk with them. There will be a threesome in that private room. The clerk in a large number of cases will make the decision. The lay magistrate will naturally have to
102
depend upon the clerk when it comes to questions of law.
As has already been pointed out, the majority decision of the Royal Commission was that there should be a substantial extension of the powers of search. Although the noble Lord the Minister may quote certain Acts of Parliament which to a certain degree overlap with these broad powers, these broad powers are admitted by the Royal Commission to be an extension of the powers of search. They went out of their way to suggest that these powers should be given only with the most stringent safeguards. They suggested that there should be a right of appeal and—a point which has been lost sight of—that there should be an exclusionary rule in relation to any items which were obtained in contravention of the principle under which the powers were given. That exclusionary rule, which the Government have been against from start to finish, is that an executive discretion should be given to the police to consider whether such evidence should be excluded if they find that the rules have not been followed.
The reason why the Royal Commission were so strong about this recommendation—stronger than about any other recommendation—was the very good one that here the police are being given the power to search the premises of totally innocent people—people who are not concerned in any shape or form with the offence to which the rummaging applies. I use here a word that was used by Lord Camden who, in one of his judgments, set his face hundreds of years ago against this power. "The people of this country", he said, "are not to have their homes rummaged". The power which is given here is to rummage. As my noble friend Lord Hooson pointed out, there is a distinction between evidence to support an offence and information which will assist in the inquiries into an offence.
The noble Lord the Minister said in his very smooth, if I may say so without being offensive, reply that magistrates have done this for hundreds of years and are capable of doing it; it will be no problem for magistrates to do this, that or the other. However, let us pause for one moment and look at Clause 8(1)(b). The magistrates have to decide whether.
"there is material on premises specified in the application which is likely to be of substantial value".
Where do we find that in any of the statutes quoted by the noble Lord the Minister giving the power—
Lord Elton: Can the noble Lord tell me whether magistrates do not now consider whether it is likely that there is material which ought to qualify for a search warrant? If that is the case, why is it suddenly so much more difficult?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: If the noble Lord will allow me to finish, I was going to add that the qualification was if it is likely to be of substantial value, either by itself or together with other material, to the investigation of an offence. Therefore the officer says to the magistrate, "There are diaries, accounts, files in the office of this person". The magistrate has to decide whether those diaries, files and accounts are likely to be of substantial value. He will say, "They may be of value, but are they of substantial value? What will he in those diaries? Will it be of substantial

103
value, together with other material, to the investigation of the offence?" "Well," says the officer, "I am investigating a big credit card fraud. I want to go into this office to find out who else is concerned in the fraud. If I examine the diaries of this person, I shall find material in them as to the associates of that person".
The magistrate will have to decide whether to allow the police to go through the whole of somebody's private diaries and private correspondence because the officer, perfectly genuinely, has said, "I think that this is a conspiracy and I want to discover who the business associates of this man are. If I can discover who are his business associates, it is very likely that I shall be able to connect them up in this fraud, which is concerned with a number of companies and associated companies, and that information will come from this material".
How on earth can a magistrate make up his mind on those matters? Quite apart from that, he will have to go on and deal with other matters. I shall not go through them all but, as your Lordships know, it is no good dismissing these other matters relating to excluded material, material held in confidence, journalistic material held in confidence, legal material which is privileged. The magistrate will not be able to push all that aside.
The magistrate will have to say, "This person's documents will largely consist—won't they, officer?—of correspondence with his solicitor, because this is a big takeover. There is bound to be correspondence in those files; won't some of that correspondence be privileged?" The officer will reply, "I shan't be able to tell you that until I have the material". Then the magistrate has to decide whether, after all that, the material is evidence.
The Committee will appreciate that all the material in the diary probably will not be evidence at all unless one can prove who was the person who wrote in the diary, and so on. The rules of evidence come into it. Most of it will be hearsay and it will depend on the
104
strict rules of evidence as to whether the material in the files or in the index or in the letters is evidence or not. That will be a matter for the clerk to decide.
Speaking as a lawyer, I found this part of the Bill—and I mean it—almost incomprehensible; it is so complex and so complicated that one is constantly referring back to another phrase which is not a term of art and which is not technically a legal expression—such as "likely to be" and so on and so forth. I would submit that the only cure for this part of the Bill is to take it away and think again.
This new power of enabling the police to search for information was embarked upon in the original Bill and immediately ran into a hornets' nest because no one had appreciated that all what are called the caring professions would be up in arms, as they all were. The result is this dog's dinner of trying to get the caring professions out of the rules and surrounded by "ifs" and "buts". I would simply say to the Committee that there are people in the world other than those in the caring professions; there are caring men on the top of Clapham omnibuses. Why should they not be protected just as much as the caring professions? I suggest to your Lordships that this is a matter of the greatest possible importance, and the only answer to this part of the Bill is to take it away and have another look at it.
Lord Denning: This is virtually a re-run of the debate that we have just had. As my noble friend Lord Houghton has said, there is no doubt that in future there will be two classes of material. In the case of the first class, one will have to apply to a magistrate; in the case of the other, one will have to apply to a circuit judge. It depends on those words which say that a magistrate is not allowed to deal with matters which are subject to legal privilege, excluded material or special procedure material. There are two classes of material and the magistrates will decide whether they can deal with the matter or whether it has to go before a circuit judge. This is virtually the same question we have just been discussing; it is just a different formula.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Elton: When noble Lords and noble and learned Lords of the eminence of those to whom we have just been listening say that something is incomprehensible to them, or to magistrates, then of course I feel slightly impertinent if I pretend to understand the matter myself. I hope that I do not sound blasé, dismissive or bland if I make that clear. And if I sound conceited, it is unintentional.
I wonder whether I ought not first to set out the scheme of this part of the Bill as I see it. It would be possible to do so at length and your Lordships may challenge me, but perhaps I may offer a condensation. Under Clause 8 a magistrate has to consider whether an application made to him by a policeman—already invigilated by a senior policeman, the Committee will remember, considering the same criteria—enables him to grant a search warrant. If the premises are to be accessible in terms of a warrant granted by a magistrate, the application has to satisfy the conditions set out in Clause 8(1).
The magistrate must have reasonable grounds for believing that,
"a serious arrestable offence has been committed".
We have discussed what that is, and it is not in doubt. The magistrate has to consider,
"that there is material on premises specified in the applicaion which is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the investigation of the offence".
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, made much of the difficulty of that and went on to comment that the danger in the Bill was the way in which it brought in information as opposed to evidence, and how there was reference to this by the caring professions. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that the material in subsection 1(b) has to satisfy also the criterion in subsection 1(c); it is not only information, it is also relevant evidence.
If I may skip paragraph (d) for a moment, we then come to paragraph (c). That relates to the conditions in subsection (2) which between them amount to a conclusion that no other way of proceeding to get the information is satisfactory. That leaves us with the criterion in subsection 1(d) as providing, as I said—and at the stage just before dinner the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, predicted that I would repeat myself—that we are looking at material which is not accessible to magistrates. It falls into three types. There is "legally privileged" material, and, as I understand it, that is a term which is fairly generally understood and which is explicitly described and defined in Clause 11. There is excluded material, to which nobody can grant access. There are three categories of that. There are personal records held in confidence. There is a definition of "personal records" in Clause 12 and a definition of "held in confidence" in Clause 10(2). There are also human tissues and tissue fluids held in confidence, as well as journalistic material held in confidence, which is going to occupy our attention a little later this evening—but not much, I hope. "Journalistic material" is defined in Clause 13. That is the batch of material to which neither the magistrates nor the judge can give access.
We are then left with the third category to which the magistrates cannot give access, and that is special
106
procedure material to which, as its name implies, there can be access, but only by a special procedure which is set out in Schedule 1.
There, again, in Clause 14 there is a definition of "special procedure material" and a reference to journalistic material, other than excluded material. I do not think on reflection that the noble Lord would find tremendous difficulty in Clause 14. It may be that the fact that we have here six clauses intermeshing is daunting, but the way they intermesh seems to me to be slightly less difficult than noble Lords have so far suggested.
All your Lordships have addressed yourselves to the whole part of the Bill. I take it that it was a mere oversight which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, fell into due to the haste of his arrival here—and how glad were we to see him—that led him not to speak to the Question that the other clauses shall stand part which, I understand, it was his intention to do. We can therefore dispose of this in one debate.
Lord Hooson: I agree.
Lord Elton: This clause has grown up over a period. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, quoted a passage from the ACPO memorandum; I shall not weary your Lordships by repeating it. He will, I am sure, remember that it was actually the middle of last year when that was drafted, that the Bill has since changed, and that the Association of Chief Police Officers has said that it can operate this part of the Bill and it thinks that it is useful.
But there were others than the police whom we had to consider when the police wondered whether this game was worth the candle. They included the caring professions, members of which noble Lords see travelling about on the Clapham omnibus. For understandable reasons, they were anxious that the matter should be put beyond doubt. At the end of the day what mattered was not the adequacy of our explanation and reassurances about the need for these safeguards, but the fact that the reassurances that we proposed failed to reassure. A climate of uncertainty developed which damaged the ability of the caring professions to do their work and the only way the matter could finally be put beyond doubt was to define which material may not be the subject of an application for access under the new procedures. That is why the Bill has become complicated, though not as complicated, I submit, as some of your Lordships suggest.
I could address myself, as I say, to large tracts of explanation. It would take 10 or 15 minutes, I think, to go in detail through this part of the Bill and the way it is applied. The only reassurance I want to give your Lordships on that is that it is possible to analyse it if one gives it the time, that policemen are trained by people who will have analysed it, and that a clear path can be drawn through it. That applies to magistrates, too. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, trembling on the edge of his Bench.
Lord Hooson: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. If a police officer applies for a warrant and

