Sitting of 19 June 1986

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)
  SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL ( By Order)
  BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL ( By Order)
  SHOREHAM PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 19 June.
  MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming debate on Question [18 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question put and agreed to
  Bill read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. Cashasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has of the scope for increasing value for money in public spending programmes.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John MacGregor): Improvements worth hundreds of millions of pounds a year have already been made, but there is still substantial scope for achieving more.
    Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Audit Commission that about £1 billion worth of savings could be obtained in terms of increased value in public services by applying the Audit Commission's criteria? Will he congratulate the Mid-Staffordshire health authority, which, by applying new management techniques, has managed to save this year and for ensuing years more than £100,000 in revenue as a result of its techniques to improve the quality of public services in its area?
    Mr. MacGregor: I confirm my hon. Friend's comments about the Audit Commission. It has identified possible savings of more than £1 billion a year since its studies in 1983, but my hon. Friend will know that that is in relation to local authority services. There is still substantial scope for better value for money and improvements in local authority spending through all the techniques that the
    1182
    Commission has suggested and which we are applying in central Government. The same principle applies in the Health Service and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the techniques that can be used at district and health authority level and throughout the Health Service. The same applies in central Government as a whole.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that public sector bureaucracies have a sponge-like capacity to absorb taxpayers' money, and that increases in funding are all too rarely matched by equivalent improvements in the quality of services delivered? Will he therefore undertake that if, in the coming weeks and months, any suggestions are made to him that there is a need for real increases in funding in particular Departments, he will ask searching questions to see whether the administrative systems in those Departments are as streamlined as they might be?
    Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend that I attach great importance to this, which is shown by the fact that in the last public expenditure White Paper there were more than 1,200 output measures and performance indicators. I intend to apply the same priority in the forthcoming public expenditure round. I hope my hon. Friend will recognise the considerable advances that we have already made. For example, in the machinery of government alone, by the rigorous application of various techniques, we are now producing savings of about £750 million a year.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Will the Minister tell the House what persuades him not to invest money in the prevention of tax evasion when all the studies suggest that money invested in that way would recoup far more than is presently recouped?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am glad to assure the hon. Gentleman that we have increased the resources to deal with tax evasion.

    Tax Revenue
    Mr. Michael Forsythasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of reductions in the tax rates on the buoyancy of tax revenues since 1979.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): A precise estimate cannot be made but certainly the reduction in taxes increases motivation and encourages enterprise. Tax cuts will lead to a healthier, more competitive economy, higher incomes and more resources to improve public services.
    Mr. Forsyth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proportion of tax revenue that comes from the highest paid has increased as a result of the reduction in high marginal rates of tax? Is this not entirely in line with the American experience, which shows that a cut in taxes increases revenue?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. The proportion of income tax revenue paid by the top 10 per cent. has risen from 34 per cent. in 1978–79 to 37½ per cent. in 1986–87.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: In looking at the figures, has the Minister considered the public's attitude to increased public expenditure on health and education in preference to tax cuts? Has he any observations to make on that?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is the Government's objective to have a good Health Service and a good education service. We also believe that tax cuts are long overdue and are necessary to improve our economic performance.

    Inflation
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he assesses to be the main factors currently influencing the level of inflation.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): The economic policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. MacKay: I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent reply. Does he agree that the people who feel most vulnerable when there is a high inflation are pensioners? Does he further agree that there are certain factors in inflation figures which affect pensioners more than other parts of the community? Can he say whether those factors in commodity prices are going up faster than other items in the inflation figures?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right in saying that those who are most affected in the community by high inflation are the elderly, pensioners and others on fixed incomes. That is why the greatest social service that a Government can perform is to bring inflation down and work towards stable prices. As for the slightly different consumption patterns of the elderly and the average member of the population, my hon. Friend may be aware that there is a pensioner price index, which addresses itself to that. In fact, during the period when we have been in office the pensioner price index has risen by less than the retail prices index as a whole.
    Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: What on earth has the Government's economic policy got to do with plummeting oil prices and other commodity prices?
    Mr. Lawson: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government's success in getting inflation down long predated the fall in the oil price.
    Mr. Hickmet: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who say that we can have a little more public expenditure and a little more inflation are in fact advocating a dangerous course? Does he further agree that there is no guarantee that more public expenditure would lead to more employment or, indeed, increased services, and that if it were the job of the Government to employ people we would all be living in eastern Europe, with dreary standards of living and dreary services?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is making a point that is well understood by all those who have responsibility for the conduct of economic policy, not only in this country, but throughout the Western world. Indeed, in all the European countries, where, sadly, unemployment is too high, if there were a simple answer of bringing down unemployment by increasing public expenditure, that would have been introduced long ago. If the policies of right hon. Members in the Labour party were introduced, and there were an increase in public expenditure of £24 billion, the result would be sharply higher inflation and sharply higher unemployment.
    Mr. Hattersley: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer prepared to test the validity of his claim about the effect
    1184
    of his Government's policies on inflation by publishing in the Official Report the calculations made by the Central Statistical Office of the reasons why inflation has fallen over the past year?
    Mr. Lawson: The Central Statistical Office merely reports what has occurred. It is not engaged in economic analysis.

    Inflation
    Mr. Proctorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the economy to achieve a negative rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lawson: The Government's objective is stable prices.
    Mr. Proctor: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the negative rate of inflation in West Germany, one of our major international industrial competitors. Will he give a commitment that the rate of inflation in this country will remain in low single figures? Does he agree that only if that inflation rate remains in low single figures for a considerable period will the real benefits of low inflation bear fruit?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend points to the fact that in Germany inflation is currently slightly less than zero. It is a negative figure. I think that that is likely to be a temporary phenomenon. The plain fact is that throughout the world the same sort of economic policies have been pursued. Therefore, it is not that surprising that inflation has come down worldwide. Our inflation has come down even faster than in other countries. It is now under 3 per cent. for the first time in over 18 years. I am confident that it will stay low as long as these policies remain in force.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirm that there is no merit whatsoever in negative inflation, commonly known as deflation?
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, indeed. If the right hon. Gentleman had been paying attention, as I am sure he was, to my answer, he would have heard me say that the Government's objective is stable prices, not falling prices.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Notwithstanding my right hon. Friend's answers to the last two questions, is it not the case that one of the pressures in the pipeline to increase inflation is the excessive level of wage settlements? Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to hammer home to the Confederation of British Industry and others that their spinelessness in the face of excessive wage demands will affect their own competitiveness and is likely to cause worse inflation and more unemployment?
    Mr. Lawson: It is certainly a major cause of the present high level of unemployment. Inflation is now down to 2·8 per cent. at the most recent count, and if the tax reductions in the Budget are taken into account, the best approximation that we have of the growth in the cost of living over the past year is less than 1 per cent. Yet average earnings, according to officially recorded figures, have gone up by about 7½ per cent. This is inevitably damaging to Britain's competitiveness in world markets, damaging to orders, damaging to the amount of business that can be done by British firms, and therefore damaging to jobs. It is management's responsibility to take a far firmer grip on their costs, especially their pay costs, than they have been doing hitherto.
    Mr. Bell: What does the Chancellor of the Exchequer say to newspapers such as The Economist which say that the inflation rate will go up between 4 and 5 per cent. next year as a consequence of the oil price reductions working through the economy?
    Mr. Lawson: We shall publish a forecast at the normal time and in the normal way, and I think it will be found that the track record of forecasts published by the Treasury is rather better than that of forecasts published outside bodies, including The Economist.The plain fact is that inflation is now under 3 per cent. Although at the moment it is flattered to some extent by the mortgage rate element in the index, even if one takes that out inflation is still around 3·1 per cent.
    Mr. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many members of the public do not understand the wide scope of the retail prices index, as it covers things such as electricity and gas prices, rates and so on? Will he publish a clear explanation to the public showing exactly what the RPI represents and the fact that it is based on real surveys of expenditure?
    Mr. Lawson: My right hon. Friend is correct in saying that it is based on those factors. Sometimes there are people who find it difficult to believe that inflation is as low as it is when they consider one particular price which is only a small proportion of total consumer expenditure. The responsibility for the RPI and its publication lies not with me but with my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, and I shall draw his attention to what my right hon. Friend has suggested.

    Unemployment Costs
    Mr. Tony Lloydasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to the Exchequer of unemployment in the north-west region.
    Mr. MacGregor: A regional breakdown of unemployment and supplementary benefit paid to the unemployed would be available only at disproportionate cost. It is not possible to estimate the tax revenue forgone.
    Mr. Lloyd: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer, because one of the bones of contention is that this Government, who have no interest in regional affairs, do not even know what the true cost of unemployment in the north-west is. The social costs are massively higher than even the direct economic costs to the Treasury. If the Government are sincere about unemployment, what practical steps are being taken that will lead to a reduction in unemployment, and when will that begin to take place?
    Mr. MacGregor: All the Government's economic policies are designed to produce a more competitive economy which helps with the creation of real permanent jobs. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, at a time of a rising labour force, the success of this is measured by the fact that nearly 1 million net new jobs have been created in the economy as a whole since 1983. He will be interested to know that in that figure there are 82,000 jobs in the north-west. In addition, he will be aware that the northwest has received a substantial and fair proportion of the specific employment measures that have been introduced by the Government and added to in the last Budget. That represents a total expenditure of £3 billion this year, compared with £300 million in 1979 when the Government took office.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, which is in the north-west, unemployment is at half the national average? One reason for this is that firms are rushing out of Manchester, because of the lunatic policies of the local authorities there, into Cheshire, where the Conservative-controlled local authorities have much more sensible policies, producing lower rate burdens?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. All those who urge unnecessary higher spending in local authorities should be aware of the consequences of that for firms which find their costs increased by much higher rates.
    Mr. Parry: Is not the real cost in regions such as Merseyside, the north-west and the north-east, the mass unemployment, the human misery, the marriage breakups, the nervous breakdowns and the number of young people committing suicide because of long-term unemployment? Is this not the real, terrible cost of mass unemployment in our regions?
    Mr. MacGregor: That is precisely why we have increased substantially the amount of money spent on employment and training measures during our period of office. The hon. Gentleman must know that if public spending rises to the level advocated by his Front Bench that will create much greater unemployment in firms which are doing well in our economy.
    Mr. Churchill: As a Manchester Member, may I say that it is a matter of considerable satisfaction that more than 80,000 new jobs have been created in the north-west since the 1983 general election'' If that rate of job creation is projected into the months ahead, at what point does my right hon. Friend foresee it overtaking the rate at which new people come into the labour force, thereby bringing a net reduction in the number of unemployed?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has fairly drawn attention to the considerable increase in the labour force in recent years. In fact, there was an increase of more than 560,000 in the last year for which figures are available. That demographic factor is now beginning to change and it will be a helpful factor in dealing with unemployment.
    Mr. Eastham: May I draw the Minister's attention to the Employment Select Committee's investigation into long-term unemployment, in which it points out that some people have been unemployed for three years? Is it not time that the Government seriously considered all those facts, with a view to taking positive action to alleviate the unemployment problems of these people?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government gave a detailed response to the first report of the Employment Select Committee, which has led to the Committee revising its proposals considerably in a downward direction. The restart programme, which is now going nationwide, is designed especially to help the long-term unemployed, and we are undertaking many other measures. It is crucial to know at what point extra public expenditure on these measures becomes counterproductive, not only because they do not produce real benefit in terms of extra places, but because they are a cost on existing employers.
    Mr. Favell: Is it not becoming increasingly clear that the more a town hall spends, the less there is to encourage new

    1187
    enterprises into an area? In my constituency of Stockport, which to the uninitiated is probably indistinguishable from Manchester, it takes half as many men to empty a dustbin as it does in Manchester, and unemployment is now less than 10 per cent, which is far less than the regional average and, indeed, is less than the national average.
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, of which I hope everyone in the north-west will take note.
    Mr. Hattersley: Will the Chief Secretary simply give one straight answer to one straight question? How many jobs have been lost, net, in the British economy since the Government were elected seven years ago?
    Mr. MacGregor: There was a considerable reduction in jobs in the period 1979 to 1981. It was a good deal less than 1 million—about 700,000. A large part of that was in the period 1979 to 1981, when we were coping not only with a worldwide recession but with the considerable overmanning that took place under the Labour Government. Since 1983 that trend has gone substantially the other way, and there are now nearly 1 million net new jobs.

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. Winnickasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to review the Government's policy on the level of public spending on the Health Service, education and housing; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Weetchasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to review Government policy over the level of public spending on health, education and housing; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: The level of all public spending programmes will be reviewed as usual in this year's public expenditure survey.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware that all the evidence shows that most people consider that the first priority should be more public spending on health, education and housing? They are right, of course. Do the outrageous remarks on council housing by the Minister for Information Technology represent Government policy, or were they just remarks of a Minister who wants to show himself to be a stupid clown?
    Mr. MacGregor: I think that what people want are realistic and prudent public spending programmes, with the right priorities and value for every pound that is spent, and that is what the Government have been delivering. In two of the main areas that were picked out by the hon. Gentleman — education and health — he knows that expenditure per pupil on education has risen substantially in real terms under this Government, whereas it fell by 2 per cent. in real terms under the last Labour Government. Equally, we have devoted particular priority to health, where expenditure in real terms is up by 24 per cent.
    Mr. Weetch: Is the Minister aware that the infrastructure in these three sectors is in a very poor state in various parts of the country? May I underline the fact that it is a better policy option to have significant expenditure in these three sectors than to reduce the standard rate of income tax to 25p?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows that in housing, for example, where he has particularly in mind
    1188
    the infrastructure, because of the very substantial and welcome switch to the provision of housing in the private sector, and through owner-occupation, we have cut down the amount of money that is involved in new council house building. The renovation programme has been increased substantially, in real terms, under this Government, which was a necessary and sensible priority. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are many people throughout the country who, rightly, strongly believe that the present level of direct taxation on people of average and below average incomes is still too high.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the prime objectives of the Conservative Government in 1979 was to cut both taxation and public expenditure? May I draw his attention to the answer that he gave to me only a few days ago, which proves that public expenditure, in real terms, increased by 11 per cent. in 1984–85, and is forecast to be 8 per cent. above the 1979 level in 1985–86? Is this not proof that the Government have not succeeded in cutting public expenditure? May we have an assurance that they will do so in future?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that, rather like steering an oil tanker, it takes a considerable time, once one has tried to change direction, for the results to show through. I am sure he will welcome the fact that, as a proportion of our gross national product, public expenditure is now at the 1978–79 level and is planned to come back almost to the levels of the 1960s.
    Mr. McCrindle: Taking a slightly different point of view from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell), will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us welcome indications that desirable increases in the level of spending on health, housing and education may now be becoming progressively acceptable to the Government? Will he also accept that those who take that view in no way wish the Government to turn their back on tax cuts, but merely seek a desirable balance, in the belief that that is the wish of the majority of the population?
    Mr. MacGregor: I believe that a desirable balance is what this Government have been achieving. We have managed to achieve reductions in direct taxation and to obtain higher real spending in the priority areas which we have chosen, which accord with those of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister try to keep in step with the Prime Minister? She has observed that in recent years Britain has moved toward private affluence and public squalor, illustrated by the litter-strewn conditions of most parts of Britain.
    Mr. MacGregor: When the Prime Minister drew attention to the fact that there was too much litter around she was drawing attention to a phenomenon that has been common in Britain for many years. Many people share her view about the desirability of cleaning up areas to which she drew attention.
    Mr. Galley: In view of my right hon. Friend's comments about balance, he may be able to accept that there are some sound arguments for very modest and carefully targeted increases in expenditure on hospitals, education and housing improvements. I say modest and carefully targeted. If he is able to accommodate any small increases in this year's public expenditure review, what will he do to ensure value for money and prevent additional