107
finds no evidence, but rummaging through the papers finds evidence of something else, is he entitled to use that evidence?
Lord Elton: It has always been the case, as I understand it, that if a policeman is given the power to search for one incriminating object and finds another he should not turn a blind eye to it. What the law prohibits is the policeman getting a warrant to look for a generality of things. We started with Wilkes where everything was general on the warrant. There was practically just a blank sheet of paper on which names could be filled in as well as offences and articles. We have now narrowed this down so that the policeman has to apply in very precise terms. Half of your Lordships' anxiety is that the terms are so very precise in Clause 8, is it not? The policeman has to say exactly what he wants, why he wants it, the likelihood of it being there, the fact that it is not legally privileged, excluded, or special material, and so on. He must then go on to convince the magistrate that nothing else will do and that he cannot get the person to produce the evidence by any other means. That seems to me to be a strength and a reassurance and not something to alarm your Lordships.
It is true that a great many of the powers that are on the statute book and which are available to magistrates to give search warrants to police officers will remain on the statute book, and it will still be for the magistrates to decide. Those powers will not be controlled by this part of the Bill. This part of the Bill addresses itself to those matters which are thought by those concerned to be the most delicate and the most sensitive. It seems to me that it is proper that they should be protected and that the Bill should have the effect of putting those for the judgment in whom all your Lordships have said you have great confidence—that is, the circuit judge.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Taking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, do I understand that the Minister is saying that if a police officer obtains a warrant to search in somebody's office for incriminating documents in a fraud case, and should there find evidence of pornographic books or photographs, it would then be perfectly open to the officer to bring proceedings under the Obscene Publications Act against that individual although the officer had gone there to search for fraudulent documents?
Lord Elton: I will take advice on that. If, on the other hand, the police officer was looking for incriminating documents and found a dead body I think the noble Lord will agree that he ought to do something about it. It is a question of degree.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before my noble friend sits down, may I ask a procedural question? He suggested that we were speaking to a whole range of clauses between Clauses 8 and 14 on clause stand part. I was rather hoping that, on the consideration of Amendment No. 61 and the associated amendments which relate to the exclusion of journalistic material,
108
in that context we would approach Clause 13 stand part, to which the noble Lords, Lord Hooson, Lord Hutchinson and Lord McGregor of Durris, have set their names, in a totally free vein.
Lord Elton: My noble friend makes the agreeable and comforting supposition that the clause will be there when we get to it. We are debating clause stand part and if we lose Clause 8 much that follows will have nothing to stand on. I am sure that my noble friend will be able to address himself to as wide a consideration as he wishes in the context of that debate. I am not trying to exclude him from it in any way. What I think that most of your Lordships would wish to do is to debate, as we have, the generality of Part II once rather than eight or nine times.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether I might be allowed to make a short contribution. I hope in a practical way. There is anxiety. It is shared by eminent lawyers and not least. I believe, by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Denning. The anxiety is that going through the whole of this paraphernalia by way of an oral application before a magistrate will not mean a strict observance of the Act, if it becomes an Act, in the way that I believe Members of your Lordships' House would want and the noble Lord the Minister would want.
I believe that it would at least be a betterment of the Bill if the application had to be made supported by an affidavit—and it is an ex parte application, so one would be giving nothing away—which would comply with the provisions of the Bill. The police officer would have to make a written application, as it were, in the sense that the grounds would be in the affidavit, in which he would deal with the various parts of this clause, say why it was that the evidence he wanted to adduce was material and in other ways—and I need not go right the way through this—comply with the provisions of this clause.
Otherwise—and this is not meant in any way to be offensive to any magistrate; I and my noble friends join in all the things that have been said by way of praise of the magistrates, lay and stipendiary alike—we would he imposing upon a magistrate the detailed provisions of this and other clauses—but we are now dealing with this clause. The learned magistrate—and I use that title on purpose to show that I meant what I said a moment ago very sincerely—would have to go through every provision here to make sure that what was orally said complied with every one of these provisions. That is asking for something that cannot be done or will not be done in many cases.
But if we had an affidavit that complied with this clause, one can envisage that care would be taken to see that its provisions had been complied with, and the magistrate, and possibly the magistrate's clerk, would be able to check that all that was demanded by this clause had been satisfied. It is the oral application, ex parte, that I believe confuses many of us and makes us apprehensive.
Lord Elton: My noble friend—and saying that is an honest slip!—the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, has

109
kindly reminded me that of course the procedure is not exclusively oral. I refer him to page 56 of the draft codes of practice, which is already published and which will be enforceable under the disciplinary code, and remind your Lordships that:
"An application for a search warrant must be supported by an information in writing, stating:
(i) the enactment under which the application is made"—
and of course it is any application and not just one under this clause—
"ii) as specifically as is reasonably practicable the premises to be searched and the object of the search; and
iii) the grounds on which the application is made (including, where the purpose of the proposed search is to find evidence of an alleged offence, an indication of how the evidence relates to the "—
investigation.
That is a requirement also in Clause 15(2):
"Where a constable applies for any such warrant, it shall be his duty … to state",
and here are the statements that the noble Lord wants, but of course they may be made verbally. If he is suggesting that the code practice should be slightly more specific, that is another matter. But I do not think that that is a matter which ought to bring Part II of the Bill down in ruins.
Lord Mishcon: I merely reply quickly to the very helpful comments made by the noble Lord. Obviously, as he said, we are dealing now with a draft code of practice. Secondly, we are dealing with a code of practice that talks in only general terms about the grounds upon which the application is made. I hoped that the noble Lord the Minister would reply to the effect that what I had said seemed to be a practical suggestion. At least some Members of the Committee (I am not speaking beyond that) might be happier if the noble Lord the Minister would say that. These provisions are very complex. Because all of us want these conditions satisfied, then either the code of practice or (as I would prefer) the Bill itself should say that all these grounds, and not just the ones that are selected in the code of practice, should be either in a written information or, I would have hoped, in an affidavit which supports the application.
But presumably the noble Lord the Minister is not saying that, which puts some of us in a rather difficult position unless, of course—and I can go on talking for a moment or two while, if I may say so, the most nimble Baroness in the Committee manages to finish a journey which might be the envy of anyone who represents us at the Olympic Games!
Lord Elton: The noble Baroness's swift journeys first created for me an ambiguity and then resolved it. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I are in fact talking about the same thing. I understand that an affidavit is to the higher ranks of the Judiciary what an information in writing is to a magistrate. I am assured that that is right. Therefore I am happy to say that what the noble Lord has said will satisfy him is already in Clause 15(3):
"An application for such a warrant shall be made ex parte and supported by an information in writing".
Lord Mishcon: It says "supported by".
Lord Elton: I am afraid the noble Lord will have to explain further. If he does not want it to be supported by an affidavit, what is it that he wants the affidavit to do?
Lord Mishcon: Of course I want it to be in support. However, one can have an affidavit or information in support which merely says in general terms, "This is going to assist in the course of the investigation", and that supports the information. Even if the draft code of practice is carried out in full, it does not cover the whole of the provisions of this clause and all the things about which the court is supposed to be satisfied. As I said, I would have hoped that I was making a practical suggestion, but presumably it is not one that commends itself to the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord's suggestions usually commend themselves to me as sensible, and I am grateful for his attempt to help. I think we have perhaps gone on long enough. Of course I shall consider carefully what has been said. However, it seems to me that we have the information in writing containing in general terms a good deal of what the noble Lord wants. If the magistrate finds his case difficult, he will know what questions to ask orally. I suppose he could ask for them to be answered in writing if that was of assistance. I think we have reached as far as we can with this. I have tried to reassure the Committee. However, this part of the Bill is complex. The complexity is unavoidable. It arises from requests that have been made by those most closely affected by the provisions of the Bill.
I should add that we have closely considered whether it could not be simplified on a different basis. We have come to the conclusion that any other process would be likely to lead into other or new difficulties. In Clause 8(1) the magistrate has to be satisfied that the conditions are fulfilled. If he does not understand them, he will not be satisfied. I really think we are safe.
Lord Hooson: I should simply like to confirm what the noble Lord. Lord Elton, pointed out to me: that, of course, my noble friend and I were speaking in objection to Clauses 8 to 14, inclusive, standing part. However, we intend to divide on Clause 8 simply because we believe that this section is so complicated—complicated for the police and complicated for the magistrates—that the only way in which to deal with it is for the Home Office to take it back. Then, they could bring in a far easier and simpler construction, as they know they could have done months ago when asked to do so by chiefs of police.
9.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64: Not-Contents, 40.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Avon, E.