    1189
    resources going down the plughole of waste and rising pay, and ensure that they are used to provide better patient care, better educational standards and better housing stock?
    Mr. MacGregor: In earlier exchanges I outlined my priorities for getting better value for money for every £1 spent. That applies just as much to the Health Service as elsewhere. This year, as a result of value-for-money drives, we expect to devote about £150 million of extra funds to patient care. I can assure my hon. Friend that value for money will continue to be an important part of my attitude towards public expenditure. He also spoke about the danger to public expenditure of excess pay, meaning that that could lead to reductions in service or reductions in capital programmes. That is a message that we shall constantly have to drive home. If too much of the planned public spending total goes away in excess pay, less money is available for other services.
    Mr. Terry Davis: Is the Chief Secretary aware that his answers will bring no comfort to all the people who, while they are waiting for operations, see hospital wards being closed, and that they will being no comfort to teachers, parents, students and everyone else anxious about education? They will bring no comfort to all the people who are desperately trying to find somewhere to live, or are living in totally unsuitable accommodation. Will he now admit once and for all that it is possible to spend more money in ways that will not only improve those essential services for the benefit of the community as a whole, but will provide some jobs for some of the people who are unemployed?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware that, because of the priorities we have given to things like this, the waiting lists are down considerably compared to what they were when we came to power. The number of patients being treated is up considerably, by about 19 per cent. Considerable extra effort is going into the Health Service and the same applies to education. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to students. There are now 80,000 more students in higher education than there were seven years ago.
    Mr. Dorrell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that for the large majority of our people provision for health and education comes exclusively from the public sector? We on the Government side want to see health provision and education improved for all the people, and is it not a necessary consequence of that that we want to see efficient public expenditure improved in those areas?
    Mr. MacGregor: I should have thought it was clear that the drive that we are making, especially in the Health Service, to get greater efficiency in public expenditure is being taken very much with that in mind.
    Mr. Kennedy: When the Minister is reviewing the Government's public expenditure on the Health Service, will he take the opportunity this year to do something about the fraudulent mechanics by which the rate of inflation that is applied internally in the Health Service is not the rate of inflation that the Government use as a means of calculating the real level of their expenditure on the Health Service? The Government use RPI, but everyone knows that the internal Health Service inflation costs are significantly higher than that.
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman may not recall the period in the 1970s when public expenditure was getting out of control. One reason for that was that it was always planned in volume terms. Planning in cash terms and using the GDP deflator as an indicator is an important ingredient of proper public expenditure control.

    Contingency Reserve
    Sir David Priceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in his review of public expenditure, he will consider the establishment of uncommitted contingency reserves in the major spending Departments which would be available to those Departments to meet unforeseen demands arising during the financial year in question; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Brooke): The purpose of the Reserve is to meet unforeseen demands arising during the year, for all spending Departments.
    Sir David Price: Given my hon. Friend's defence of contingency reserves as a whole, why cannot the large spenders, who cannot be assumed to be more accurate than the Treasury, be allowed a contingency reserve, which is what one does in every large company, down to the smallest standards of budgets?
    Mr. Brooke: As it is impossible to foresee on which programmes unforeseen demands on the Reserve will arise in the course of the year, the Reserve has to be central and not split among Departments. Specific departmental reserves would be unnecessary and inefficient.
    Mr. Soames: If my hon. Friend were to permit such a contingency reserve at the Ministry of Defence, will he stipulate that not one penny of that money should go to that sink of profligacy, the Procurement Executive, whose, incompetence and mismanagement have led to an appalling waste of money on Nimrod and the torpedo programme?
    Mr. Brooke: As, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I have no intention of assigning such a contingency reserve to an individual Department, the question is hypothetical.

    Exchange Rate
    Mr. Meadowcroftasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for producing greater stability in the exchange rate.
    Mr. Lawson: Since the Plaza agreement last year there has been a much greater readiness among the major powers to engage in concerted intervention as the need arises.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Chancellor aware that a consistently voiced frustration in British industry concerns both the problems of exporting into Europe, because of' the capriciousness of the exchange rates within Europe, and the difficulties in developing a united European ability to compete against the Americans, again because the exchange rate within Europe is subject to fluctuations? When will he fix the point at which it is feasible and beneficial to join the European monetary system?
    Mr. Lawson: I agree that fluctuations in the exchange rate, despite the ability to secure forward cover in most cases, can be irksome for British exporters. I am also glad to say that British exporters have been increasing their

    1191
    share of world markets over the past five years, for the first time in a long time. However, if British exporters took a firmer grip on their pay costs, as I said earlier, their success in export markets would be even greater than it has been.
    Mr. Forman: I do not wish to repeat familiar Conservative arguments in favour of joining the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS at an early date, but does my right hon. Friend agree that, in any case, stability in interests rates and exchange rates would be greatly helped if there were further convergence in our national inflation rates and if every effort were bent to that end?
    Mr. Lawson: I agree with my hon. Friend, and there is now a much greater convergence of inflation rates, not least because we have succeeded in getting our inflation rate down so dramatically. As for the EMS, even if we were to join it—there are undoubtedly arguments for doing so—that would not affect fluctuations against the dollar, and it is the dollar that has been far and away the most volatile of the major currencies.
    Mr. Latham: As the exchange rate has been so stable recently, and as inflation is under 3 per cent., what is preventing a further fall in the general level of interest rates, which would do so much good to help the Government's counter-inflation policy?
    Mr. Lawson: I know that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that, in the three months since the Budget, interest rates have already fallen by 2½ per cent.

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. Willie W. Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has further plans to reduce public expenditure.
    Mr. MacGregor: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).
    Mr. Hamilton: As the Minister has been at pains in the course of that answer to talk about the great successes of the Health Service financial provision, how does he explain the report in the Daily Telegraph today that the Secretary of State for Social Services is putting in for a £1·7 billion increase in the Health Service provision? Is that designed to build on success, or to cover up failure?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Member will know that it is a regular feature at this time of year for commentators to speculate and to throw out all sorts of guess figures into the air in the hope that one will eventually come down. I shall not comment on speculation in the press.
    Mr. Leigh: What would be the effect on the unemployment trap if failure to curb public spending prevented my right hon. Friend from making significant tax cuts for the lower paid? Does this question not underline the need to achieve real value for money in the public service and not to pretend to the people that merely pouring increasing amounts of taxpayers' money into the bottomless pit of public spending will solve our problems?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right. He is also right to concentrate on value for money. One of the messages that we have to get over to many who comment in the media, and also to the public at large, is that we cannot achieve better services solely by throwing more money at the problems. Better value for money and
    1192
    concentration on greater efficiency can do just as much. That is why in the road programme, for example, we are getting 20 per cent. more roads for every pound spent than in 1979.
    Mr. Madden: What does the Chief Secretary say to people like the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who earlier this week told us that his constituents would rather do without tax cuts if the price of tax cuts meant that less money would be spent on the National Health Service? Does the Chief Secretary think that the right hon. Gentleman is misreporting the views of his constituents, or does he think that those constituents are misguided?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have already indicated that we have not reduced expenditure on the Health Service—quite the reverse. There has been a substantial increase in expenditure on the Health Service. Under the RAWP formula, introduced by a Labour Government, there is a provision to switch some resources from areas of high resource to areas that have been under-resourced under that formula over the years. That formula is now under review. It is one of the factors that is important. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult to hear questions against the background of chat.
    Dr. McDonald: Does the Chief Secretary agree with the Leader of the House, the Home Secretary and the Minister for Information Technology that priority should be given to public spending rather than to tax cuts?
    Mr. MacGregor: I should have thought that on the Government side of the House we were all agreed that reducing the burden of taxation is an important priority. Clearly none of us would ever contemplate moving to the ridiculous levels of higher public spending that the hon. Lady and her colleagues advocate.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that because of political pressure from the public the reality is that it is impossible to reduce public expenditure and that we can pay for the many programmes that we wish for only by having genuine economic growth?
    Mr. MacGregor: It is through genuine economic growth, which we have been achieving since 1981, that we can increase in real terms our public spending programmes in many areas under our existing plans and at the same time keep public expenditure level in real terms and reducing as a proportion of GDP.

    Economic Recovery
    Mr. Knoxasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the criteria by which he judges signs of economic recovery.
    Mr. Lawson: Since the trough of the recession in the first half of 1981 total output has risen by 13 per cent., investment by over 21 per cent. and manufacturing productivity by over 25 per cent.
    Mr. Knox: When does my right hon. Friend think that his economic policies will be so successful that unemployment will start to fall?
    Mr. Lawson: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the problem of unemployment is intimately connected with

    1193
    the excessive level of pay increases in relation to productivity. If unit labour costs continue to rise at their present rate, far faster than in the countries of our major overseas competitors, it makes it difficult to get unemployment down, despite the fact that we have succeeded in generating nearly 1 million new jobs since the last general election—a fact to which I would have hoped that my hon. Friend would pay due tribute.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Chancellor accept that while he may claim that output and productivity in manufacturing industry has increased since the depth of the trough of the recession, it is still below the figure for 1979? Surely the Government will not be able to claim credit until we are making more manufactured goods than we were in 1979, and until we have considerably reduced the present unacceptable level of unemployment.
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Manufacturing productivity is substantially higher today than it was in 1979. What is more, the rise in manufacturing productivity under the Government has been substantially greater than it was under the Labour Government.

    Personal Equity Plans
    Mr. Woodasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the proposed personal equity plans.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: A large number have welcomed the scheme.
    Mr. Wood: Many of us welcome the moves that the Government have made to encourage small private investment. However, there have been comments from some investment funds that they would like to see personal equity plans geared to them as well as to direct investment. What are the Government's views on those representations?
    Mr. Lamont: Obviously we shall consider the representations carefully. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, we have said that for unit and investment trusts some investment will be permitted under the scheme. The precise limit is being looked at.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Boyesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also attended a memorial meeting for the late Lord Shinwell. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Boyes: Has the Prime Minister noted carefully that yesterday the United States House of Representatives supported the imposition of the strictest possible sanctions against the evil and repugnant apartheid regime in South Africa, and that that reflects the worldwide revulsion over what is happening in South Africa? Is it not shameful that the only two leaders sending signals of support to the evil regime in South Africa are President Reagan and herself?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is not correct. The European Council of Heads of Government will meet in Europe next week and will decide what further measures to take.
    Mr. Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend knows that her Government have rigorously enforced the mandatory sanctions on the sale of arms to South Africa. Can she assure the House that every other country has done so in exactly the same way and at the same level?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. We have rigorously enforced mandatory sanctions on arms to South Africa. Nevertheless, South Africa does not seem to be short of certain things, which seems to confirm what my hon. Friend has said. That shows the difficulties of a course of mandatory economic sanctions.
    Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Lady says repeatedly that she wants negotiations and the suspension of violence in South Africa, which we would all like. The South African Government's response to her attitude is to deride negotiations, to undertake armed attacks on Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Angola, and to impose totalitarian controls on the press and public of the Republic of South Africa. Faced with those realities, is not the Prime Minister's vetoing of sanctions not so much caution or concern as supine appeasement of the apartheid regime? P. W. Botha is making use of the right hon. Lady. When will she stop that?
    The Prime Minister: The question is whether adding economic sanctions, with the severe unemployment it would bring to South Africa—adding poverty and unemployment to an already difficult situation—the unemployment it would bring here, and the damage it would do to our shipping, would help the position in South Africa. I doubt very much whether it would. I think that it would aggravate it. It would mean that negotiations would not be brought about. I am still concerned that negotiations should be brought about. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have totally condemned the raids. I believe that they were responsible for stopping the success of the Eminent Persons Group.
    Mr. Kinnock: If the right hon. Lady is concerned about employment, here or in South Africa, she had hotel-calculate the effect of what the Eminent Persons Group called the "descent into further violence". Sanctions may cost jobs, but the collapse that, will come without effective pressure on the South African Government will cost a great many more jobs both here and in South Africa. Will not the right hon. Lady accept that her present attitude amounts to doing nothing? Will she remind herself that all that is required for the triumph of evil is that the good people do nothing?
    The Prime Minister: Many of us think that it is quite possible imposing strong mandatory economic sanctions on South Africa would add to the violence, and not detract from it, and would end all possibility of negotiations between the Government and the black people of South Africa, which is still our objective. The right hon. Gentleman speaks as though this Government had done nothing. I do not think that he will find another industrialised Western country that has done more—art embargo on exports of arms, refusal to co-operate in the military sphere, recall of military attachés, discouraging scientific events, except where those contribute to the