Atholl, D.

Belhaven and Stenton, L

Auckland, L.

Bellwin, L.

111

Beloff, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Belstead, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Halsbury, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hood, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Cairns, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Caithness, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kilmany, L.

Cathcart, E.

Kintore, E.

Cockfield, L.

Lawrence, L.

Coleraine, L.

Long, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Crathorne, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

De La Warr, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Molson, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Norwich, Bp.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Plant, L.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sharples, B.

Ferrier, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Swansea, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gisborough, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Gridley, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Amherst, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Attlee, E.

Lockwood, B.

Avebury, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Birk, B.

Molloy, L.

Blease, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Brockway, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Denning, L.

Stedman, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gilford, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stone, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordiff, L.

Hooson, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

Hunt, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham E.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 8 agreed to accordingly.
9.43 p.m.
Clause 9 [Access to excluded material and special procedure material]:
[Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Special procedure]:
[Amendments Nos. 55, 56 and 57 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 58:
[Printed earlier: col. 65.]
The noble Lord said: I think that perhaps I should move this amendment formally and just leave it to the noble Lord the Minister to reply to it if he sees fit.
Lord Elton: I am not at all sure that I do see fit to reply to it because, although the noble Lord warned me that this was not part of the group, I had in fact assumed, wrongly, that it was and therefore the noble Lord must bear with me while I find my copy of the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: I want to do something much kinder than that. On further reflection I think that it is part of the group and, therefore, I shall save the noble Lord the Minister the need to look further at his papers. It must be part of the group and in those circumstances I hope that I can say, "not moved".
[Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Meaning of "excluded materials"]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 11, line 15, leave out ("held by him").
The noble Lord said: If I may, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 172 in Clause 107.
Amendment No. 172: Page 94, line 35, leave out ("held by him").
Both of these are drafting amendments which delete three superfluous words. A similar amendment to Clause 14(2)(a) was accepted in another place on Report and not reflected in the other parts of the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will agree that these two amendments will bring Clauses 10 and 107 into line with that amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 61:
Page II, line 19, leave out paragraph (c)
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like when speaking to this amendment to refer to Amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 67.
Amendment No. 62: Page 11, line 23, leave out ("other than journalistic material").
Amendment No. 63: Page 11, line 31, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment No. 67: Clause 14, page 13, line 2, leave out from ("applies") to end of line 3.
These amendments, with the notice of intention to oppose the Question, That Clause 13 stand part of the Bill, will excise the exclusion of journalistic material from the powers of entry, search and seizure under Part II of the Bill. I shall be very brief. We are concerned here with a proffered safeguard which is wholly unacceptable to those whom it is designed to protect. Apart from this, this exclusion is objectionable in principle. It raises a serious problem of definition; it creates some new status of privilege; and I beg to suggest that the history of the origins of this exclusion, when introduced during the pre-election stage of the Bill, as it stood in 1982, may be of some interest, but it is of absolutely no consequence today.
It is immaterial whether there has been some misunderstanding or some change of view, or both. What is relevant is the situation today. For this exclusion is not acceptable to the vast majority of journalists, to at least 200 editors, to the British

113
Executive of the International Press Institute, to the Association of Journalists, or to the Newspaper Society. Therefore, with respect to my noble friend the Minister, it is not to the point for him to contend, as he did on Second Reading, at col. 478, that this exclusion, which nobody wants, can be justified as protecting sources in the interests of a free press, avoiding the possibility of a denial of access by journalists, or honouring some undertaking which nobody wishes to be honoured if it be given.
Two of the noble Lords who support this amendment have already spoken at Second Reading, giving your Lordships' House the benefit of their own knowledge and expertise in this matter, and, as I see them in their place, it is not my purpose tonight to seek to pre-empt what they may say. It appeared to me as a matter of principle that the exclusion of journalistic material from the powers of entry, seizure and search under Part II of this Bill was unsound, unworkable, open to serious objection and perhaps unwelcome to those affected by it. A new dimension to the order of debate on Second Reading was introduced by the noble Lords, Lord Ardwick and Lord Hemingford, who explained why the exclusion was unacceptable to those directly affected by it. My noble friend the Minister, with his customary grace, in reply said that he would keep an open mind upon this subject, and it is in that spirit that I beg to move.
Lord McGregor of Durris: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak not only to this amendment but also to the amendments to Clause 13 and Clause 14. I should like to deal with one major point in these amendments which seek to delete references to journalistic material from the Bill. What is the justification of the privileged exemption of the professions protected in the Bill? The principle seems to stand on the necessity to protect interests vital to society.
The lawyers' privilege is, in part, to enable him to protect his client; but very importantly also to further the administration of justice. The doctors' Hippocratic silence not to reveal what ought not to be noised among men stands on the requirement that if the doctor is to serve his patient, his patient must be free to disclose everything that may be relevant about himself. Without full disclosure the doctor cannot diagnose, prognose, or treat. The priest is bound to silence over all matters disclosed in formal confession. The penitent must be free to tell all in order to be forgiven all. To the circumstances of social workers they attach similar considerations.
The general justification of these privileges is that some professions cannot be practised without them. The practitioners need the privilege to do their work, and most of them assert this need vigorously. But what of journalists and broadcasters? It could be argued that they need the legal privilege in order to serve the interests of society by protecting their sources of information in the course of providing the information without which, inter alia, democratic electorates cannot make rational choices.
Is this what the Government are saying, that journalists and broadcasters—like doctors, priests and lawyers—cannot do their work without this special protection? In fact journalists and broadcasters are
114
saying the opposite, that they cannot do their work in good conscience if they are privileged. They fear, as the first possible consequence of privilege, the registration of journalists, which is only too likely to result from a situation in which the courts have to define journalistic material and then, necessarily, journalists. Beyond registration lies licensing, and beyond that control. That this possibility is no wild nightmare thought up by opponents of the Bill is confirmed by the grounds on which the former Government and this Government have regularly and honourably opposed the attempts of UNESCO to secure a special status and protection for journalists in the course of seeking to establish a new world information and communication order.
The Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the time, Mr. Peter Blaker, spoke to the general conference of UNESCO in Belgrade in 1980. I have taken a phrase or two from what he said. He said:
"we should fully endorse recommendation 50 of the MacBride Report, which emphasises the dangers of a special status for journalists."
Recommendation 50 of that Report reads in part:
"The professional independence and integrity of all those involved in the collection and dissemination of news, information and views to the public should be safeguarded. However, the Commission does not propose special privileges to protect journalists in the performance of their duties, although journalism is often a dangerous profession. Far from constituting a special category, journalists are citizens of their respective countries, entitled to the same range of human rights as other citizens. … To propose additional measures would invite the dangers entailed in a licensing system since it would require some body to stipulate who should be entitled to claim such protection".
This Bill confers a special status upon journalists, and other countries will discern a serious inconsistency in our domestic and our international positions on this matter. These are the foundations of anxiety about the clauses. We have never had a press law in this country, and journalists have been subject to the same law as that which applies to their readers. I know that there has been discussion about the numbers of journalists who take one view or the other. It is my opinion that on the current evidence the great majority of journalists wish these clauses to be deleted; but I do not intend to argue the detail because I believe that this will be discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford.
I simply wish to quote a sentence or two from a very remarkable document, also quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, on Second Reading. This is a statement signed by more than 200 editors drawn from the national dailies, the Sundays, broadcasters, regional newspapers and weeklies across the whole spectrum of the British press. Never before has this number of journalists and editors contrived to agree on a form of words, let alone agree to sign a public statement about their beliefs. What they say is this:
"We would rather be left out of the Bill. Journalists have no rights above those of ordinary citizens because journalists are ordinary citizens. We do not want special privileges conferred upon us. What is given can always be taken away".
I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will explain what is the special principle that requires journalists to have a legal privilege conferred upon them in circumstances in which most of them adamantly reject it. They do not need it for their work, as does the doctor or the priest or the lawyer. On the