    1195
    ending of apartheid, cessation of oil exports to South Africa, prohibition of all new collaboration in the nuclear sector, cessation of exports of sensitive equipment to the police, banning all new Government loans, a commitment to take unilateral action on the banning of imports of Krugerrands — action that was taken — end of Government funding for trade missions and banning the import of all gold coins from South Africa. Would the right hon. Gentleman like to name a Western industrialised country that has done more?
    Mr. Kinnock: Mr. Speaker — [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will answer. There is no other country in the world that has a greater and closer relationship or a greater and closer responsibility than this country. A few months ago the Prime Minister was describing all that as a "teeny little bit." Will the right hon. Lady now do the effective thing and ban new investment in South Africa?
    The Prime Minister: Tell me a Western industrialised country that has done more. The right hon. Gentleman cannot.
    Dr. Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science, in her White Paper "Education: A Framework for Expansion" she urged the need for more part-time students? Is that not now very much the essence of our industrial future, in that we need more people to update their qualifications and retrain? Is there any need to wait for a loans scheme to give those people an incentive, because currently they pay both their maintenance costs and their fees?
    The Prime Minister: Retraining, and therefore perhaps returning to university or to other advanced education colleges for further training, will be an important part of our future. Frequently, training takes place through industry itself or through industry sponsoring the requisite courses. I think that that is one of the best ways.
    Mr. Haynesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Haynes: Do the Prime Minister and her Government represent the people of this nation? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I should like the right hon. Lady to answer, bearing in mind that a recent opinion poll found that more than 50 per cent. of the people wanted her to take action against South Africa by way of sanctions. If the answer is no to sanctions, is it because of the financial interests of Conservative Back Benchers in their investments in South Africa? We want to know about that.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, the Government do represent the people of this country. If we do not dash into full economic sanctions, as the Opposition would wish, it is because we agree with the reason that the Labour Government gave in the United Nations when they voted against full mandatory economic sanctions. At that time they said:
    "because we do not agree that the far-reaching economic measures which the resolution calls for would produce the changes in South Africa which we would all like to see."—[Official Report, 16 January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 9.]
    We would endorse that sentiment.
    Mr. Spencer: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the inner city initiative in Highfields in my constituency,
    1196
    which is much welcomed by the people who live there, will press ahead notwithstanding the childish hostility of Leicester city council?
    The Prime Minister: We believe that the inner cities initiative was widely welcomed. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that we shall press ahead with it in the city he represents.
    Dr. Owen: Since Canada, Holland and the Scandinavian countries have all done more than this country against South Africa, and since, if the Prime Minister is not careful, the United States Senate will pass. a modified Bill following the lead of the House of Representatives and the Prime Minister will again, as last summer, have to follow in the wake of President Reagan, would it not be better for her to adopt a more conciliatory approach and put forward constructive proposals which she could support and which other countries ought to be forced to support as well?
    The Prime Minister: I deliberatly said major "Western industrialised country". No other has done more. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he. too, is against trade sanctions and has made his position clear in the articles he has written.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a typical headmaster and board of governors in my constituency would have discretion over a mere £4,000 out of their total budget? Will she have talks with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to see whether a system can be instituted that would more fairly reflect the number of pupils in the school and give responsibility locally to the headmaster and the board of governors?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. That is a possible reform of education expenditure. My right hon. Friend is prepared to consider any reform that will make the money spent on education more effective and produce better results for the pupils.
    Mr. Ron Brownasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brown: Will the Prime Minister take particular note of the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), because he expresses fears about the operation of the Torness power station, remembering that Lothian and the Borders fire board has also criticised safety measures at that station? Will she join the Edinburgh Evening News and the people of east Scotland in opposing the commissioning of that station—or have the lessons of Chernobyl been forgotten in this country?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware, the commissioning of the station will depend upon its passing the very rigorous tests of the nuclear inspectorate, which are very rigorous indeed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our safety record in the nuclear industry is excellent. It is not long ago since some hon. Members in Scotland were preferring the AGR kind of reactor and extolling its virtues over others.
    Mr. Porter: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Liberal party, who I understand is on a nuclear-freeze bus today—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the Prime Minister's responsibility.
    Mr. Porter: Will my right hon. Friend also take note of the presence of the leader of the Social Democratic—
    Mr. Speaker: Get it in order please.
    Mr. Redmondasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Redmond: Will the Prime Minister explain to the House her dual standards on South Africa?
    The Prime Minister: I have said that we totally and utterly condemn the system of apartheid and that we condemn the raids, but, like the Labour party when it was in power, we do not agree that the far-reaching economic measures that mandatory overall sanctions would call for would produce the changes in South Africa that we would all like to see. In the end, we shall have to come to negotiations between the Government of South Africa and the black people of South Africa. That is our purpose and we shall strain every sinew to that end.
    Mr. Churchill: While condemning the inhuman system of apartheid, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that it cannot be any part of our policy to take steps that would encourage a process leading to bloody revolution in South Africa, but, that on the contrary, it is our policy to redouble our efforts to encourage peaceful evolution there?
    The Prime Minister: That is precisely our policy, but the extent of economic sanctions being called for in some parts of the House would add poverty and unemployment to violence and that would increase the violence and make matters a great deal worse, not only for the people of South Africa, but for the front-line states and other countries beyond those in Africa.
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hamilton: To get back to the home front, will the Prime Minister reflect for a moment on the plight of thousands of young people who have completed their youth training scheme and now find themselves on the
    1198
    scrap heap? Is she aware that most of those people, particularly in my constituency, have now lost faith in her and in her Government? For God's sake, will she reconsider the position and adopt an attitude that will change her policy, get these young people back to work and give them hope for the future?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, many, many young people on the youth training scheme benefit from it, go on to jobs and find it easier to get jobs because they have taken the youth training scheme. He will also be aware that the number of jobs in Scotland has increased by 50,000 since 1983 and that there have been 15,000 new companies since 1979. That is going the right way to get new jobs for young people and for those who have been on the unemployment register for some time.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend, as First Lord of the Treasury, take personally a close look at the financing of the first year of the GCSE, which involves an investment in schools which is not proportionate to the number of children taking the examination? Thereafter it will he, but in the first year an expenditure is needed for which no provision has yet been made and without which the future prospects of the first year's intake of those taking the GCSE will be sacrificed.
    The Prime Minister: It is inevitable that we have different arrangements for the first year, because it takes some years to work up to the time when that examination is taken, which, I think, first comes in 1988. However, I shall look at the particular point my hon. Friend raises.
    Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that the first 13 questions on the Order Paper to the Prime Minister today are all from Labour Members. From inquiries that I have made, with great discretion, I understand that the Labour party, and, indeed, the Liberal party, are operating some sort of cabal, which would never be considered by Conservative Members. Will you please ensure that if bunches of questions are put in by one hon. Member on behalf of others, they are given a particularly good shuffle?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman has raised that question, he perhaps should know that only 30 Conservative Members put in questions to the Prime Minister today. The more Members who go in for the ballot the better chance of success.
    Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order that we can be absolutely clear as to why it is that only 30 Tory Members managed to get their questions down today, you should reflect on the fact that it is Royal Ascot week and it is Gold Cup day today

Business of the House
3.34 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Another Labour question. May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 23 JuNE—Opposition Day (11th Allotted Day) (2nd part). Until seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "The privatisation of the water authorities". The debate will arise on a motion in the names of the leaders of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties.

Second Reading of the Rate Support Grants Bill.

Motion on the Lord Chancellor's Salary Order

Motions on the Representation of the People Regulations, the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations and the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations.
TUESDAY 24 JUNE—Estimates Day (2nd Allotted Day). There will be a debate on Estimates relating to special employment measures and the long-term unemployed and the Manpower Services Commission corporate plan 1986–1990. Afterwards there will be a debate on estimates relating to the Department of the Environment and the Property Services Agency. Details of the Estimates concerned will be given in the Official Report.
Remaining stages of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [Lords] and the Land Registration Bill [Lords]
WEDNESDAY 25 JUNE—Opposition Day (17th Allotted Day), until about seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "The withdrawal of mortgage interest payment protection for the unemployed". Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "Higher and continuing education". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motion relating to the Firearms (Variation of Fees) Order.
THURSDAY 26 JUNE AND FRIDAY 27 JUNE—Completion of the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
MONDAY 3o JUNE—Debate on a motion to approve the statement on the Defence Estimates 1986 (Cmnd. 9673) (1st Day).
[Estimates to be debated on Tuesday 24 June 1986:
1. Class VII, vote 3 ( Department of Employment Administration) so far as it concerns special employment measures and the long-term unemployed, and the Manpower Services Commission's corporate plan, 1986–90; and
2. Class IX ( Department of the Environment Housing); class X ( Department of the Environment: Other Environmental Services); class XX, vote 18 ("Civil Accommodation, the Property Services Agency of the Department of the Environment"); and that debate on the Estimates. class VII be concluded not later than three hours after its commencement.]
Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. May I first tell him that it is completely unsatisfactory that the Government put the Second Reading of the Rate Support Grants Bill on after 7 pm on Monday? That Bill is yet another attempt by the Government to interfere with the judicial process. Will the Leader of the House at least see that it is taken as first business on another day of the week?
1200
This week's attempt by the Secretary of State for Defence to slip through the announcement about the delay in privatising the royal ordnance factories was, to say the least, clumsy. Since the Secretary of State yesterday gave a thoroughly unsatisfactory answer to the private notice question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), will the Leader of the House now ensure that we have a full-scale debate in Government time so that the House can fully probe the policy, or lack of policy, which is doing so much damage to confidence and to the future of the ROFs?
I see that the Government are now in such a complete muddle with their business that progress on the remaining stages of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill is to be taken on Friday as well as on Thursday. That is really not satisfactory for legislation that has such serious constitutional implications for this country's relations with the Community; will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that Third Reading will be taken separately, so that hon. Members on both sides of the House can fully contest the dangerous provisions of the Bill, which will result in a loss of powers by this Parliament if that legislation is ever enacted?
My colleagues and I decided on a debate on higher education in Opposition time before we knew of the Government's latest foolish decision again to consider introducing student loans. In view of the interest in, and anxiety about, this matter among today's parents and pupils, will the Government give us some of their time so that we can have a more extended debate on that issue?
Finally, last week the Leader of the House conceded a restitution of private Members' time after the truth had come out about the shoddy manoeuvres which led to the loss of business on 6 June. When will that time be reinstated?
Mr. Biffen: I shall respond to the right hon. Gentleman's questions in order. I understand the importance that he and, I believe, the House attach to the Second Reading of the Rate Support Grants Bill. However, provided that the Ten o'clock rule is suspended, we may be able to make progress in that context instead of making it the first order of business elsewhere.
I was in my place yesterday and heard the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave to the private notice question on the royal ordnance factories. I must say that I thought that it was a very persuasive and convincing reply. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman seems interested in the possibility of a further debate on that matter. I can say only that perhaps that is the sort of issue that could profitably be considered through the usual channels.
I again acknowledge the constitutional importance of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. I am happy to confirm that Third Reading will be taken separately from the debates planned for Thursday and Friday of next week.
We shall of course look at the possibility of extending the scope and time of the debate on education, but that will have to he considered through the usual channels. However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that he has shown great prescience in choosing that topic, which has been given added authority by the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I thus hope that the right hon.

1201
Gentleman does not feel too discomfited by it. I am sure that, as the debate proceeds, we will welcome that as a prelude to a general election.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman made a point about the restoration of private Members' time. That is something that we will reasonably consider through the usual channels.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley): Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave concern from both sides of the House about certain aspects of the defence procurement programme? While I acknowledge that there will be an important debate on the Defence Estimates, will he try to arrange a special day for the House to debate some of the unearthed scandals that lie in that Department?
Mr. Biffen: I heard my hon. Friend's most formidable contribution during Treasury questions earlier this afternoon. That leads me to believe that he is capable of delivering a well-guided missile in the debate on the Defence Estimates. I advise him to take his chance in that debate and I am sure that his contribution will be regarded with much interest.
Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill): Why has there not been a statement this afternoon on the publication of the recommendations of the Widdicombe inquiry? In view of the anxiety on both sides of the House, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the future of the telecommunications industry, taking into account the merger bid by GEC and Plessey?
Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. The Liberal party and its associates have a debate next week and could have chosen a number of topics. However, I will not take the small-minded point of political argument and suggest that they have been unwise in their choice. We all understand their difficulties and we try to be charitable on a Thursday afternoon.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point about the Widdicombe report, he would he the first to understand that a constant balancing act is involved to decide what matters shall be the subject of oral statements in the House, as that has a detrimental consequence for other subjects in which hon. Members wish to participate in the prime time of the week. I note his interest in the matter but I cannot offer any prospect of an oral statement on that subject.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: Many of my Conservative colleagues noticed with much interest the announcement made an hour or two ago by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that she is setting up another eminent persons group from within the Cabinet to ensure that the next Government are a Conservative Government and to look ahead to the general election. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House use his influence to arrange for that small group to send for papers and people —and for those of us who will not be in the House after the next election but whose experience in the past might help to get common sense into these discussions in the search for votes.
Mr. Biffen: As my hon. Friend has said, a most formidable election-winning combination was announced earlier this afternoon. I understand that he would wish the team to have its skills and experience augmented by departing friends. I will certainly look into that matter.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Has the Leader of the House seen the 12 early-day motions that I tabled this week? They are early-day motions 956 to 960 and 966 to 972.
[That this House condemns the arrests of 3,000 youths and workers, including key trade union leaders, in South Africa under the State of Emergency declared on 12th June; believes that this attack, the worst on the unions in 20 years, constitutes an attempt by the Botha Government to set the clock back by halting the development, in particular of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) which led a strike of 1½ million workers on May Day and played a key role in organising an even bigger stoppage on 16th June in support of the demands of black youth for nonracial education, and to end the ban on the Congress of South African Students, for democratic rights, and to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Soweto massacre in 1976; recognises that the state of emergency, and the failure of Her Majesty's Goverment to take any concrete action to oppose the Botha Government's repression, shows that British, South African and international big business are at one in their desire to crush the movement of workers and youth in South Africa, so as to protect capitalism and the profits derived from the apartheid cheap-labour system; and supports the working class movement imposing its own sanctions, through industrial action, to suspend trade with South Africa until the state of emergency is lifted and all detainees are released.]
[That this House condemns the state crackdown of the South African state of emergency of 12th June, including the biggest assault on the democratic trade unions in that country for 20 years, as the bankrupt response of the apartheid regime to the call by the COSATU, the youth organisations, and the United Democratic Front, for a one-day national general strike to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Soweto massacre; and calls for the release of: J. Vilane, Vice-President, Metal and Allied Workers' Union (MAWU), W. Mchunu, Northern Natal Branch Secretary, (MAWU), J. Ntnombela, Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), Regional Chairman, Natal and the President of the Transport and General Workers' Union (TGWU), Tom Mkhwanazi, Organiser, Sweet, Food and Allied Workers' Union SFAWU), Natal, V. Mehona, Shop Steward, SFAWU, M. Olifant, COSATU Regional Secretary, Natal, A. Bird, Education Secretary, MAWN, V. Mavu, Industrial Organiser, Chemical Workers' Industrial Union (CW11.1), C. Bonner, Transvaal Secretary, CWIU, Sipho Khubeka, Transvaal Secretary, Paper, Wood and Allied Workers' Unions, and all other detainees.]
[That this House condemns the state crackdown of the South African state of emergency on 12th June, including the biggest assault on the democratic trade unions in that country for 20 years, as the bankrupt response of the apartheid regime to the call by the COSAN, the youth organisations, and the United Democratic Front, for a one-day national general strike to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Soweto massacre; and calls for the release of Valley, education officer, Commercial Catering and Allied Workers' Union (CCAWUSA), C. Khumalo, COSATU regional secretary, Pretoria, S. Ramakobye, organiser, National Automobile and Allied Workers' Union (NAAWU), V. Mohakwe, organiser, WU Pretoria, L. Mamabola, shop stewards, at Robert Bosh, MAMU, Jo Mogakwe, member MAWU, Pretoria, P. Jaantjigs, Cape