115
contrary, what they are all saying is that the possession of such a privilege will undermine their capacity to do their work, and expose them to risks of all kinds. I simply cannot understand why, in these circumstances, the Government have continued with these clauses, and I very much hope that the noble Lord the Minister when he replies will give us some encouragement in the direction of a reconsideration of them.
10 p.m.
The Duke of Atholl: I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept these amendments. I personally, would be quite unable to support the Government on this particular group of amendments. I am chairman of a group of provincial newspapers—an interest which I feel I should declare —but I assure your Lordships that I am not and never have been a journalist in any form, shape or size. Sadly, I think I would not be capable of writing sufficiently well to pursue that career.
But I feel that, in principle, journalists should not have special privileges, as has already been said, and that they do not want them. As chairman of this group, I should be most upset if I thought that our journalists were getting special privileges under this Bill which were not obtainable by other citizens of this country. I therefore hope that the Government will accept this group of amendments. I am sure that if they do not accept them tonight my noble friend will be able to say that he will consider the matter very seriously; because I know that it will be returned to at the Report stage of the Bill.
Lord Hunt: I rise briefly to support the amendment and to say that I have little, if anything, to add to what my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris has said. But having served for three years under his distinguished chairmanship on the Royal Commission on the Press between 1974 and 1977, I am totally convinced that these amendments are right. It is greatly to the credit of the 200 or more editors mentioned by my noble friend that they have gone public in expressing their views. It is quite a relief that in relation to a Bill attracting a number of amendments purporting to provide additional protection from search and seizure—two of which I am about to move myself—there should be an amendment to seek excusal from being protected. I would say that it is not too much to claim that the freedom of our press, one of our basic liberties, depends upon this exposure to search and seizure, if necessary, as a safeguard against the abuse of the freedom of the press.
Lord Denning: May I ask to support this amendment? The law has often considered confidential information, especially that of journalists, when they have claimed to keep their sources secret. Always the law has replied, "It all depends". If it is necessary in the interests of justice for those sources to be disclosed, then they must be, as indeed the Committee will remember happened in the cases of British Steel and Granada and others. In many cases the courts have ordered the journalists to produce
116
documents and to disclose their sources when it is necessary in the interests of justice—but only when it is necessary.
Most surely this can be carried out in this Bill. The disclosure of the journalists' material should be on the same footing as other documents, whether they are company documents or the like. The magistrates can consider whether it is really relevant evidence. Let us take the case where the newspaper buys documents which are very incriminating, as happened in the case of Vassall and in others. They often buy documents at a high price which may be most relevant evidence in the prosecution or the ascertainment of a criminal. Should they have protection from those? Should they be special material? Surely the magistrates, if it is the magistrates here, ought to be able to issue a warrant for these documents to be found. I am very glad to hear that so many journalists do not require any special consideration in their case.
Lord Hemingford: In supporting these amendments, I should like, if I may, to elaborate a little on the strength of the feeling within the ranks of journalism because, although the Government have been making signals now for many weeks—indeed, since the Committee stage in another place—indicating that they have only to be convinced that there is a consensus within the press, they have so far not apparently been convinced and therefore I feel constrained to go into the matter in rather more detail than we did on Second Reading. If I do go into a little more detail I hope that your Lordships will take it on the chin. I would rather that the noble Lord the Minister had accepted the general assurances that were given on Second Reading, most notably by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, but as he has not done so I feel that I must attempt some more detail.
There is never going to be absolute unanimity on any issue within the press, radio and television. It is not, thank goodness, in nature for there to be that kind of consensus. Nevertheless, on this particular proposition as noble Lords have already said, there is a quite extraordinary degree of agreement. For instance, in favour of the amendment we have the Director General of the BBC, which takes care of a huge section of broadcasting. He is joined by the editor of Independent Television News, the Managing Director of Granada Television, the Director of Programmes for London Weekend Television, and the senior commissioning editor of Channel 4 television—not much doubt, one would think, about consensus in the broadcasting world.
Turning to the national press, we have the amazing fact that the editorial directors of every national daily except for the Daily Star, the Morning Star and The Times—I put them in alphabetical order—are in support of these amendments. Those three have given no indication that they are opposed. Six editors of national Sunday papers and the editors-in-chief of Reuters and the Press Association, our two great news agencies, are also in support. Not much doubt about consensus in Fleet Street.
In the regional press, support is also strong. The editors of 13 regional morning papers, 45 regional

117
evening papers and four regional Sunday papers support the amendments. Not much doubt about consensus in the regional daily papers. The editors-in-chief and editorial directors of two of the largest provincial newspaper groups and the two smaller ones are in support. One hundred and forty-one editors of local weekly papers have gone so far as to signify their support, too.
The National Union of Journalists is not t body with which I always agree—indeed, it once expelled me from membership—but in this particular matter we are in agreement. Disagreements stem mainly from industrial matters and in this particular case, where there are no industrial connotations, it is fair to say that far more journalists belong to the National Union of Journalists than to any other trade union, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we may assume that it speaks for its members on this matter. Certainly evidence is not lacking when, as is quite often the case, it does not speak for its members.
The Newspaper Society is often at odds with the NUJ and I confess that I have myself sometimes been in disagreement with the Newspaper Society. But the society, representing hundreds of employers and newspaper owners, supports these amendments. The directors of the Periodical Publishers Association and the chairman of its editorial committee similarly support them. So there are the supporters of these amendments—a pretty formidable crew, by any standards, I should imagine.
What of those who oppose the amendments? Who are they, and what is the strength of their advocacy? First, there is the Institute of Journalists, a smallish body whose existence as an alternative to the National Union of Journalists is, in another context, of the greatest importance. I do not want to minimise them on that account; nevertheless they are not numerous. Their chief spokesman on this issue is not a journalist, and I feel this is a matter on which journalists are best able to grasp the kernel of the argument. In fact, I venture to suggest that all good journalists know in their bones that the Bill, as it stands at the moment, is wrong. At any rate, if the Government wish to tot up the number of divisions ranged on either side on this issue, they will see that the Institute of Journalists are not terribly significant.
Then there is the Press Council, a body of great importance in the field of complaints against the press. I say nothing against the Press Council in that respect. I believe its existence, its efficiency and, above all, the amount of use that is made of it is of the greatest importance: but its record in defence of press freedom is not so conspicuous. It has not done much that is bad, but it has left a great deal undone, and it has a strong lay element, which I suggest makes it less than reliable as a bellwether of press opinion. There is not much for the Government to worry about so far.
Finally, there is the Guild of British Newspaper Editors. I declare an interest as a loyal, but critical, member and as a past president of that organisation. At the last count, in September 1983, it had 323 ordinary members, 289 of them in England and Wales, where this legislation applies. Of course it does not apply to Scotland, where most of the other members are. Twenty-two editors had joined in the
118
previous 12 months, and 50 members had resigned. I have said to the guild, and I repeat to your Lordships now, that there is a crisis in that organisation which is not at present being solved.
The guild's council has declared itself in favour of preserving the present special status provided in the Bill for,
"material acquired or created for the purposes of journalism".
Yet, as reported in the Observer of 24th June, guild officials admit that this may not reflect the views of its members.
An analysis of the figures should put the guild's position in perspective. By no means all editors belong to the guild, but the position is that in England and Wales 222 editors—most, but not all, of them guild members—have personally expressed support for the line that we are taking tonight by signing the manifesto which noble Lords have already mentioned. On the other hand is ranged a body which could, at most, muster 289 editors, which has conducted no poll of those individual members and whose officers are reported to admit that the official line may not represent the views of the membership. On this issue, the guild is simply not credible as a mirror of opinion among editors. The Government are of course not required to take account of the views of editors and journalists in forming this legislation; but they have indicated that they will do so. In those circumstances, I believe that to rely on suggestions that the profession is divided simply will not hold water. I therefore hope that we can be given some encouragement that the enormous strength of this consensus is at last beginning to be recognised.
Lord Kilbracken: As a working journalist and a member of the NUJ—I have not yet been expelled from it—I should just like to rise for a moment to express my complete support for these amendments for reasons which have been so admirably put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. Journalists are ordinary people and do not require any special privileges. I last supported the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on the subject of amusement machines and I shall be very happy to do so again on this rather more important question tonight.
10.18 p.m.
Lord Hartwell: I do not want to make this discussion longer than it has to be; but perhaps, as one who has been as long in journalism as anybody else in your Lordships' House, the Committee might like to hear what I have to say. Practically all of it has been said already. What I should like to do is to tell it in a different way, because all the speakers seem to assume —if one does not know anything about it—that this Bill has just been produced, and the Government are being very pigheaded about it. It has a long history going back to the beginning of 1982, and I think that the Government have been rather goaded in this matter. I have deep sympathy with their position. They have been bombarded with advice from many quarters. Sometimes that advice has been changed, and sometimes it has seemed self-important.
This is a very wide-ranging Bill and the part about journalists and journalistic material is a very small