1203
Secretary, MAWU, R. Peterson, organiser, SFAWU, Bloemfontein, Q. Maroeletsi, organiser, CCAWUSA, Bloemfontein, and all other detainees.]
[That this House condemns the state crackdown of the South African state of emergency of 12th June including the biggest assault on the democratic trade unions in the country for 20 years, as the bankrupt response of the apartheid regime to the call by Confederation of South African Trade Unions, the youth organisations, and the United Democratic Front, for a one-day national general strike to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Soweto massacre; and calls for the release of S. Mknwanazi, shop steward, National Union of Textile Workers ( NUTW), Harrismith, P. Mapnalala, shop steward, NUTW, Harrismith, A. Nyati, shop steward, NUTW, Harrismith, R. Mnculwane, organiser, CCAWUSA, Harrismith, F. Mazibuko, shop steward, CCAWUSA, Harrismith, M. Cindi, shop steward CCAWUSA, Harrismith, N. Williams, COSATU, regional vice-chairman, Western Cape, N. Marawu, organiser, General Workers Union, Western Cape, R. Lazarus, organiser, TGWU, Western Cape, A. Mentoor, organiser, Food and Canning Workers Union (FCWU), Western Cape and all other detainees.]
[That this House condemns the state crackdown of the South African state of emergency of June 12th including the biggest assault on the democratic trade unions in that country for 20 years, as the bankrupt response of the apartheid regime to the call by COSAN, the youth organisations, and the United Democratic Front, for a one-day national general strike to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Soweto massacre; and calls for the release: N. MacDonald, organiser, FCWU, Western Cape, W. Zweni, shop steward, FCWU, Western Cape, D. Neer, organiser, Motor Assembly and Component Workers' Union, (MACWUSA), Port Elizabeth, Duce, Organiser MACWUSA, Port Elizabeth, Lentor, shop steward, FCWU, For Beaufort, P. Pheko, organiser, MAWU, Benoni, J. Pathe, co-ordinator, National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) and all other detainees.]
[That this House congratulates the millions of black workers who on 16th June participated in the biggest national strike in South Africa's history; condemns the state crackdown on 12th June as the most serious assault on the democratic trade unions for 20 years; and calls for the immediate release of key members of the Council of Unions of South Africa, (membership 150,000) including: Prioshaw Camay, general secretary, James Mdaweni, president, Mahlomola Skosana, assistant general secretary, Dale Tiffin, head of women's unit, Joyce Sebe, regional organiser, and all other detainees.]
[That this House condemns the state of emergency declared on 12th June in South Africa and the arrest of 3,000 youths and workers including key trade union leaders: and calls for the release of D. Hartford, COSATU editor, J. Mthimba, MAWU member, B. Modisapodi, MAWU member, V. Ramakobe, NAAWU shop steward, Firestone, V. Mohakwe, NAAWU organiser, Pretoria, V. Mavusi, CWIU member, Maruma, NUTW member, Z. Galela, NUTW member, A. Nyati, FCWU shop steward, Harrismith, Duze, MACWU organiser, Port Elizabeth, and all other detainees.]
[That this House condemns the widespread arrests of 3,000 youths and workers, including key trade union leaders; and calls for the release of the following members
1204
of the Commercial, Catering and Allied Workers Union; O. Malgas, organiser, K. Thibedi, organiser, R. Ncumali, organiser, E. Mongale, O. Marentsi, B. Boikanyo, S. Patsa, P. Bekkers, Matsoso, the following members of the Motor Assembly and Components Workers' Union Dennis I, Megiana, the following members of the South African Allied Workers' Union K. Dau, P. Mokpo, J. Masemula, C. Seleke and all other detainees.]
[That this House condemns the attempted beheading of the leadership of the South African democratic trades unions by the detention of 3,000 youths and workers, including key trade union leaders; and calls for the immediate release of L. Ditshigo, General Workers Union, L. Erasmus, Clothing Workers' Union, M. Tsedu, Chairman, Media Workers' Association of South Africa, Pietersburg, D. Dickson, National Education Union, J. Mthombeza, Chairman, COSATU, Empangeni, MAWU, B. Peterson, MAWU, Johannesburg, P. Dantjie, MAWU, Pretoria, Makhathini, Sarmcol Striker, MAWU, Ho wick, Mbeje, Sarmcol striker, MAWU, Ho wick, and all other detainees.]
[That this House condemns the arrest of 3,000 youths and workers, under the 12th June state of emergency, where the entire national and regional leadership of the Congress of South African Trade Unions is either in the hands of the notorious security police or in hiding from them; and calls for the immediate release of H. Marawu (TGW organiser, Cape Town); Paul Nkuna ( Regional Chairman, National Union of Mineworkers, Transvaal); J. Phatae ( NUM organiser, Orange Free State); V. Motsamai (shop steward, South African Chemical Workers' Union), K. Dau (National Union of Textile Workers), A. Naythi (shop steward, National Union of Textile Workers, Harrismith), Elisabeth Erasmus ( textile worker) and all other detainees.]
[That this House condemns the arrests, on Sunday 15th June in South Africa, of: Soloman Mauna ( MAWU shop steward, Bosch, Pretoria), Abnas Tilane ( MAWU shop steward, Bosch, Pretoria), Mike Mabuyakhulu ( MAWU, Northern Natal), Blakey Mtshali ( MAWU organiser) and Joseph Miya (MAWU shop steward) as part of the attempts of the Botha Government to behead the leadership of the democratic South Africa trades union; and calls for their immediate release, together with all other 3,000 detainees arrested under the state of emergency.]
[That this House condemns the raids by the South African Security police, operating under the 12th June state of emergency, on the morning of 17th June on the headquarters of the Congress of South African Trades Unions in Johannesburg, and its offices in Port Elizabeth, Jermiston, Durban and Pinetown and on the headquarters of the National Union of Mineworkers in Johannesburgh; and calls for the immediate release of all those detained.]
These early-day motions detail the 88 key trade union leaders — so far confirmed from sources within and without South Africa—to be arrested over the weekend through raids on the headquarters of the trade union federations and the NUM on Tuesday morning. What further statements will come from the Government in response to these attacks? Will those statements contain an explanation of why the Prime Minister is prepared to become an international pariah in her support for apartheid and explain that that has nothing to do with the so-called threat to the 120,000 jobs in Britain when she has sacked 2 million in the past two years, but everything to do with the £12,000 million worth of investments from

1205
British companies—many of the directors of which sit on the Conservative Benches — which get their profits from the cheap-labour apartheid system?
Mr. Biffen: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too dismissive of the consequences for employment in this country of future actions in the South African context. In answer to his specific question, he will appreciate that there was a debate on South Africa this week. In those circumstances the best thing that I can do is to refer his points to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Mr. Michael Latham: Would not another way of dealing with the real concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) about defence spending be not only in the debate next Monday, but if we debated the reports of the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury minutes in response to them? May I say that those debates are long overdue?
Mr. Biffen: I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. I hope to announce arrangements in the reasonably near future for a debate of the Public Accounts Committee reports.
Mr. Guy Barnett (Greenwich): Will the Leader of the House explain on what authority the Prime Minister, when addressing the House, speaks on behalf of the enslaved people of South Africa? Having been told, as we were by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that the Government were in close contact with the African National Congress, would it not be better if the Prime Minister endeavoured to speak on its behalf rather than on behalf of its enemies?
Mr. Biffen: The language chosen by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the policy implications are wholly laudable and understandable. In this difficult position, it is perfectly honourable for hon. Members, in the prosecution of British national policy, to explain that it is also in the interests of those whom they seek to aid in South Africa.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend initiate, through the usual channels, an urgent discussion on hon. Members' interests and how they affect the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill? I am sure that he will agree that it is vital that that Select Committee should consist of hon. Members who are above all suspicion or criticism of bias.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that an unhappy situation may be about to arise as a result of the proposed inclusion in the membership of the Committee of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape)? I gave the hon. Gentleman notice that I was going to raise this question. I should like to say at the outset that no criticism of the hon. Gentleman arises. A point of principle is at stake. The Leader of the House may not be aware that the hon. Gentleman has properly declared his interests, which are that he is a member of the National Union of Railwaymen, and is sponsored by that union. It has great interests of its own, which are affected by the Bill. Secondly, he is the joint chairman of the all-party Channel tunnel group, which has been funded and provided with travel services by the Eurotunnel consortium. Those facts have been properly registered.
My question is this. Will my right hon. Friend have discussions to see. on a point of principle, whether any
1206
hon. Member so closely linked with the Eurotunnel consortium should sit on a Select Committee that will hear petitions or points on amendments sought to the Bill, which are likely to be the opposite of the interests of the Eurotunnel consortium?
Mr. Biffen: I have no wish to play down the scope and omniscience of wisdom of the usual channels, hut, frankly, I do not believe that the question that has been raised is appropriate for them. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will act in this matter as he has acted in all parliamentary matters, with total propriety. If there are any questions about the membership of those Committees, they should he directed to the Chair.
Mr. Peter Shore: On the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. I note what the Leader of the House said in response to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, that there would be further time for the Third Reading of the Bill, but in view of the constitutional importance of the measure, which undoubtedly will lead to the further dimunition of the powers of this Parliament and to the enhancement of the powers of the European institutions, does he really think that it is right for that Bill to be pushed through to completion of all its stages other than Third Reading in a single day plus a Friday at the end of next week?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the one-day debate earlier this week, only one group of amendments was taken, on a matter which, although of some importance, was by no means the heart of the matter raised by the Bill? Is he further aware that the other amendments, of which there are at least another seven groups, raised matters of the utmost importance to the economic, social and constitutional position of this country and, indeed, of successive Governments in it? Will the Leader of the House think again about the time available for the Committee stage of' that most important Bill?
Mr. Biffen: Of course I do not deny, in any sense, the significance of the Bill. Although the size of the Bill is modest, its implications are wide-ranging. It will be a doubtful day when the House accepts that, somehow or other, Friday is a second-class day in our affairs.
Mr. Shore: It is shorter.
Mr. Biffen: It is a day which is recognised as being available for Government business, and I suggest we see what progress we make.
Mr. Peter Snape: May I say, in reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), of which he was kind enough to notify me before this exchange, that I am co-chairman of the organisation to which he referred. I have no personal knowledge of any funds being paid by any member of the Eurotunnel consortium to the all-party Channel tunnel group. I have never made a secret of the fact that I am a member of the NUR. I have made a number of statements., inside and outside the House, in favour of the Eurotunnel scheme.
I have taken advice from the Private Bill Office on the matter. Surely it is the responsibility of the Committee to study the Bill and to take note of the representations made by petitioners but not to debate the principles of the scheme? The hon. Member for Thanet, South has acted

1207
properly in this matter, but I find it unpleasant that the campaign which is being waged by the ferry companies should be waged in this personalised way to imply that, because of my oft-expressed views, I am in some way prejudiced against their somewhat partial views.
Mr. Biffen: I have already said that I do not think that this is a matter appropriate for the usual channels, but I have taken note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Michael Hirst: Has my right hon. Friend noted that, at the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh on 30 June, the Opposition have chosen to debate devolution? Does he find it strange that the Opposition have not found a day out of their time on the Floor of the House to debate the subject? Does my right hon. Friend think that if the Opposition did use a day at Westminster to debate devolution, it would show that the party was split from top to bottom.
Mr. Biffen: It is not for me to offer any fraternal guidance to the Opposition Front Bench about what it chooses to debate and where. I think I speak for everyone on this side of the House when I say that we should love the Labour party to come to the Chamber and announce a reinforced commitment to devolution both for Scotland and Wales.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is the Leader of the House aware that, on Tuesday, the Minister of State, Department of Transport, announced a most important decision: that the Dornoch firth rail bridge would not be constructed? At the time, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), said that he had nothing to add. Since then, he and his colleagues at the Scottish Office, in a frantic effort at press briefing, have issued contradictory statements on whether or not the Government have sought, or are willing to seek, aid for this project from the European Community.
As the statements are contradictory and have been published in a leading Scottish newspaper, will the Leader of the House invite the Secretary of State for Scotland to come to the House to make plain the Government's view of the project's eligibility for aid from the European Community and state whether or not they are prepared to take a longer-term strategic view of the importance of this project for Scotland?
Mr. Biffen: We all understand that this has been a rather fragile week for social democracy. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair —more than a little; being downright unfair—to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish Office. As I understand it, British Rail has to take an initiatory position on this deal before it can go to the financing authorities to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I will, of course, refer his points to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: When may we have a debate on the duties and responsibilities of civil servants and the need for them to be politically impartial? Is my right hon. Friend aware that a leading civil servant in the Department of Health and Social Security office in Leicester, Tony Church, is a public member of Militant.
1208
He is campaigning strongly to get Militant members elected to the Civil and Public Services Association who oppose the views of Alistair Graham. Does my right Friend agree that that is a strange situation? Surely civil servants owe a loyalty to the Crown? How can political office bearers, who do not believe in the Crown or in democracy, be allowed to stand?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has pursued this point with great skill, not only this afternoon but on previous occasions. I like to think that there can be few civil servants in Leicester who do not realise the full significance of the election before them.
Mr. Frank Cook: Does the Leader of the House recall that, some weeks ago, the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), accused the producers of the BBC "Panorama" programme on ionising regulations called "How Safe is Safe?" of being wrong in every critical respect, and in so doing implicated me in those accusations? Some weeks later the Minister published what he called a briefing to every hon. Member. Since then I have published a point-by-point rebuttal of his briefing which is supported by three globally eminent experts in these affairs, and have sent a copy to the Minister, asking him if he will agree to give it a similar circulation to that of his briefing. Obviously, I would understand if he were unwilling to contribute to his own embarrassment by such action.
Will the Leader of the House undertake to prevail on the Minister to come to the House and make a statement, so that we may question him on these matters and ask him whether he now understands them more readily? Or is the Leader of the House prepared to perpetuate the ministerial obfuscation of these matters?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that that charge could never be brought against my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave). The most profitable way to proceed is probably to see what happens from the mutual correspondence that is taking place, and in the light of that, perhaps, to consider any other action.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Although none of the four Opposition Leeds Members have been present this afternoon, does my right hon. Friend accept that there is grave concern in Leeds about the potential decisions on the royal ordnance factory, and that there is a case for having a debate, so that the appropriate Ministers can come to the House to answer the charge that the bureaucracies of both the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry have, in a sense, conspired to change the decision of the House about how the ROFs could be privatised? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a sad day in a city such as Leeds if another tank company could buy a loss-making operation cheaply only to close it? That does no good for jobs in the city or for competitive bidding in the defence industries.
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is a fair parliamentarian, and I know that he would be anxious that I should point out that yesterday, when the private notice question was considered in the House—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) was missing.
Dr. Hampson: I was present. I had the first question.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Biffen: A number of Leeds Members were present. The points of far greater substance raised by my hon. Friend could be appropriate to the debate on the motion to approve the statement on the Defence Estimates — obviously, subject to the judgment of the Chair. I hope that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to make his points then.
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): Will the Leader of the House consider the claim of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) about adherence to the Crown? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the grave constitutional issues mentioned in relation to the European business for Thursday and Friday raise that point? Is it not the case that the solemn statement on European union at Stuttgart in 1983 is contained in the articles of the Single European Act? Since the European Communities (Amendment) Bill seeks to endorse that treaty, is it not a fact that, if it becomes an Act of Parliament, the British Parliament and the Crown will he subservient to the terms of the said solemn treaty? Will the Leader of the House reflect on that and give greater time for this important Bill?
Mr. Biffen: Nobody doubts the significance of the debates that will take place on Thursday and Friday, and I must point out that those two days provide a reasonable amount of time for the consideration of the issues involved.
Mr. Tony Favell: Will the Government find time to debate the report published yesterday by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Lawrence Byford, in which he blames much of the violence in today's society on a lack of discipline in the home and at school, together with video porn, violence and sadism and television advertising?
Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to that point.
Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West): Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the report of the Select Committee on Employment, published this week, which makes far-reaching recommendations for the alleviation of long-term unemployment? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this all-party Committee, which has a Conservative majority, made these recommendations after careful consideration and that it is absolutely disgraceful that the Government should turn them down without proper consideration? Is it not time that we had a debate on long-term unemployment, not least because it is growing? In parts of my constituency, unemployment is as high as nearly 40 per cent.
Mr. Biffen: On reflection, the hon. and learned Gentleman may well judge that the Government's reaction was prudent, measured and wholly justified.
Mr. Janner: No, I do not.
Mr. Biffen: I did not expect the hon. and learned Gentleman completely to agree first time round, but I draw his attention to the opportunity that he will have to make a speech about unemployment during the Estimates Day debate on 24 June. If he comes to the House and listens to the Government spokesman, I hope that at the end of his speech he will be convinced.
Mr. Robert Parry: Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister with responsibility
1210
for sport to send a message to the English football supporters in Mexico asking them to show good behaviour and sportsmanship in the game against Argentina next Sunday? Will he also ask him to send a message of good luck to the English team in its bid to win the World Cup?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that there will be unanimity on this high point of political, social, economic and cultural judgment that the House is expressing this afternoon, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it.
Mr. Ron Brown: As the Government are still committed to the reduction of public expenditure, especially to the reduction of benefits for students, pensioners and the working class in general. will the Leader of the House ensure that the appropriate Minister is brought to the House to explain why Andrew and Sarah cannot pay for their royal wedding, because this issue is being discussed up and down the country?
Mr. Biffen: As I understand it, public expenditure is rising. Since, therefore, the hon. Gentleman is so misconceived about the premise, I think that I am disembarrassed from making any comments upon his conclusion.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: First, may I correct the incorrect allegation that was made by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) a few moments ago, when he said that no other Member of Parliament for Leeds had been in the House this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds. West (Mr. Meadowcroft) was not only here but asked Question 13. We have to assume that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West was not here then as, indeed, it has to be noted, he is not here now.
I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that 150 hon. Members have signed early-day motion 837, which stands in my name.
[That this House notes the justifiable sense of frustration and anger expressed at the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters' Conference in Bournemouth at the Post Office's use of coercion to force through an inequitable pay award for 1985 for sub-postmasters; calls on the Post Office to recognise that sub-postmasters are the only sector of the Post Office who invest their own money, frequently their life's savings, in order to ensure that the Post Office serves its customers effectively; believes that the Post Office's policy has weakened the tenuous economic viability of many sub-post offices and endangered the network; recognises that sub-postmasters have given loyal and exceptional service to the Post Office and the public, which should be recognised and not taken advantage of; and calls on the Post Office to understand the damage it is doing, to mend its ways and to deal with sub-postmasters more on the basis of cooperation and the force of argument, rather than confrontation and the arguments of force in relation to this crucial component of community life.]
Also, hon. Members from all parties have signed early-day motion, 926, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam).
[That this House, recognising the valuable role played in the community by sub-postmasters, calls on the Post Office to revise its policy towards sub-postmasters and through cooperation and support so improve their pay and conditions that the economic viability of the sub-post office network will be assured for the fitturel

1211
They express concern about the attitude of the Post Office to the sub-post office network and about the damage that is being done to that essential network. Will the Leader of the House take account of this considerable number of hon. Members from all parties who have expressed their concern and, if at all possible, provide time for a debate on the matter before the summer recess?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman touches upon a point that arouses very deep feelings, particularly in the rural constituencies. I cannot give the undertaking that he seeks, but I shall certainly consider the matter further.

Channel Tunnel (Select Committee)
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a point that has arisen out of the exchanges on business questions? I understood my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to say that he did not feel it was a matter for him whether or not there should be any discussion about the fact that an hon. Member who had been co-chairman of a committee funded by a business interest should now be a member of a Select Committee that is listening to petitions which relate to that business interest. I think that my point was clear enough from the exchanges.
I was somewhat surprised by the reply of my right hon. Friend, because his office had guided me earlier by saying that this was likely to be a matter for him rather than a matter for you. However, as I received that reply from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, may I turn to you, Mr. Speaker, and ask this question? Clearly a genuine point of principle about Members' interests and how they should affect membership of Select Committees arises in this instance. To whom may I turn to obtain some kind of ruling in as neutral and friendly a way as possible?
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House occasionally comes to my rescue, and I very nearly came to his rescue earlier. Since the hon. Gentleman has now raised that point with me, I can tell him that the House has entrusted the nomination of this Committee to the Committee of Selection, and I have no power to interfere. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the rule about the declaration of interests applies in Select Committees as it does in the House.

British Gas
Mr. Alan Williams: On a completely separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether you have received a request from the Secretary of State for Energy about making a statement to the House on British Gas? If not, as I assume is the case, may I draw your attention to the penultimate page of the Official Report for 18 June? It contains an 80-line written answer from the Secretary of State for Energy dealing with issues such as the debt and equity position of British Gas and the debt element in its balance sheet, the future of the gas levy when British Gas has been privatised, the price regulatory formula that will be the only defence for the consumer against this private monopoly, and its intentions regarding the holding of shares by British Gas employees. I am sure that you will agree that all these matters merit discussion and questions in the House.
As for the price formula, the Secretary of State said that it was only after careful examination that he had arrived at this particular regulatory formula. As we were unable to debate these matters during proceedings on the Bill, it seems appropriate that, at the very least, we should have an opportunity to question the Secretary of State, now that he has made up his mind. If the Secretary of State has not said that he wishes to make a statement to the House, may I, through you, Mr. Speaker, ask the Leader of the House to ensure that a statement is made as quickly as possible about British Gas?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): We could look at that matter through the usual channels.

BILL PRESENTED
  BRITISH COUNCIL AND COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE SUPERANNUATION
  Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, supported by Mr. Timothy Raison, Mr. Peter Brooke, Mrs. Lynda Chalker and Mr. Tim Eggar, presented a Bill to enable schemes to be made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 in respect of persons who are serving or have previously served in employment with the British Council or the Commonwealth Institute: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 186.]

  Northern Ireland Assembly (Dissolution)
  4.6 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move,
  That the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Dissolution) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
  That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 4th June, be approved.
  I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if we discuss these two orders together.
  Mr. Speaker: Will it be for the convenience of the House to discuss these orders together?
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State appeared to be moving the approval of both orders. I take it that the position is that the two orders may be debated together but that a separate Question will have to be put in due course in regard to the second order.
  Mr. Speaker: That is entirely correct, but is it the wish of the House that these two orders be debated together?
  Hon. Members:Aye.
  Mr. King: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I confirm my understanding of the point that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has made.
  The draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Dissolution) Order 1986 relates to the dissolution of the existing Assembly. I emphasise "the existing Assembly". This Assembly would in any case reach the end of its normal life on 20 October. I made a statement to the House last week in which I set out our decision on this matter and our proposal to bring forward this order today. In that statement I sought to make clear the background to our decision.
  The Assembly effectively has two central functions. The first is to consider and report on how a devolved Northern Ireland Administration could be formed. The second is a scrutiny role in relation to the Northern Ireland departments. For the reasons that we rehearsed last week, it has not been possible to achieve the first of those functions. In respect of the second — the scrutiny function, which started well and which was proving to he a valuable instrument in the administration of the Province—it is interesting to note that, in the case of the recommendations from the various Scrutiny Committees that we established to monitor the work of Northern Ireland departments, the latest information I have is that 75 per cent. of the Committee recommendations have been accepted in respect of draft orders and comments on them.
  Unfortunately, that useful work was suspended by the decision of the Members themselves in December and was then formally abandoned in March. The Assembly was charged with two central functions but for some months it has been discharging neither. As long ago as last December I warned that if the Assembly did not discharge its proper functions it would put its continuance at risk. I have since reinforced that warning and did so twice in May. As there was no change in the situation. I subsequently invited the leaders of the main Unionist

  1215
  parties to come and discuss the position of the present Assembly. As the House knows, they refused to do even that
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is it not the case that all those admirable functions that were performed by Committees of the Northern Ireland Assembly could well be performed by appropriate Committees of this House?
  Mr. King: The advantage was that the functions were being performed by people with a more intimate and closer knowledge of circumstances in Northern Ireland. I respect the great knowledge of the Province and the history of the whole of Ireland that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has, but I should be very surprised if he were to maintain, or if anyone were to pretend, that hon. Members of this House who do not represent Northern Ireland constituencies could claim to do the detailed scrutiny work as effectively as those whose homes are in the Province.
  The leaders of the main Unionist parties were not even prepared to discuss the position with us. I hope that the House will accept that I gave the Unionist leaders in the Assembly every opportunity to resume their proper functions so that the Assembly would be able to continue. I regret to say that it is because of their failure to discharge their proper functions, and obviously because, not least, some quite serious questions could be asked about the application of public funds to a body set up to carry out certain functions under an Act of Parliament when those funds are not being used for that purpose, that the present action is being taken.
  I should like to make it clear that the disgraceful and childish antics in which some Members of the Assembly, and especially the members of the DUP, indulged more recently of occupying a telephone exchange and requiring eviction by the Royal Ulster Constabulary did not enter into my considerations. I was concerned solely to see that the Assembly discharged the functions for which it was set up.
  If this order were not made, automatically there would be fresh elections to the Assembly after the dissolution on 20 October. The order does not abolish the legal basis for the Assembly. It simply abolishes the present Assembly which, allowing for the normal recess that it might have taken, would have had only about another month or six weeks of normal sitting days.
  The order dissolves the present Assembly and leaves open the date of elections to a new Assembly. It is important to make that point because of some of the exaggerated comments by some spokesmen in the Northern Ireland parties. I noted the comments of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) who complained that all platforms were denied to him. I have described the hon. Member by his proper title. He is a Member of this House, and as such he has access to the most important forum in the United Kingdom. He makes little use of it, and so he cannot say that he is denied the opportunity of expressing in a democratic forum comments on behalf of the people that he represents.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: In the event of the Assembly being reassembled for whatever reasons, and assuming that that came after round-table talks,
  1216
  would the Assembly have to operate as is presently conceived in the legislation, or could the legislation be amended according to what came out of those talks?
  Mr. King: I shall say something shortly about how I see the future of the Assembly and the way forward.
  I should like to deal with the allegation that somehow the Government are trying to suppress free speech or free comment or democratic expression. When I look at the situation that has developed in the local councils in Northern Ireland, at the situation in the Assembly and at the empty Benches in this House, I note that it is not decisions of the Government that have brought any of those circumstances about. They were brought about by the decisions of people in the Assembly or in the councils or by those who were elected to this Parliament. I regret their refusal to discuss the problems with Ministers. They loudly complain about people's refusal to listen, while at the same time they refuse to talk or to take any part in discussions. The inconsistency of that position will be apparent to all hon. Members.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I recognise that there is a great difference between the situations in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but does the Minister recognise that they seem to have one thing in common? I refer to the Government's attitude to the governing of Scotland and Northern Ireland. The wishes of the representatives of the majority of people in Northern Ireland about the arrangements that are made are not given effect in this House. They wish to have more discussed here. Similarly, the representatives of the majority in Scotland wish to have devolved government and the Government are setting their face against that. Does the Minister not see anything curious about this? Why is he so unresponsive to the views of the majority of elected Members from Scotland and Northern Ireland about the way their countries should be governed?
  Mr. King: I cannot deny that I see many things that are curious in both situations. I shall come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) because I want to talk about alternative approaches in different parts of the United Kingdom. The issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised is important.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon rose—
  Mr. King: I should like to complete the point and then I shall give way.
  We look forward to the creation of a new Assembly on an acceptable basis, but the charge that the Government sought to bring about the dissolution, or that we have been unreasonable or not willing to talk, simply cannot be sustained. I hope that it is now understood in Northern Ireland that I am more than ready to listen to people's points of view and to talk to anybody who wishes to have discussions about a constructive way forward. I shall say more about that later.
  If the dissolution of the Assembly is approved by the House, and that decision is confirmed by the Privy Council, there will then be a period during which I shall be anxious to see that as far as possible we can maintain effective methods of consultation. One of the arrangements that operated in the Assembly was that draft instruments or draft orders were issued for consultation and the Assembly was invited to give its views. I propose to continue the practice of sending to the party leaders in

  1217
  Northern Ireland and to interested hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies in the House any such documents that come forward so that they can continue to he informed about matters. We shall, of course, be willing to receive any of their comments.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the Secretary of State aware that before 1982, when the practice that he has just described prevailed. there were frequent consultations between Northern Ireland Members and Ministers? Those often resulted in substantial and desirable modifications of the orders that were eventually brought before the House. There is no reason why that procedure should not be fruitful.
  Mr. King: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for South Down for his remarks and I hope that he speaks for others as well as for himself.
  Mr. Mallon: I wanted to intervene earlier to ask the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) whether he was enunciating his party's policy when he spoke about majority rule.
  Mr. King: It will be a fascinating argument when it starts. I am sure that both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland will enjoy it.
  Mr. Ian Gow: Could my right hon. Friend address himself to the question that was raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), the spokesman for the SDI'? Does my right hon. Friend recall the year 1978, when he and I voted in favour of the proposition that, before Scotland and Wales were governed differently from the way in which they had been governed before, there should be a referendum in both countries to test whether that which was acceptable to the House was acceptable to a majority in Scotland and in Wales? Why, if he and I were correct to insist on a referendum then, are we not correct to ask for a referendum in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. King: My hon. Friend knows the answer before I give it. It is that Northern Ireland is not being governed differently from the way in which it was governed before. I know that my hon. Friend is referring to the Anglo-Irish agreement, and the government of the Province is no different after that agreement. He will recall, as he knows it word for word and I would not presume to tell him anything about it, that the agreement brings no change in the sovereignty of the House and the Government's responsibility for Northern Ireland. That is the essential difference between this case and that about which he was talking.
  It was suggested that we should simply not have the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order at all, and merely allow the order to lapse, and that its non-renewal was a possible course to take. I put that on record, because I know that it is a matter in which many hon. Members have taken a close interest. I leave aside for the moment the political background and implications of such a decision. I hope that it is understood, now that discussions have taken place, that, quite apart from the political considerations, the technical problems would make it impossible simply not to renew the order. That would lead to major problems for the House and to major gaps in the executive authority and powers in the Province, which would severely hamper administration.
  1218
  Successive Secretaries of State have come to the House seeking the renewal of the order, and each has said that he hoped that this would not have to he repeated much more often. The basis on which we might forgo renewal does not exist, and, on both the technical and practical considerations, it is necessary to invite the House to renew the direct rule powers contained in the order.
  The background both to the decision about the dissolution of the Assembly and that about the interim period extension order shows that this is an appropriate time to take stock of the situation in the Province, and for the Government to make clear their views on the best way forward. There has been more intensive debate in the Province in recent months. One of the consequences flowing from the Anglo-Irish agreement is that it has stimulated a more intensive debate in the Province about what the right way forward should be, and, particularly in Unionist circles, a reconsideration of the position and objectives. It is clear that there is no going back, and that this is the best way forward.
  I move on to the approaches to the situation in Northern Ireland that are being debated, my impressions of them and the Government's view on them. The approaches are integration, devolution and even independence, all of which have had their advocates in this debate. I shall deal first with integration. The Government do not support, and would not be prepared to suggest. integration as a policy for Northern Ireland. To suggest that there is no difference between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom is to ignore completely the background of different histories, traditions, community attitudes and political parties. These differences have evolved over centuries, and cannot simply be discussed as minor variations that can be cast aside in a uniform Westminster package. There are fundamental objections, without even adding to them the massive problems of reconciliation of legislation and the whole issue of local councils and how they can operate in ways that protect their electors from discrimination.
  The slogan used now to advocate integration is "equal citizenship". The implication is that different treatment of legislation implies less citizenship. Yet we know — and this is the point to which the hon. Member for Sutherland and Caithness referred—that there are differences in the way in which we handle Scottish and Welsh matters, while all remaining equal citizens under the Crown. Total integration is unacceptable, not only to the Government but to the House, and the vast majority of people in the Province, both Unionist and Nationalist. They wish to see more control over their own affairs exercised within the Province. I make it clear that integration is simply not on.
  In saying that, I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said which was that the Government are certainly willing to look at ways in which Northern Ireland business is handled in the House and to see whether there are ways in which this could be improved. I recognise that there are points to be discussed over the ways in which legislation and other matters are treated. I confirm that we are ready to consider any constructive suggestion. However, I add that this willingness to look at reasonable changes in our present practices should not mislead anyone to believe that this could somehow lead to the stale of integration that some hon. Members expound.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: My hon. Friend is right to say that this matter has been discussed