119
aspect of it. I cannot help feeling that the Government wish to get on with it. In the early stages, so many people expressed a view that journalism is a caring and privileged position. The Government have said, having taken over the Bill from the previous Parliament, "If that is what they feel, let us hear them all and if they want to be caring and privileged, let them be so. Let us not put ourselves in the position of making martyrs of them." That point of view was put with some indignation by the Under-Secretary, Mr. Mellor, in another place in Committee who said:
"In response to the tirade—or tidal wave—of criticism, my predecessors came to a certain conclusion … we just do not want to be led up the garden path again … after which they resile from their position, and say something completely different."
The kernel of the matter is: who are these people? This has already been discussed at some length, though not in perspective.
The noble Lord said on Second Reading that we are a "divided profession" but that he would be prepared to listen to "further views". Mr. Mellor had said the same thing in Committee in another place, and the Home Secretary on Report said it again. In other words, they say that if the opponents of this clause show that they are as united as journalists ever can be, then the Government will chuck it. I hope that we have nearly reached that stage.
One must admit, as nobody else has, that when the first Bill was introduced there were editorials, which Mr. Mellor quoted, in some national newspapers —The Times, the Guardian and the Daily Express—questioning that no specific protection was to be given to journalists. However, the Committee should realise that most newspapers produce three—or certainly two—leading articles every day. That, with their Sunday editions, makes a thousand leaders a year. Very often they have to be written on documents which are thrown at them between three or four o'clock in the afternoon of the day preceding publication. All the comments which were quoted in another place were made as asides, in general criticisms of the Bill as a whole.
Delane used to say that if you want to box the compass you should take four days, doing it in easy stages. Some of the national newspapers I have quoted took longer than that: but their editors have all been of one mind since the new Bill was published in the autumn of last year. There have been some statistics about who supports them and who does not, but I would stress the position about national editors who seem to me to be very much more important than anybody else.
Almost all of the national daily and Sunday newspapers have signed a letter saying that they are against this clause and in favour of the amendment. It is true that, of the 17, three did not sign, but all three of them have sister newspapers whose editors did sign. I would suggest to the Government that they should not be influenced by the fact that the national editors were among the few people who did not lobby them. National editors never lobby anybody, ever, in concert. The nationals should have great attention paid to them, because they have by far the biggest staffs and their readership is far greater—15 million every day and 18 million on Sundays. Allied to them
120
is the editor-in-chief of the Press Association, who has far more reporters than any one newspaper.
A great deal has been said about the Guild of British Editors, which is a slight misnomer because they are all regional. I shall not go into the statistics, but the present situation is that the majority of them are in favour of this amendment.
So who is against the amendment and in favour of this clause? There are two: the Institute of Journalists and the Press Council. However, I stress that the matters which we are discussing are matters for editors and not for the rank and file. The editor is the man who, in law, is responsible for what goes into his newspaper. Whether or not this clause is passed, he will remain responsible.
The institute, which is the smaller but the older of the two journalists' trade unions, is opposed to the National Union of Journalists. I do not want to say anything against them but I do not think that either the institute or the National Union of Journalists has any standing in this matter. Trade unions are about pay and conditions. They may have their codes of practice, but editors do not recognise them. Editors have their own codes of practice according to the type of newspaper they are conducting. In any case, so far as the institute was concerned, the members were not consulted in advance. The institute's policy was set out in an article in a trade paper called UK Press Gazette.
There remains the Press Council, which is naturally considered with much more awe. Its remit is that of an ombudsman as regards the press but not broadcasting. Its function is to pronounce on standards, and to see that misrepresentations are corrected—and, if necessary, reprimanded. But why it should want journalists to be privileged, I cannot imagine. In any case, again, its view on this subject was issued initially by the director, and only later ratified by the council, which for the most part consists of part-timers who by definition must have had no close connection with newspapers.
So much for the divided profession, as the Minister calls it. But I do not believe that journalism is a profession at all. We have never claimed special status. Certainly we care, and we never hold on to documents which we recognise as threatening national security or which prove criminality. But we are not in a profession which gives us rights above those of the ordinary citizen. We do not give ourselves airs, and we do not wish them thrust upon us.
It is true that politicians are occasionally excessively civil to us—especially when they are not in office. But it does not follow that Parliament should grant us the same status as clergymen. We are not a profession, because anyone with aptitude can get in—and so nobody can he thrown out. There are no other qualifications. Perhaps I may give some examples of successful journalists, not from this generation, because that would be invidious, but from the last generation.
My father, the first Lord Camrose, started in journalism as a police court reporter at the age of 14. Lord Beaverbrook started as a millionaire proprietor. In fact the first editor he appointed—the late Sir Beverley Baxter—used to say that he had been told.

121
"Bax—I'm making you editor because you're the only man on the paper who knows less about journalism than I do".
If we need no qualifications, there is no justification for singling us out as privileged persons. We are not a profession and we are not divided—or not much. Please may we be allowed to take pot luck with the rest of the citizenry?
Lord Ardwick: I spoke at length on Second Reading. Everything I said then was relevant to these amendments, and I do not propose to redeploy those arguments at any length tonight. In fact, the noble Lords who are co-signatories to these amendments have already said all there is to say with great cogency and force.
We who work on newspapers fear that the provisions of this Bill will lead to the emergence of a legal definition of a journalist. This would simplify the task of any government in the future which wished to regulate or license journalism, with all the dangers that that would carry for our democracy.
This is not one of those amendments which seek to torment, tease or even embarrass the Government. On the contrary, the Government are offering us journalists a gift, and it is we who are embarrassed. Most of us know what it is to be offered a gift by a generous person who has nothing but the best motives, and then to have to reject it, for some gifts compromise the recipient. They change the relationship between he who gives and he who receives. That is our position today. We are offered special protection, and this would change our relationship with Government and would change our status in society. These are undesirable things. We should become a privileged class. We should no longer be able to plead that the freedom of the press is not just the freedom of writers and of printers, but is to be protected because it is a freedom for all citizens to exercise and enjoy.
I urge the Government to allow us to reject their gift while expressing to them our grateful thanks for their goodwill in offering it to us.
Lord Elton: There seems to be a certain consensus in the Chamber this evening. I do not know whether or not your Lordships have noticed it. It did catch my eye, and I wondered how many lions there were in the den when Daniel went there!
These amendments seek to delete all references to journalistic material from Part II of the Bill. Those references serve as a protection to material created or held for journalistic purposes. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and his allies—his numerous, noble, widely dispersed and always distinguished and sometimes even learned allies—wish them out of the Bill because they wish to remove from journalists a special privilege which others do not have. That, I think, is clear, and if I have it wrong then they must stop me. I hope your Lordships will listen very carefully to what I have to say, because what matters is not really the number of those supporting this amendment at the moment in your Lordships' Committee or outside it but whether they have got it right. I believe that what they fear does not now exist in the Bill as drafted, and that what they now propose
122
would actually put the danger that they seek to avoid into the Bill.
I shall come to that in a moment. I think I must first say what is in the Bill, and why it is there, before I say what would happen if we took it out of it. The Bill as drafted works like this. Throughout, the Bill addresses itself not to journalists but to journalistic material. There is no question of whether or not journalists belong to a profession. Whether they were appointed to run important newspapers because they knew nothing about the business or whether they were born and bred in the compositors' room and worked as cub reporters at the age of 16 is irrelevant. The Bill deals with journalistic material.
What is more, journalistic material held in confidence and consisting either of documents or of other records is wholly excluded from an application by the police for access to it unless there are existing statutory provisions which would allow the issue of a search warrant in respect of it. If there are such provisions, there is a special procedure set out in Schedule I to deal with it. All other types of journalistic material will constitute special procedure material. So far as that is concerned, the provisions of Schedule I will again replace provisions already on the statute book which empower magistrates to issue search warrants. They will also provide a means for the police to obtain access to material not covered by existing search warrant powers which constitute evidence of serious crime. In both cases this will be on the authority of a circuit judge rather than a magistrate.
The effect of the amendments proposed by my noble friend would be that journalistic material enjoyed no special protection as such. If the particular item concerned fell within the definition of excluded material in Clause 10, then it would be excluded material; if it fell within the definition of special procedure material in Clause 14, then it would be special procedure material; if it satisfied neither definition but still constituted substantial evidence of serious crime then it would be subject to the provisions of Clause 8. That is what these amendments seek to achieve.
Your Lordships will be aware of the irony of the fact that these provisions are in the Bill only following the very strenuous representations of the journalistic professions in the last Parliament. Your Lordships will also be aware that my noble friend seeks to take out of the Bill what was not at first in it at all; we put it in only on their recommendation. The Government saw great force in the argument that journalists should not have what amounted to a specially privileged position. This is what my noble friend now wants to establish; it is the argument that a protection that was appropriate to social workers and priests was not appropriate to reporters and editors.
I also remember that we were eventually over-persuaded not just by the apparent unanimity of the profession—and I understand that it is always "apparent", at best—which was important, but also by the force of their arguments, which were very persuasive. The clear message we received was, first, that the freedom of the media depended crucially upon the provision of special protection for

123
confidential journalistic material in order to safeguard the identity of sources; and, secondly, that the provisions of Clause 8 did not provide sufficient protection for evidence of crime which might not be subject to considerations of confidentiality, such as untransmitted film, but which, nevertheless, raised special issues concerning the balance of public interest.
The last Government responded to these concerns and undertook to meet them, and when my right honourable friend reviewed the provisions of the Bill before reintroducing it he, too, was persuaded by the merits of the argument that there was a genuine need for special treatment. However, he made clear that he would reconsider the matter in the light of further representations from those most directly concerned. I shall return to those representations in a moment.
First, I must make it clear that we continue to believe that, the question of consensus aside, there are sound arguments for conferring special protection not on journalists, but on journalistic material, thereby protecting the free and uninhibited flow to the press and the rest of the media of information on which they depend.
In the first place, it is only by making it clear that confidential journalistic material is excluded material that it is possible to be sure that confidential sources will not be disclosed on the order of a court. Those working in the press and broadcasting media have always argued, in the strongest terms, that the confidentiality of their sources should be respected; and I have not heard anyone retreat from that position tonight. The position of those who now criticise the Bill seems to be that journalists, therefore, should not be compelled to identify their sources, but they should be entitled to run the risk of arguing unsuccessfully for confidentiality in the courts and to be punished for contempt of court if the court holds against them. Since both journalists and the Government agree that the Bill should confer no new powers to compel the identification of their sources, it is surprising that some journalists should be so keen to open up exactly this possibility.
The Bill prevents the issue from coming before the courts in the first place. This will save unnecessary court proceedings. But my noble friend and his distinguished and numerous allies are prepared to face the courts. This is the price they are prepared to pay. So we must then ask ourselves: what are they paying it for? Their purpose is to avoid there being a necessity, or even an inclination, on the part of the courts to define what is a journalist. The concept "journalist", they feel, should remain undefined and thus act as a first defence against the establishment of lists of journalists and, at some remote stage, the development of regulations on both journalists and the press. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, concentrated that point in a few pungent sentences.
The results which they fear may follow from the Bill as drafted are results that the Press Council regard as remote and hypothetical, and I think the description is accurate. However, the freedom of the press is a concept close to the hearts of constitutionalists and to this House. It has connections with the more absolute concepts of political freedom and democracy itself. I
124
readily accept that. We must not, therefore, put this danger lightly aside. We must, instead, ask ourselves whether removal of the protection now in the Bill makes it more or less likely that the courts would have to ask themselves what is a journalist and, by providing an answer, set journalists for ever apart as a marked and, therefore, it is suggested, a regulatable body.
What would happen if the protection were removed? What if the police were able to apply to a court for access to evidence of serious crime, even though it had been acquired or created for the purpose of journalism? The first question that would arise on such an application would be this: should the police apply under Clause 8 or Schedule 1? The answer would depend on whether the material was or was not special procedure material as defined in Clause 14.
I know that your Lordships want to get into the Division Lobbies. I assume my noble friend wants to get into the Division Lobby quickly, so I do not want to follow the process in detail. I would only say that under Clause 14 material is special procedure material if it is held in confidence and has been acquired or created in the course of trade, business, profession or other occupation. These are crucial words, as your Lordships will see in a moment. As my right honourable friend pointed out in another place, the police would have to apply under Schedule 1 in the case of material held by someone who was a professional journalist, but they would have to apply under Clause 8 in the case of material held by somebody who was not a professional journalist. So the effect of removing all references to journalism in the Bill would be that professional journalists enjoyed a protection greater than that afforded to other occasional contributors to press or broadcasting material.
Whether the application should be under Clause 8 or Schedule 1 would depend entirely on whether or not the person who held the evidence was or was not a professional journalist. A definition would be essential, but that is precisely what the noble Lords have with such persuasive oratory told your Lordships that they wish to avoid. So it seems that the argument must fail on those terms. I ask noble Lords to consider, even if the whole of the rest of their case is valid, whether they really want to press this amendment in order to put themselves in the peril which they are so vigorously trying to escape.
There are other matters. There is the question of unanimity. The noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, who described himself as a loyal ex-member of the Guild of British Newspaper Editors, and revealed to us the—
Lord Hemingford: I am sorry. I am still a member, loyal but critical.
10.42 p.m.
Lord Elton: The loyal but critical member revealed to us that it was riven by disagreement. But it appears that what the disagreement has yielded is the preponderance of a view which favours the Bill and not the amendment. The guild wrote to us on 7th February to say—and I quote from these letters only the relevant passages—