  1219
  in great detail. Will he make clear the Government's position? Is he saying that the acknowledged differences between the various dependent parts of the United Kingdom—that is, the differences between the English and the Welsh, and the English and the Scottish—are differences of degree, but that the differences between the English and the Welsh and the Northern Irish are differences of kind? If he is drawing that distinction, I am afraid that I do not understand it.
  Mr. King: My hon. Friend knows that there are differences, whether of degree or of kind — whatever word he chooses, we would need to debate at substantial length. I would not want to mislead my hon. Friend because I am not fully seized of his point. There are different practices, traditions and realities in Northern Ireland. We recognise the differences between the communities and their aspirations, and the different legislation in Norther Ireland. I leave aside one of the key differences—that the major political parties representing in the House every other part of the United Kingdom do not operate within Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend knows.
  Because of the debate that has taken place, I thought it was my responsibility to the House to make clear the Government's position. It would be wrong if encouragement were given to the view that the Government might be prepared to entertain certain alternatives. I hope hon. Members will accept that I have been willing to listen to any points that they wished to make and not to reject them from a doctrinaire point of view. I have been willing to consider ways in which we could help reconcile some of the problems and attitudes. In my statement I have sought to set out what I believe to be possible, but also what I believe is not possible and where I think there is scope to proceed.
  Mr. Julian Amery: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has come out so strongly against the possibility of integration. That is his business and he is free to do it. May I correct him on one point? He said that the political parties in this country have not operated in the Province. The Unionist party in the North of Ireland was closely and integrally affiliated with the Conservative party until he and some of his predecessors brought about the present stress.
  Mr. King: There is something in what my right hon. Friend says, but he also knows that the background of the traditions and political loyalties in the Province is not the same as the basis of political loyalties in the rest of the United Kingdom. He will accept equally the validity of that point.
  Sir John Farr rose—
  Mr. King: I do not want to take up too much time because we have other orders to debate. My hon. Friend will accept that I have given way on several occasions.
  I want to set out the way in which the Government wish to proceed. The Government want to see devolved government in the Province on a basis that commands widespread acceptance. We want a basis on which elected people from the Province can again have a real say in its administration. [Interruption.] I heard the groan from my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), but history is not encouraging. That is an easy
  1220
  and obvious point to make. If my right hon. Friend were plugged into the debate that is taking place in Northern Ireland he would know that recent events have concentrated people's minds in a different way on the best way forward.
  In the debate on the Anglo-Irish agreement I recall the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) saying that if he had known that he would have to face the Anglo-Irish agreement he would have considered seriously sitting down with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) to see whether they could reach agreement, as residents representing constituencies in Northern Ireland. Many such remarks have encouraged me to believe that more and more people realise the importance of making a real effort this time to find agreement.
  We now need to start talking, not necessarily in a great formal gathering or in an official meeting. We must start the process of understanding better each other's point of view. Sooner or later there must be talks, and the sooner the better. I may have the wrong impression, but I think that at last people in the Province appreciate that I am prepared to listen to constructive arguments, that my door is genuinely open and that, as somebody who believes both in the value of Northern Ireland remaining part of the United Kingdom and in the clear rights of the majority in that respect, as well as in the rights of the minority to equal and fair treatment in the Province as part of the United Kingdom, my concern is to see the present log jam broken and a new start made. Nobody who cares about Northern Ireland can want the present sterile and pointless campaign to continue because its main casualty is the good name of Northern Ireland and the interests of all its people.
  Sir John Farr: I was anxious that my right hon. Friend should give way. He is on a very important point and he has stressed how anxious he is to hear differing views. Can he tell the House what opinion he tapped, or what sources of information in Northern Ireland he approached, to enable him to come to the conclusive view that he has put, as representing the Government's view? No doubt it is the result of the local soundings that he has taken. Can he elaborate on that point because it is important that we should know from which sources he has been getting this advice?
  Mr. King: I have talked to a wide range of people, some of whom might not wish to be identified because of the intimidation that undoubtedly exists in many quarters in Northern Ireland. Many brave people who care about the future of the Province wish to ensure that their views are known and that their best hopes are understood by the Government. I have talked also to Church leaders and to many others. I have sought to talk to as wide a range as I can of Unionists and Nationalists across the Province as a whole. It is against that background that I have formed my views.
  I do not wish to be discourteous in not always giving way. This is the beginning of the debate and no doubt hon. Members will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be interested to hear their views. I am sorry that I did not give way earlier to my hon. Friend.
  In finding the way forward there must be a start to talks. My pledge is that I am ready now to enter into talks in whatever form is convenient, without pre-conditions

  1221
  and, if desired, outside any involvement with the Anglo-Irish agreement. I make that offer now. There must be talks. They must start sooner or later, but in whatever form I set no pre-conditions on them. That must be the way to start. I hope that at last others can respond to see whether we can find a basis on which a happier future for the Province can be laid.
  4.38 pm
  Mr. Peter Archer: I begin by agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman that the Assembly in its recent phase was simply a channel for the abuse of public funds that would have been better spent in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. Perhaps I go further than he does. Last week when I said that was pronouncing the obsequies on the Assembly he took me to task. He said, as he reminded us today, that the proposal was merely to dissolve the Assembly, so that if at any future time it was required it could be brought out of store. So we are not pronouncing the obsequies; we are attending a farewell party.
  If there comes a time when all the parties decide that they want to discuss the exercise of power in Northern Ireland by the people of Northern Ireland, I suspect that it may be better to provide a different instrument, if only to avoid casting a cloud over the proceedings by reminding them of former unhappy times—those through which we are now passing.
  For the moment, another institution is laid to rest and, with it, the hopes which were once invested in it. It would be remiss of us to let this occasion pass without paying tribute to those who tried to make it work. Let us record a tribute to the Speaker of the Assembly, the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder), and his staff. It was not neglect on their part which led to the present circumstances. They tried, and they deserve better. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there remain as memorials to the Assembly some thoughtful, well-researched and locally based reports which, in better times, will serve as guides to policy. They demonstrate that politicians who disagree profoundly about many issues may find a basis for co-operation on the practical questions which affect the welfare of their constituents.
  Where then is there left to go, bearing in mind that it would have been better if we were not starting from here? Let us begin with what we already have. The Government are inviting the House to renew the arrangements for the interim period. Whatever our respective preferred solutions, we are probably agreed that, for the moment, there is no alternative to continuing direct rule —certainly, some kind of direct rule and, as of now, the 1974 Act. Unhappily, we are also probably agreed that the only argument to be urged in its favour is that there is no agreement on an alternative.
  No one who was asked to design a method of government for a free people would have come up with the first schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. Decisions which are of vital concern to the people of Northern Ireland are taken by a Government—I do not mean just the present Government; any Government—in London who do not depend for their support on the electors of Northern Ireland, whose candidates have not sought election there, and who have little to gain from satisfying the electors and little to fear from their displeasure. It is the negation of representative government. I believe that we are all agreed on that.
  1222
  If those inevitable dire consequences are magnified by the Government's business managers seeking to legislate for whole areas of activity by bringing on unamendable orders at impossible hours of the night, it is small wonder that the anxieties and hopes of the people of Northern Ireland are not reflected in the instruments which issue from the Westminster Parliament.
  I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman stated his willingness to discuss the problems of legislation in the House. The official Opposition are willing to participate in those discussions. Indeed, we have suggested them for a long time. We believe that they could do something to improve the decisions which, in Northern Ireland, vitally affect the quality of everyday life.
  I believe that the time has come to hold those discussions. I hope that they will be attended by all the parties represented in the House. Any party could attend without renouncing its position on any other issue. Attendance would not entail any concession or treachery to any cherished opinion. It would not even entail a commitment to future discussions. If we found that we enjoyed the experience of talking together, it might become a habit, and that would be another option.
  If any party declined to commit itself, even to the adventure of talks about parliamentary procedure, and chose to absent itself from those discussions, I do not believe that that should constitute a veto over their being held, nor on implementing any agreement to which they might lead. Abstentionism is the right of those who choose to practise it. It is not a denial of the rights of other people. That is something which could be done. It could begin now. I recognise that that is a limited proposal. If we are agreed about the need, for the moment, to make the best of direct rule, I believe that we are also agreed that that is only the first step in a long journey.
  The problem about the way forward is not a shortage of ideas for constitutional innovations. The debate is not about constitutional devices. The issue is not whether one constitutional arrangement is better than another. People from two traditions have been brought, by history, into a position where they inhabit one territory. There is no geographical boundary line which could separate them. There is no re-partition which would leave the two peoples on opposite sides of the line. Their home is a home which they are compelled to share. The only question is whether they can live together in peace or whether they are condemned for ever to regard each other as enemies. That is not a constitutional question.
  There is no shortage of constitutional devices by which two groups, inhabiting a single territory, can jointly take decisions on how to administer their affairs. Those making virtually any proposal in that context can point to an instance in the history and geography of mankind where it has already been tried and has worked. Whatever is lacking, it is not constitutional ingenuity. The question is not whether some different constitutional plant could grow and flourish. The question is, what is it about the soil which causes every plant to wither?
  Like the Secretary of State, my visits to Northern Ireland are not always confined to the corridors of power. I go to places which would surprise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker— [Interruption] I promise that I shall riot elaborate. Sometimes I meet not just politicians and community leaders but those who would describe themselves as ordinary people. All the people I meet tell me that their greatest yearning is to live in peace. They do

  1223
  not want to have to look over their shoulders every time they go to an unfamiliar part of town. They do not want to have to bite their nails every time their children come home a few minutes late. Yet, collectively, they seem to be condemned to perpetual confrontation. If there is to be peace, it cannot be imposed by people from London or Dublin. It is a search which can be conducted only by the people of Northern Ireland. It cannot be achieved by asking who will win and who will lose. It will not represent anyone's ideal solution. Peace has a price, and it is a price to which everyone must contribute. Nothing is more idle than wanting to live in a peaceful world while we continue, individually, to be quarrelsome.
  I believe that there are some ways in which this House can help in the quest for peace. There are ways in which the Republic can help. We could begin by asking whether it is possible to create a climate more conducive to consensus. What is the reason why, in Northern Ireland, one issue seems to drive all the other questions off the agenda—questions which most of us would see as more pressing? It is not that the questions which are the subject of political debate elsewhere do not arise in Northern Ireland. It is not that the economy is so flourishing that it does not require attention. It is not that the public services and the community amenities are operating so successfully that people are free to look for other things to argue about. The reverse is the case.
  People who have been denied jobs, or whose jobs are so badly paid that they cannot give their families a decent life, may be tempted to look for scapegoats on which to vent their frustration. If there are not enough jobs to go round, they see their neighbours as rivals. It is harder to be generous on a falling market. I believe that we can demonstrate the advantages of co-operation in economic matters. That is why I call continually on the Secretary of State to tell us whether the Intergovernmental Conference is discussing those questions, and when he will be able to point to some results.
  When the Anglo-Irish agreement was concluded, the Opposition said that it should be given a chance, because we believed that it could be the framework for discussion between the British Government and the Government of the Republic, that it could lead to action which would benefit all the people of Northern Ireland and would manifestly be seen to benefit them.
  We do not believe that it is possible to argue that the Republic has no interest in what happens in Northern Ireland, and that what people do on one side of the border is of no concern to the other side. That is not true. It is not possible to argue that people who share a tradition have no legitimate interests in common with people of that tradition a few miles down the road. If people inhabiting the same island have nothing to say to one another but recrimination, everyone will suffer. If they seek actively to promote enmity between two parts of the island, they are bequeathing to their children a chilling legacy.
  Of course, it takes two to agree. Of course, something depends on the Republic demonstrating that the fears expressed in such dramatic terms in certain quarters are illusory. It is not for me to tell the Republic how to conduct its affairs, but I have my views as to where its best interests will lie over the next few weeks.
  What better vehicle could there be than the Anglo-Irish agreement for demonstrating how much the two parts of
  1224
  the island have in common? I confess that there was a moment when I allowed myself to hope that the two Governments would together find a way of saving the Northern Ireland gas industry. A great opportunity was missed. I was pleased that we were told in the joint statement by the Intergovernmental Conference earlier this week that those involved had discussed the importance of the main road between Belfast and Dublin and had agreed to explore the best way of improving the road link between Newry and Dundalk.
  There is a need for public investment in roads and in infrastructure. Perhaps the public funds that have been saved by the dissolution which is taking place today could be devoted, in some measure at least, to that purpose. There are people eating out their hearts on the dole who could be working to meet the needs about which, apparently, the conference talked. They are people who live on the same island, whose needs are common needs. The enemies are want, squalor and idleness. All those people are fighting in that battle on the same side, as allies.
  If, whenever we ask the Secretary of State what has been achieved by the agreement, he speaks only of security, that would be a mistake. [Interruption.] I see that he and his colleagues agree. It is not that security is not important but that, as we were reminded this week, by its very nature, one cannot tell people what has been decided or what has emerged from the discussion. If, within the measurable future, the Government cannot demonstrate some benefit to the people of Northern Ireland from the Anglo-Irish agreement, they will reap the worst of both worlds. They will have encountered the aggravation, the misrepresentation and all the imagined conspiracies and will not have reassured those who set their hopes on the agreement.
  This is a short debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I know that a number of hon. Members hope to catch your eye so I shall make just two final points. One contribution which we who live outside Northern Ireland can make is to practise a self-denying ordinance. We can decide that, if we cannot impose peace, we at least will not do anything to increase the bitterness. If we cannot build bridges, we will not destroy them. If we cannot heal the wounds, we will not deepen them.
  Critics of the Government have complained of the insensitivity of giving the Government of the Republic even a consultative role in Northern Ireland, because that might upset the susceptibilities of the Unionist people. I agree that the absence of consultation when that was done was less than sensitive. I hope that those same hon. Members will appreciate that a proposal for complete integration, treating Northern Ireland as though it were geographically situated between the Humber and the Wash, might offend the susceptibilities of the Nationalist people and even, I suspect, at least half the Unionist people.
  The Secretary of State has spoken of the historical and cultural difficulties that might defeat an attempt to devise ways of integrating Northern Ireland into the administration of the United Kingdom. It has never been treated simply as part of the United Kingdom. For virtually all its existence its people have not actually sought that.
  Assuming that it were feasible, that the people of Great Britain were to agree to the proposal and the House were totally persuaded, is it to be done only with the consent of the Nationalist people and the Unionist people, or would it be a solution which the people who live in Great Britain