125
"We continue to believe that the position could be improved by a phrase based on publication rather than journalistic material. However, if that is not an option, the majority view of the Guild"—
it recognises the divisions—
"remains as outlined to you when we met last July to accept the substance of the clauses giving protection".
The Independent Television Companies Association wrote on 23rd February:
"The majority of companies feel that if our original submission in favour of material acquired or created for purposes of publication is not included in the Bill, then it would be better to retain journalistic material rather than have no protection at all".
The Press Council—again the noble Lord sought to belittle its importance—said on 4th May:
"The considered and reconsidered view of the Press Council is that on balance the provisions relating to journalistic material now in the Bill should be retained. The Council arrived at this view by a very substantial majority. It hopes the Government will retain the provisions on Report stage in the House of Lords".
There are other points.
But I think that the point one has to come back to is this. I understand the desire of the journalists not to fall into a category in which some grey-suited, jackbooted future Government could force them to adhere to repressive rules, interference from Government and censorship. I understand that, but the fact is that the amendment that my noble friend and his distinguished allies are pressing on your Lordships would have exactly the effect of exposing them to that danger, if that danger arose, as they claim it does, from their being described or defined as a category in the courts. I take leave to think that that is rather a remote danger. I think that their fears are excessive. But I do not want to go on longer, because it seems that what I have said appears to me, on profound reflection, to be irrefutable. I do not think my noble friend will want to put himself in that position by pressing this amendment. We are at one in what we want to achieve. It seems it would be ironic if he were to do that.
Lord Avebury: May I briefly intervene in this debate in order to point out that the noble Lord the Minister on occasions seeks to distinguish at the moment between people who are journalists and people who are not.
He will probably recall the case which I am going to mention. It is that of Mr. Ian Cameron, about whom he had some correspondence. Mr. Cameron sought to visit a prisoner, Mr. Frank Marritt, in Long Lartin. He was denied permission to do so on the grounds that he refused to sign an undertaking that he would not publish any of the material derived from his discussions as a journalist, with the prisoner. The prison authorities and the Minister at first insisted that Mr. Cameron was a journalist because of articles which had been published by him in national newspapers, until it was pointed out that the only material of which Mr. Cameron was the author which had ever appeared in any newspaper was a letter to the Daily Telegraph. In the end, the Minister and the governor of the prison climbed down and apologised to Mr. Cameron.
However, the point remained that if it had been established that he was a journalist, he would have then been forced to sign this undertaking and in
126
default of his willingness to do so he would have been prevented from visiting the prisoner with whom he had a very long-standing relationship, extending over many years.
This problem arises from the definition in Clause 13, that;
"'journalistic material' means material acquired or created for the purposes of journalism."
So the courts are going to have to decide what were the motives of the person who held this material: did he keep it for the purposes of publication or was he, as in the case of Mr. Cameron, obtaining it for another purpose? In the case of Mr. Cameron, he was obtaining the material simply in order to assist the prisoner in that case to make his representations to the authorities concerning his sentence and matters connected with it.
I think that this forces the courts into deciding whether this person has embarked on a career of journalism or whether he is collecting this material for some other and completely separate purposes. So the question at which we are looking and which the Minister says is already resolved under the Bill for the satisfaction of those who moved the amendment is, in my respectful submission, brought into plain view by one's first consideration of the definition in Clause 13(1).
The problem has not been resolved. While I was listening very closely to the Minister, it has not been resolved to my own satisfaction. I was a member of the National Union of Journalists. Having heard the whole of this debate, I am still convinced that amendments are necessary. I should not like to undertake to say whether or not the form of them is precisely right. However, I think that as an expression of opinion of the Committee it would be right for these amendments to be put into the Bill so that there would be an opportunity for further reflection by the Minister on everything that has been said so far.
Lord Elton: I shall be very brief because it is getting late. The noble Lord referred to a case which I well recall. The case turned on the interpretation of the prison rules. However, a fortiori, if he is right, if governments do seek to define journalism, the Committee will be all the more anxious not to force the courts to do this.
On the noble Lord's second point on the definition of Clause 13, I hoped that I had made it clear that all that is required is to decide whether or not the material has been acquired or created for the purposes of journalism; not what sort of person has dealt with it. There is no requirement to define a journalist. Obviously if something in particular is written as an article to go into a newspaper, that is journalistic material. If it is a letter to the editor, then it is clearly of a different character. I cannot make the point more clearly than I have sought to make it. If I have failed, I apologise. At least I can claim that I have been overborne by numbers. However, it seems to me as plain as a pikestaff that if you put this amendment in the Bill, you will force the courts to define what is a journalist.
Lord Hemingford: May I congratulate the noble Lord on the ingenuity of that argument. However, I

127
can assure him that I would much rather be in court arguing about material acquired or created in the course of any trade, business, profession or other occupation or for the purpose of any paid or unpaid office.
Lord Elton: Would the noble Lord give way because he has just made what I regard as an interesting admission. He wants to be specially treated. He wants to be treated like a doctor or a priest.
Lord Hemingford: No. On the contrary, I was going on to say that I would much rather be in that situation than arguing about material acquired or created for the purposes of journalism. It has nothing to do with being in a special position. We want to be treated just like anyone else. That is the essence of the thing. Obviously, I would rather not be caught at all, but I would rather he there on that basis than arguing about material acquired or created for the purposes of journalism.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: May I ask the Minister a question? What would be the position, in his view, of someone who looked upon himself as a writer and not as a journalist?
Lord Elton: The position would be the same for writers, dustmen, acrobats, priests, prostitutes—anyone. It does not matter what they do. What matters is w hat they produce. If a dustman writes something for journalistic purposes, it is caught. If he writes it for other purposes, it is not. So the noble Lord, who may have an interest in this—something which had not occurred to me as I sprang nimbly to my feet—need not feel that this would put authors into a special category.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I had not realised that this could become such an emotive subject and cause so much confusion, especially on my own Front Bench. Before dealing with the speech that has been made from my Front Bench—I cannot take long about it at this hour—I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken from all corners of the Committee, from the depth of their expertise and their own knowledge, in support of the amendment. My noble friend the Minister read his Home Office brief at great speed and, by a stroke of ingenuity—
Lord Trefgarne: Order!
Lord Elton: I am tempted to my feet because I feel that the noble Lord might like to know that I wrote the speech myself. Since it is plainly, judged by the strength of feeling against me, going to fail, I should not like it to be laid at the door of anyone else.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to my noble friend for the information that he wrote the speech himself. I was about to suggest that it was for many of us, very difficult to understand—that it did, in fact, stand the whole problem on its head, and that the suggestion that by accepting the amendment you create the peril that it is designed to avoid is wholly unsubstantiated. If noble Lords who have a practical
128
interest in these matters have spoken in favour of the amendment—it is fair to assume that they have sought legal advice—for the reasons that they have given, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, supports the amendment, and if other noble Lords who have legal expertise support the amendment, it really is not the right time, at this hour of night, to bandy with my noble friend the Minister the point of legal construction that he raised, save to say, with the utmost respect, I do not accept it.
Here, there is a serious problem. If there is a serious problem, I would beg my noble friend the Minister to implement his undertaking that he will keep an open mind. He has heard what has been said on all sides of the Committee. I would ask him in the circumstances if he can give some indication that he will keep an open mind between now and Report stage so that this matter may be further considered.
Lord Elton: I really wonder whether there is anybody else here to say anything more. We have discussed this matter since the Bill was first introduced in a previous Parliament. Your Lordships have done your best, and I have done mine. I am quite resigned to defeat, if it is necessary, but would it not be useful to get the matter out of the way now?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: May I briefly say a few words as somebody who has not spoken before in this debate? This is the first time that your Lordships have discussed this issue. The noble Lord suggests that it has been discussed time and again; it has not. I suggest to the noble Lord, with great respect, that apart from himself, every single person who has spoken has done so in favour of the amendment. In those circumstances, would he not agree to go no further than to say that he will report this matter to the Home Secretary and will consider it before the Report stage of the Bill? That does not seem unreasonable, and it is in accordance with the general traditions of this Chamber.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: If my noble friend the Minister could give some form of undertaking merely to consider the matter, it would surely satisfy the mood of the Committee as it has been expressed this evening.
Lord Elton: I am sorry, but I could not quite hear the beginning of what my noble friend said. I thought that he was moving the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: No, I was not moving the amendment. I am seeking to avoid dividing the Committee. I am asking, I am begging, my noble friend the Minister to pay heed to the views and the worries expressed by the Committee and at least to say, without commitment, that he will consider this matter further. That is all that I am asking. I cannot do more.
Lord Elton: My noble friend places me in a difficult position. I cannot see that there is room to give on this matter. We have spent 70 minutes on it this evening. If I undertake to ask my right honourable friend to read this debate with great care tomorrow, I can do it in the wake of either a Division or an undertaking that