  1225
  were seeking to impose on the people of Northern Ireland? Our debates may not always appear to be achieving a great deal. It would be tragic if they contributed to the divisions, bitterness and recriminations.
  There is a message which could go out from the House, one on which we could perhaps all agree. Northern Ireland has had a bad press in Great Britain, especially in the past few months. Many people on this side of the water have lost patience with what has appeared as the intransigence of people in Northern Ireland—
  Mr. Mallon: All the people of Northern Ireland'?
  Mr. Archer: The hon. Gentleman has asked a relevant question. I was deliberately trying not to be provocative. He knows what my answer would be to his question but, if he insists on an answer, it is that the Unionist people have had a bad press on this side of the water.
  Mr. Mallon: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for clarifying the position. I was not encouraging him to make an anti-Unionist remark. I was trying to encourage him to ensure that he stated that all the people of the north of Ireland are not against agreement, peace or a constructive way forward. That must be clearly understood. especially in relation to the way in which other political parties in the north of Ireland are claiming the term "the people of Northern Ireland".
  Mr. Archer: The hon. Gentleman is right. I accept all that he has said and, in another context, I might actually have put that argument. He will see in a moment why I put it in the way I did. The hon. Gentleman is right—the Unionist people of Northern Ireland have had a bad press.
  Mr. John Hume: The leaders have had a bad press.
  Mr. Archer: I have met Unionist people in Northern Ireland who thought that they were not well served by their spokesmen.
  It is perhaps ironic that some of the very virtues in the character of the Unionist people have contributed to that image — their passionate commitment to what they believe, their refusal to take the easy way out and their loyalty to their traditions, but much is going on in Northern Ireland of which Northern Ireland can be proud. There are people whose passionate commitment is to building a peaceful community. There are people demonstrating the success of integrated education. There are people holding dialogues across the divide in situations which make greater demands on their courage than anything we say makes on ours.
  It is easy for us to debate these issues. Those people are carrying on the debate where it might easily have been silenced. They receive little recognition or encouragement. I believe that they will find a larger place in the history books of the future than they find in the news media of today. They are dismissed as visionaries but, if we are short on anything in Northern Ireland, it is vision. I hope that the House will do all it can to encourage those who seek to keep that hope alive. One day it may be justified.
  4.57 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Secretary of State has announced to the House in the form of the first of two orders which we are considering that there is to be no continuation in the foreseeable future of a Northern Ireland Assembly which was set up by the Northern
  1226
  Ireland Act 1982. That is a decision which came as a shock and even a surprise to hardly anyone in the Province. The extent to which it is accepted that that was a foregone conclusion might surprise even the right hon. Gentleman.
  In the Stormont Chamber yesterday afternoon, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) sitting opposite my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan. Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said across the Dispatch Boxes., "The right hon. Gentleman and I will never sit again in a. Northern Ireland Assembly." It is not surprising that this conclusion in 1986 should be foregone when we remember that all the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland opposed the 1982 legislaton. The present Speaker of the Assembly was among those who voted with the rest of us against it Those who were most intimately concerned with Northern Ireland warned and foresaw that the outcome of that endeavour would be frustration.
  There were two reasons for that, which can usefully be kept distinct. The first was that that Act created an Assembly which was given neither power nor responsibility, but over which was dangled the bait that it might perhaps have instalments of both if it could discover the undiscoverable, achieve the unachievable and if it could devise a constitutional way in which those who were elected to serve opposite political objectives could maintain that they had achieved, were achieving, or were contributing to the achievement of that which they had represented to their respective electors.
  There was an essential falsity and impracticability in the basis upon which the Northern Ireland Act 1982 was constructed. The Assembly was set an impossible task. It was not impossible because of ill will, but inherently impossible in the circumstances which existed then and which exist still.
  Mr. Hume indicated assent.
  Mr. Powell: I am glad to have the assent of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who never concealed his view on this matter, however much he was mistakenly abused for stating it.
  There was a deeper reason why the Act, over which a veil is now being drawn, was foredoomed to failure and, that is—and I shall use a word which I will instantly qualify—the devolutionary context in which it was seen. I qualify that expression all the more because this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, in two vivid and remarkable passages in his speech, has taken the old, rather boring, antithesis between integration and devolution and given to both of them an interpretation which I believe is enlightening and useful. He has contrasted with the concept of integration the fact that British rights are available to British citizens under different forms of government, if we examine them, and under different parliamentary regimes in the different parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore, in a way he has liberated us from many of the more grotesque implications of a term which has been used more as a term of aggression than enlightenment in Northern Ireland debates. In referring to devolution—I shall return to this later—he referred to devolved administration in the Province, thus making one of the vital distinctions in this subject, the distinction between legislative and administrative devolution.
  It is important to understand the background to the attachment to the aim of devolution which all

  1227
  Governments have professed since 1969 — since 1972 when they destroyed one devolved administrative structure in order to attempt to replace it with another, right up to 1985 when they wrote that aspiration into the terms of the Anglo-Irish agreement.
  We know the reasons why, at the beginning of the section of the story—that is, in 1919 when some of us would say that what was mistakenly called the Northern Ireland state was created — it was regarded by the Government of the day as impossible that those who had not voted themselves out of the United Kingdom at the 1918 election should remain an integral part of the United Kingdom. Since we are dealing with a period in which the records are open, there need be no dispute or debate about what the motivation was. There was one very clear and definite reason why the people of Northern Ireland were told that they would have to have home rule whether they liked it or not, the acceptance of which Sir James Craig described as the "ultimate sacrifice" which they were called upon to make.
  I shall not trouble the House with many quotations, but I think that it is worth putting on record one or two from the Cabinet meetings of December 1919 when the form of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was being decided by the Lloyd George coalition. The minutes of the Cabinet stated that
  "a united Ireland with a single parliament"
  was
  "the ultimate aim of the Government's policy."
  The Cabinet said that the Bill had to be
  "a measure which paved the way for a single Irish parliament".
  A week later the Cabinet said that the Bill should be framed bearing in mind that its "ultimate aim" should be the unity of Ireland.
  From 1920, the insistence of the mother country upon home rule in that part of the United Kingdom was motivated by its determination that the interests and political purposes of the United Kingdom required that sooner or later, in some way or other, there should he an all-Ireland state. That is the framework and the background against which, quite inevitably and understandably, the profession of a determination to secure devolution in Northern Ireland was bound to be viewed in the Province.
  Like its predecessors, this constitutional experiment has come to its predicted fate. As the House proceeds to approve the draft order, as I am sure it will, there is one practical point I should like to put to the Secretary of State. Very shortly we are going to put an end to the life of the Assembly. He did not announce the precise date and I appreciate that that may depend upon the convenience of the sovereign in relation to the holding of the necessary Privy Council. However, he can ensure that when the date is fixed it is such as to enable there to be courteous, reasonable and understanding treatment of those who, for a number of years, have given their services to this institution. There have been some unpleasant rumours of less than courteous and considerate treatment being intended.
  Mr. Tom King indicated assent.
  Mr. Powell: I am glad to have the Secretary of State's assent, and I am sure that he will see that that does not happen. I know that it could not possibly be his intention.
  1228
  With that behind us, we ask, "What next?" Part of that debate is laid before the House in terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order, but the whole of the debate is not summed up within the confines of that order. Last week, in answering questions after his statement, the Secretary of State recognised candidly that there was a certain absurdity in a form of government in which, between the Secretary of State and his Department and district councils which were little more than parish councils, there was no administrative machinery with any democratic input from the people who were governed. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right and he is right in saying that there cannot be British rights for British citizens, in the connotation which he gave to that phrase unless there is in Northern Ireland, as there is in the rest of Great Britain, representative local government in the sense of representative administration. — [Interruption.] I am not such a pessimist as the hon. Member for Foyle.
  Mr. Hume: I would advise the right hon. Gentleman that he has a very short memory. Those hon. Members who argued for integration and for giving power to local authorities in Northern Ireland on the same basis as on this island also have short memories. It is precisely because of serious abuse of those powers by local authorities in Northern Ireland that we find outselves in our present position. The parish councils to which the right hon. Gentleman referred have shown no sign that they have changed their attitudes in any way. I certainly would not want to be a member of the minority community in Northern Ireland in one of the council districts if they had substantial power over planning, housing, education or any other serious matter.
  Mr. Powell: My experience and observation are not in line with that of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Hume: I only live there.
  Mr. Powell: Well, I have three district councils wholly or partly in my constituency. In one there is a large majority and in another a small majority which is anti-Unionist and in the third there is a Unionist majority. Within the scope of their administration those councils behave as effectively and their officials administer as effectively as in the corresponding bodies in Britain. I see no impracticability if the anxieties persist which the hon. Member for Foyle has expressed, in a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland being given powers of intervention and regulation which exceed those — though they are considerable and have recently been increased—which are held by central Government in Britain.
  I make two suggestions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the context of the glaring gap which he rightly identified. First, he should move gradually and not in bold leaps. We have a structure, to which the hon. Member for Foyle has not been entirely fair, on which it is possible to build, having due regard to the circumstances and to the past, which has been mentioned, and to the anxieties. If we do that we shall be encouraged to go further. If rolling devolution was a failure we might well find that rolling local government was a practical success.
  In that context I ask the Secretary of State not to be dismissive—I know he did not intend to be—of what was said last week by his hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). A great deal can be said

  1229
  for an outside mind or minds being brought to bear upon the structure of local government in Northern Ireland. After all, there is widespread respect for the architect of what we now in retrospect see to have been the ill-fated reorganisation. or destruction, of local government which occurred in the last year or two of the Stormont Administration. The Secretary of State could well derive assistance, in presentation and in substance, by seeking outside advice, clearly respectable and valued advice, upon the directions in which local government could be developed in the Province. That is one of the directions in which we must work.
  Another direction in which we must work is more directly connected with the second order which is before the House. When a previous attempt at what lay behind the purposes of the Northern Ireland Act 1982 collapsed in 1974 it was natural — I make no complaint of the Government of the day for having done so— that the 1973 legislation what I might call the Sunningdale power-sharing legislation—was put into cold storage for the time being. A system of administration, which, as the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said, no one would willingly invent or commend, was installed on a year's purchase while people reassembled their notions after the collapse at the beginning of 1974.
  In 1986 neither the Secretary of State and the House nor the political parties in Northern Ireland seriously believe that in the foreseeable future there is the prospect of either the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 or the Northern Ireland Act 1982 producing the basis of a devolved administration in the Province. Yet nevertheless, year after year, for fear of admitting what everyone knows and what everyone privately, and often publicly, admits, we continue to re-enact a system of government which is intolerable in a part of the United Kingdom and which is deeply resented by a large part of the people of Northern Ireland. It is resented not only by the Unionists, but they live in the part of the United Kingdom where the laws are made — this is the most sensitive impact of a Government upon the citizen—by the Secretary of State in a form which is neither satisfactorily debatable nor amendable.
  We must find a way in which the making of the laws in Northern Ireland can be brought into an acceptable accord with the ways in which the laws are made for the rest of the United Kingdom. It may well be that the models of Wales and Scotland will be an example of the way in which the different circumstances in Northern Ireland, which the Secretary of State mentioned, can be taken into account. His analysis of that provided the agenda for considerable reflection, discussion and work upon that theme.
  For the time being I do not dispute that, lacking foundation, or at any rate the foundation being cluttered by the legislative wreckage of 1973 and 1982, it is unavoidable that the Secretary of State should bring the order forward. I hope that it will be the last full year that the regime runs. I hope that in the following 12 months a way will be found, which will be honourable and acceptable to all in Northern Ireland, whereby the legislation which is imposed upon the citizens of Northern Ireland is enacted in a manner which is felt to be as fair and as democratic as the manner in which legislation is enacted for Wales, Scotland or the rest of Great Britain.
  1230
  Both the contributions of the Secretary of State and of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West have taken us further in this debate than we have yet been in the years since 1972—and, I am tempted to say, since 1969. To some extent, I have taken a leaf out of the book of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West in putting considerable emphasis on getting things in the immediate future into a tolerable condition, so far as we can do so without incurring dangerous symbolic implications and impacts upon the more distant future.
  In this debate we are essentially considering how we carry on and what work we shall do together in the next 12 months. There is material for that in the two speeches which we have heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and the Secretary of State this afternoon.
  5.17 pm
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: For people who have experienced a debate such as this in the Chamber before, there must be a sense of deja vu. This must he the 12th or 13th year that this sort of debate has taken place.
  Mr. Hume: The 14th.
  Mr. Mallon: It is my first experience. For that reason I want to make three points.
  First, I am sad that once again an initiative in Northern Irish terms has failed. I say that as one who opposed the setting up of the Assembly and its continuance and considered its ending with some satisfaction. I am sad because I witnessed the initiative and was part of it in 1974. I was also part of it in 1976, the period to which the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) also referred. I see the same initiative again in 1986. I ask myself essentially the same question as the right hon. Member for South Down asked himself from an entirely different perspective: is the approach to this problem the right approach or is it hanging on to an approach that has failed and may even continue to fail? That is the key question that must be at the back of all our minds at present.
  I disagree fundamentally with the right hon. Member for South Down. He made a very pertinent and erudite speech but he missed a point, which is the one certainty in the entire position in Northern Ireland, which we ought never to miss. It is that if we could persuade every Nationalist living in the north of Ireland to leave or to go to the shores of Lough Neagh one morning and jump in,, the problem would be over. The problem would then have redefined itself in terms which would allow for an accommodation, either within an integrated British sense or within an integrated Irish sense. On the other hand, if' we could encourage all Unionists to go to the shores of Belfast Lough on a designated morning and jump in at the same time, the problem would again he over.
  Neither of those two things will happen. Nationalists will not leave Northern Ireland, nor will Unionists. We are left with the one certainty that whatever way we try to grapple with the problem, from whatever dimension we approach it, we arrive at one constant point, and that is that we have two sets of people living in a small part of a small island who must accommodate each other within the smallness of their political lives or, if they will not live together, die apart. That is the reality which is not catered for by the theses which the right hon. Member for South Down has so eloquently postulated.