129
he will read it tomorrow. Either way he will read it tomorrow. I do not think that your Lordships will want to spend an equivalent amount of time on this matter at the Report stage. I do not know whether my noble friend will be satisfied with that undertaking and whether we can agree to dispose of the matter in 10 minutes the next time round. I am not sure whether my noble friend can deliver the second half of the argument.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I was only seeking to produce what appeared, with respect, to be a sane way in which to deal with a serious problem. I cannot understand how one can undertake to spend 10 minutes here or 10 minutes there on this matter. What I wanted was a form of genuine assurance that fair consideration would be given to the concern expressed from all sides of your Lordships' Committee. If that cannot be done, I shall have no alternative but to take the opinion of the Committee, which I do not want to do.
Lord Elton: I do not want to delay the proceedings further. I do not want your Lordships to think that your concern is not a matter of importance to my right honourable friend. If your Lordships read the Second Reading debate, you will find that the list of outside supporters and every other point that has been made was then raised in some form or another. Many more points have been raised outside this Chamber. With the greatest respect, if your Lordships wish to tell the Government that they are wrong, this is the time to do it. If your Lordships wish to say that the Government are right, this is a very good time to do it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: The hour is very late. It has been a very long day. This is a matter of great controversy and of very considerable importance. Would not the Government Front Bench feel well advised to consider returning to this matter, thus enabling it to be brought before your Lordships again? I should have thought, with great respect, that that would be the more seemly course to take. I must say that myself I take a somewhat objective view about the issues, but I should have thought that on the whole, in the interests of the Committee, the better course might be to say, "Yes, very well, let us think about it again and fight, if necessary, the battle another day". I may be making a thoroughly unhelpful observation, but for what it is worth, that is my personal view.
Lord Elton: I really do not think that I have anything more to say.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Then I am left to take the opinion of the Committee.
11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 61) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents. 46.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Amherst, E.

Kintore, E.

Ardwick. L. [Teller.]

Kirkhill, L.

Atholl, D.

Lawrence, L.

Avebury, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Birk, B.

Blease, L.

Mishcon, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Denning, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stedman, B.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L,

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hartwell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hemingford, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunt, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham E.

Kilbracken, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Attlee, E,

Avon, E.

Halsbury, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hood, V.

Bellwin, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Beloff, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Belstead, L.

Kilmany, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cairns, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caithness, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cathcart, E.

Molson, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mottistone, L.

Crathorne, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

De La Warr, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Swansea, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Elton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Trumpington, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.7 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 not moved.]
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Meaning of "items subject to legal privilege"]:
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt rose to move, on behalf of Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, Amendment No. 64:
Page 12. line 17, at end insert—
("; and
() documentary or other records concerning a client who can be identified from them and which are made in connection with the giving of legal advice to the client.")
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Donaldson I rise to move Amendment No. 64—
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? It is now seven-and-a-half minutes past 11, and we have been engaged upon this exercise all day,

131
or most of the day. It has been a tiring and difficult Bill to deal with. I notice that the noble Lord, who has handled it with great valour and ability right through, is not asking for help, but it is intolerable to resume this matter now, at this hour, when there is no requirement in any reasonable calendar of legislation to make that a necessity. It is too late in the day to deal with important matters affecting the liberty of the subject, and affecting, too, the police and criminal justice. I hope that the Chief Whip will see the wisdom, fairness, and sense of what is proposed.
Lord Denham: I am, of course, in the hands of the Committee over this matter, but I must remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that in this Chamber we have no selection of amendments, and every noble Lord has the right to put down any amendment to any Bill that he wishes. We have no closure. We have no guillotine. This, I think your Lordships feel, is very right and proper for a revising Chamber.
Any noble Lord may spend any amount of time he wishes discussing these matters. The corollary must be that we must get the business of the Government of the day through, and if your Lordships wish to spend rather longer on certain amendments than on others, and if the day is taken in considering a certain Bill proliferately, it may mean asking your Lordships to sit later and later into August, and that your Lordships would not want. There has to be a certain amount of forbearance exercised by this House if it is to get Government business through—any Government, the Government of the day—and to ask to speak at great length on any amendment, and then to rise at ten past eleven does not add up.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: If I may revert to my submission, there has been no filibustering from any part of the Committee this day. If I may say so without impertinence to the Chief Whip, he has not honoured us with his presence in this debate; obviously he cannot. That is the position, and any imputation that there has been a deliberate filibuster and delay is quite unmerited. It has not happened. The noble Lords who have spoken have exercised reasonable economy without, I think surprisingly, an exception during the course of the day.
Lord Denham: I do not accuse any noble Lord of filibustering on this, but there is in this House freedom to speak without any form of limit. The programme is such that this House has to get every Bill through that another place gets through. This happens with every Parliament. We have agreed, through the usual channels, that there shall be a number of days for this Bill and if we rise before we have reached the generally agreed place in a Bill it just means sitting that much later on another day. I am afraid this is the sheer mathematics of the occasion. If we rise now—which, if the Committee wishes, it may be right to do—we may have to sit until two or three in the morning another day.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord the Government Chief Whip does not seem to have a very long memory. He will recall from his experience as
132
Opposition Chief Whip the protest made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, when the then Labour Government wanted to sit beyond half past nine in the evening on the Criminal Law Bill.
The fact is, of course, that the noble Lord, Lord Denham, is right that we have an obligation to consider Government legislation, but a number of us drew the Government's attention to this business of sitting late at night on this particular type of legislation which affects the liberties of the subject. It is inappropriate, in my view—and I am quite sure in the view of a number of my noble friends—to sit at this time of night. We have not even been told by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, what part of the Bill we should reach before he is prepared to adjourn consideration of this Bill. I am bound to say that the explanation he has given for sitting beyond this time in the evening is, so far, not very persuasive.
Lord Denham: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, may say that, but the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will remember that, when he was speaking from this Dispatch Box when he was in charge of a Government Bill, he had to get his Bill through and he had a certain number of days to get that Bill through in.
If we do not reach a stage in the Bill for a particular day, we have to sit rather longer on it the next day or speak that much shorter on it. We should not argue these things over the Floor of the House. They are much better agreed through the usual channels. If I can have a word later through the usual channels we can come to some accommodation. But I must tell the Committee that, if they rise now on this day, to get the Bill through in the reasonable number of days allotted for it we shall have to have one very late sitting indeed. The noble and learned Lord must appreciate that we cannot rise at a reasonable time for the Summer Recess if we are to be limited as to the number of amendments we can get through in a day so that the number of days of a particular stage of the Bill proliferate.
Lord Wigoder: May I make two observations? First, the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip will not want it to be suggested that any sort of delaying tactics were used over the last amendment particularly having regard to the fact that a number of noble Lords who spoke in that debate are probably making their only substantial contribution throughout the whole of this Bill. Secondly, if the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip wishes to consult through the usual channels, will he bear in mind that there are usual channels in all the political parties in this House?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I think that there is another point which should be made clear. The noble Lord the Chief Whip said that the number of Committee days to be allocated to this Bill had been agreed. In fact, I had expressed the view, and I know that the view had been expressed by other parties, that four days for the Committee stage of this Bill is inadequate and that there should be a fifth Committee day for this particular Bill.
Lord Denham: Yes. Of course I will agree to what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, says, and of course I take very great note of what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, says. But I think that probably it will not be very advantageous to continue with this particular argument at this particular time. Perhaps if we adjourn the Bill at this stage we can then get the usual channels functioning. But I think that we should consider that this Bill should be got through in five days.
I want to make it absolutely clear to noble Lords who spoke on this particular amendment that I am not suggesting in any way that they filibustered. The difficulty over a Bill of this type, where there are a number of different matters bringing in a number of different Peers, some of whom are interested in one part and some in another, is that it makes the getting through of the business that much more complicated unless there can be general goodwill. I think that, after this exchange, possibly we can achieve something along these lines. I beg to move that this House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  ALCOHOLIC DRINK
  ALCOHOLIC DRINK
  RPI ADVISORY COMMITTEE
  RPI ADVISORY COMMITTEE
  ROAD CLOSURES
  ROAD CLOSURES
  LONDON-DOVER: LANE CLOSURES
  LONDON-DOVER: LANE CLOSURES
  WATER AUTHORITIES: CONSUMER REPRESENTATION
  WATER AUTHORITIES: CONSUMER REPRESENTATION