  1231
  Irrespective of one's theory and the dimension from which one looks, and irrespective of the ideological standpoint one begins at, that is the crunch reality and the one with which we must all deal, whether we favour, as I do, unequivocally, the creation of Irish unity, whether we favour integration or see devolution as perhaps a halfway stage to either, or perhaps as a way of partially washing our hands of the problem.
  If that is the reality, we must not shirk it. From whatever ideological point we start, we are being irresponsible if we do not look at that reality and see how we can cope with it. People must ask themselves this question: if there was integration of the type advocated by the right hon. Member for South Down, and the various pieces of machinery whereby legislation could be vetted and judged here, would that of itself be a contribution towards allowing the two sections of people to live together in the way that they must?
  That would take one thing from them — their own constructive element in building that part of their lives. We would be catering for a situation which, I must confess, I find to some extent condescending and humbuggish — that if we hand down to the people of the north of Ireland that which is properly examined here it would be satisfying to the people of Northern Ireland. Anybody who knows anything about both sections of the community there would know clearly that that would not satisfy them because it would remove from them the one great dynamic —the means to create their own future in a way that is uniquely Northern Irish. The Secretary of State has been giving his views on the north of Ireland in relation to this island, but the one thing that we can say with some certainty is that it is uniquely different.
  Let me make a further point on using the council structure as the basis for an administrative structure in the north of Ireland. I have belonged to a district council since the creation of the present local government structure in 1973. It is not in the constituency of the right hon. Member for South Down. In those 14 years, not only have I not had access to power within that council—power to do things or to prevent things being done — I have not been successful once in 14 years in being elected to a subcommittee of that council. The work of sub-committees ranges from placing children's playgrounds on housing estates, collecting bins to sometimes assuming responsibility for burying the dead. That gives a fairly accurate assessment of how local government is still working in a very partial way.
  Let there be no doubt about it. We are are not talking of parish councils. That is a folksy type of idiom and is inaccurate. I speak as a parish councillor. That terminology would be resisted in political terms by the political representatives of the Nationalist community because not only have we seen what happened in the past but we are seeing what is happening to this very day. Look at Craigavon, Armagh and Ballymena. Look all round the councils of the north of Ireland. Anybody who would even toy with the notion of making those the basis of an administrative structure would be very foolish indeed.
  There is a spurious argument, which has been expressed many times, that the Assembly, the wind-up of which we are now discussing, should not be wound up because it gives a platform to those people who are using it. My party and its leader regarded the Assembly from the word go as
  1232
  something which could not succeed because, as the right hon. Member for South Down pointed out, it had not the power of decision. It could not decide on anything whatever. Again, he missed the basic point that that type of political condescension does not attract people in Northern Ireland. We said then it was a white elephant and it was. Subsequently, I said that not only was it a white elephant but it had become a rogue elephant as it charged its way into the telephone exchange and blasted itself out of existence. I could even stretch that analogy further and say that it became "Buzby babes" overnight as it put itself out of business.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: Might the hon. Gentleman and his party consider going back into the Assembly if a fresh order created new elections to that Assembly, if the conditons were right?
  Mr. Mallon: My party, as its leader has said consistently, is prepared to enter into discussions to reach agreement about what will take place in the north of Ireland and, having reached that agreement, then to go from a position of strength to the electorate to seek a mandate, and then to go into any Administration with the strength of that mandate behind us. In that way we could tackle problems which are almost insurmountable and which would require the weight of that mandate to enable them to be tackled. That is our position and will be our position.
  There has been much discussion of the Anglo-Irish accord. I do not want to go into the details or workings of it, or even the non-workings of it, but it has done one thing which is crucial to the resolution of our problems —it has posed two choices. It has posed the question to Unionism and to sections within the Unionist community: "Can you live with the concept of equality and justice for all people in the north of Ireland?" Until that key question is answered positively, there will not be a proper solution. Devolution will fail in those circumstances, integration will fail in those circumstances, and every other approach will fail until, within the machinery set up by both Governments, the Unionist community at large can say that it can live with the principle of equality for all and with the principle of justice for all.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman appears to have forgotten the warning that he gave at the beginning of his speech. The question is not simply whether we can live with equality and justice, but in what state we are to live in equality and justice with all the other members of that state.
  Mr. Mallon: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman clearly the basis on which the community that I represent wishes to live within that state. There is only one basis and that is as equals under a proper system of justice—nothing else. If we have to continue to live within the north of Ireland, if the creation of Irish unity, which I want to see happen, will not happen, as I accept, next week, next year, or perhaps even the year after, I want to live as an equal with a proper system of justice. That is the challenge which has been thrown down to the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. It has not yet been answered and, until it is, none of the attempts being made will come to fruition.
  If those twin aims of the Anglo-Irish accord are realised, if the British Government have the courage and the will to carry through the much needed changes that will

  1233
  realise those aims, and if the Irish Government also have the will to face the challenges of those twin aims of equality and justice, Northern Ireland as we know it will be changed. Unionism as we know it will become an anachronism. Nationalism, as it has always been defined, will become almost an anachronism as well. The political faces of both communities will be changed. The events of the next six months will prove whether that challenge can be met by the communities of Northern Ireland. the political parties in the United Kingdom, or the Government of the Republic.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Julian Amery: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the Assembly is not dead. I suppose that it is in a coma. He reminded me of certain companies in California which advertise the facility for popping one's loved ones into a refrigerator and bringing them out again at a later date.
  However, in this debate we are burying not the Assembly but the policy which has been pursued by successive Secretaries of State since the abolition of Stormont. As I understand it, that policy rested on devolution based on power sharing and an Irish dimension. It has been pursued energetically, consistently and in an undeterred way by five Secretaries of State. I do not know whether they were the right men for that job. The political climate of Northern Ireland is very different from the Machiavellian gentility of the usual channels here, or from the passive broad acres of East Anglia. I do not know whether it was a good idea for three ex-Chief Whips and two East Anglian country gentlemen to do the job, but I am not sure that anybody could have done it, because there is a basic inconsistency in the formula of devolved power sharing and a foreign dimension. There are few examples of successful power sharing. The Lebanon was often cited as one of the best. I played some part in designing a power-sharing constitution for Cyprus. However, the ruins of both are apparent to all.
  The introduction of the Irish dimension was bound to be fatal simply because it meant that the Irish Minister would be supporting the minority community, while the Secretary of State, as was his duty, had to take note of the interests of all of the Province. He could not be the supporter of the majority, and so the concept was an unequal one from the beginning. That policy has been tried and has failed miserably. Sunningdale failed because the Irish dimension was too much for the majority to swallow. The Assembly failed because the SDLP found that the Irish dimension was not enough, and Hillsborough has been too much for the majority.
  It is time to recognise that this concept cannot work because it is strange to the Unionists, it is not conciliatory to the Nationalists, and, meanwhile, the IRA continues to go about its deadly business.
  The Secretary of State said that he still stood by the policy because it is logical. Maybe it is, but Ireland is not known as the home of logic. The policy has clearly failed and the speeches that we have heard from distinguished right hon. and hon. Members representing the Province show that they are completely unreconciled to that basic concept. Nothing is more dangerous in politics than to he tied to the practice of what is obviously a dead policy. After 15 years we need a new approach, but for the moment it must continue to be direct rule.
  1234
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed the decision to suspend the Assembly, and talked about local government being at present no more than parish committees. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could follow the advice of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and move gently towards something else. Improved arrangements for the transaction of Northern Ireland business could perhaps be pursued here, in the Palace of Westminster. The block presented by the Hillsborough arrangements still remains and I urge my right hon. Friend to put it on the back burner, and to try to limit it for the time being to trans-border security.
  The issues at stake are complex and I am sure that the Minister will understand my view that they are by no means limited to Northern Ireland. It is almost 100 years to the day since Joseph Chamberlain and Hartington broke up the Liberal Government in order to stop Gladstone's onward career towards home rule. They realised that such a course would lead to the break up of the kingdom. As a result of that remarkable Cabinet crisis, an alliance of the Liberal Unionists and Conservatives was formed. It stood the country in good stead in the years that followed. Hon. Members on this side of the House, in believing that their policies were right, and that the policies of the Opposition would have been disastrous, were often able to continue with their work, thanks to the support of the Unionist party.
  It is not necessary to do much crystal gazing if one looks at the public opinion polls, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and her colleagues might need to have the support of the Northern Ireland Unionists, not just to carry out policies relating to Northern Ireland, but to carry out those policies relating to national security, defence and the economy which we believe are vital to the future of the United Kingdom. British statesmanship requires that we give the highest priority to ending the estrangement between our party and the Ulster Unionists.
  5.37 pm
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: Hon. Members are always glad to listen to the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). I had hoped that he would bring with him today his colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party. This is a new situation, and as such perhaps it could have been the occasion on which the Ulster Unionist party as a whole recognised that the Union must be defended in the Parliament of the Union.
  Perhaps it is less surprising that those hon. Members are not present because this debate follows hard upon yet another meeting of the hated Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. Dr. Garret FitzGerald is a humane statesman and must therefore share the concern of Her Majesty's Government at events in the Province since the Anglo-Irish agreement was concluded at Hillsborough. If Her Majesty's Government wish to resume contact with the Ulster Unionists, and if the Irish Government wish to contribute to a better relationship between the north and south, and between the Republic and the United Kingdom, dealings between the sovereign Governments of these islands should be conducted not within the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference but within the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council. The latter was there previously and could equally well perform the functions intended by the two Governments, including

  1235
  discussion of the Belfast to Dublin road to which the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) attaches importance.
  The Secretary of State was looking forward to yet another Assembly. I do not, unless it is perhaps a regional council. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West said that the Assembly was a waste of money, yet he voted for it while I did not. I have looked up the relevant information and it took 98 hours and 14 minutes of parliamentary time for the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill to become an Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) drew a telling comparison with the other Assemblies that were once proposed for other parts of the United Kingdom. He said that a referendum was required by the House before such Assemblies could become effective.
  Viscount Cranborne: My hon. Friend will no doubt remember better than I that at the time of the Sunningdale agreement the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a clear statement that nothing would be undertaken without the clear approval of the majority of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland. What happened to that democratic commitment in the context of the Anglo-Irish agreement 13 years later?
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: No doubt a reply to that question will come from the Treasury Bench before the debate is concluded.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State courteously gave way to me when I intervened about the work of scrutiny carried out by the Assembly. My right hon. Friend said that it was far better for that task to be carried out in Northern Ireland because more local people could then be involved. But if that is so, the same argument must apply to Scottish and Welsh legislation. However, I do not think that my right hon. Friend wants to set up Assemblies in Wales or Scotland.
  When I was taught the principles of war, I was told never to reinforce failure. However, the Government seem to have reversed that maxim in relation to their Northern Ireland policy. The devolved government that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State still seeks cannot be achieved in a form that is acceptable across the community, or to the House. When will the Northern Ireland Office understand that no term can be put to terrorism, and that Northern Ireland can never settle down, when will it understand that Unionist Ulster cannot be brought to applaud and assist the development of the "unique relationship" with the Irish Republic without fear of betrayal, when Ministers and mandarins continue to deceive themselves and impose their short-lived experiments and—as the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West said—constitutional devices?
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State apologised for the renewal of what we call direct rule. The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) made stringent criticisms of the way that it operates. But public opinion polls show that direct rule is the second choice of most people in Northern Ireland. Perhaps a general agreement on second best is better than no agreement at all. Moreover, direct rule made democratic through local government equals integration.
  We have always honoured Airey Neave in this House. But perhaps it would be better to honour him by
  1236
  considering the policy that he put forward than by merely paying tribute to him in words. I shall not be found guilty of the bad taste of citing any Conservative and Unionist party manifesto in this connection, but I should like to quote just a few of Airey Neave's words. They were prescient. because they anticipated the new Ireland forum and what followed it. He was addressing Conservatives in Maldon, Essex, in May 1978, and he said:
  "Recent attempts to seduce the whole community of Ulster into a Federal Ireland, and similar unpractical dreams, are doomed … We believe nonetheless that both sections of the community would benefit from restoring to Ulster an upper tier of local government".
  We have heard all the arguments about the undesirability of enlarging local government in Northern Ireland. The Catholic dustbins of Lisburn have entered into the mythology of nationalist grievance. But we expect Ministers, especially powerful Ministers such as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to hash bigotry, just as we expect Ministers in other Departments to act against political discrimination and local government mismanagement—of which there is plenty in some of Great Britain's big cities. But we know why the Government will not enlarge local government: the SDLP does not want it. Incidentally, there is no SDLP Member in the Chamber.
  We are told that we must get rid of the Unionist veto on progress in Northern Ireland. But there seems to be more of a Nationalist veto than a Unionist veto. Why does the SDLP object to enlarging local government? Plenty of SDLP councillors would welcome an enlargement of their functions. Many of them are doing a good job for their people and for the community as a whole, and would like to do more. Indeed, I pay tribute to many Nationalist-dominated authorities which have treated Unionists in a spirit of co-operation. But the SDLP objects, because integration— to use the short word—arrests any slide into the south. I accept that the SDLP wants devolved government, but on its terms.
  Northern Nationalism is a legitimate opinion to hold, which we should respect. I certainly do. That Nationalist opinion could be allowed expression through further border polls or, preferably, by the question put in the plebiscite of 1972 being added to ballot papers in elections in Northern Ireland, so that there can be continuing consultation with the people of Northern Ireland. If the SDLP or any other Nationalist party could convert their countrymen in the Province to a united Ireland, we would not stand in the way of that.
  There are many Irish Nationalists in cities on this side of the water, and they have learnt to live as a respected part of the British family. They are a minority in Great Britain, but a larger minority in Northern Ireland. What is so distressing about every futile political initiative is that its message is, "There you are. You are separate communities. Stay in the ghettoes." Every political initiative, including the Anglo-Irish agreement, has institutionalised the sectarian divide. Many Catholics want the Union. However, at elections they are almost compelled to choose between parties whose aspect is tribal.
  We must establish equal rights, equal citizenship, and full administrative devolution under the sovereignty and protection of Parliament. It follows— I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are on common ground here — that the people of Northern Ireland should exert their proper influence at the centre of

  1237
  power, here at Westminster, through the party system of the United Kingdom. and through political parties or alliances that correspond with those in Great Britain. That is the way forward, and no one has shown me any other.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has made an attractive case but, as he will anticipate, I shall not go down his road. As a supporter of the initiative taken by the Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), I am saddened by the demise of the Assembly. However, it was right that that decision was taken.
  There is no doubt that after its inception the Assembly did some useful work. I have many of the documents still on my hook shelves which show that the Assembly carried out useful work on social security and agriculture in Northern Ireland. I also take the opportunity to pay my respect to the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) who, as Speaker, fulfilled his role in the Assembly with some distinction.
  In recent months the magnificent facilities at Stormont have been abused. The Alliance withdrew and Stormont became a venue for weekly attacks on the Government at a not inconsiderable cost to United Kingdom taxpayers. It will now go down in history as yet another lost opportunity. However, the only realistic way forward for the Province must be through a devolved administration with the respective parties acting in partnership and possessing sufficient powers to make and implement important decisions. The siren voices—we have heard them already today and there will be more — calling from the Government Back Benches for total integration may satisfy a few hard liners but will do nothing to reduce tension. Furthermore, they will do nothing in the long run to help revitalise the economy of Northern Ireland. I know that that view is shared by many Unionists.
  Northern Ireland is not unique in that respect. In my view, the restructuring of the whole of the economy of the United Kingdom is almost entirely dependent on the return of meaningful power and decision making to the regions, cities and counties of our country. I attended a meeting at lunchtime today with the development commission, which carries out great work in rural areas. The commission is not responsible to any elected authority. I wish that that similarity could be more widely understood in the Province. I recognise the role played by the Local Enterprise Development Unit and the Northern Ireland Development Board among others, but I believe that they should both be responsible to an elected authority.
  Once again, the British Government must go back to the drawing board. Unless some willingness to make concessions and to co-operate is forthcoming from the various party leaders, no new initiative is likely, and Ulster will be the poorer for that. It is surely not beyond the wit of the leaders of society, and especially politicians, to get together and agree on a structure that gives both communities a fair share of responsibility in the daily running of the Province. Failure to make such concession can only mean continuing violence and death and leaves the local population with no hope for the future. What is more, 53·5 million people living in the rest of Britain will eventually and inevitably seriously question why they should continue to fund such a high proportion of the
  1238
  Northern Ireland budget when local leaders refuse even to sit down and talk to each other or to Her Majesty's Ministers.
  We want to know how much longer we must wait before the political leaders in Northern Ireland put the future well- being of their country first. That is the future not only of Northern Ireland but of Great Britain, too. When will they accept the challenge to establish a power-sharing Administration which will, coincidentally, immediately lessen the influence of the Anglo-Irish Conference?
  Watching the Harland and Wolff workers marching with their banners this week must make those being laid off in our shipyards in the north-east and elsewhere ask why they should continue to support that yard. I have enormous respect for John Parker and his work force. Moreover, the yard is probably the best fitted out in Europe and I only wish that it was refitting the QE2, but I also sometimes wonder why I should continue to back that yard from the alliance Benches. Apart from a few well publicised incidents, when things have gone seriously wrong—obviously Bloody Sunday was one—successive British Ministers have, since 1969, tried their level best to correct the mistakes of the past. On the whole, I believe that we have succeeded and deserve credit, not eternal criticism, for so doing. We just do not deserve the abuse that continues to pour forth from the lips of some of those who purport to be political leaders and, incidentally, Christians.
  Housing provision has improved beyond recognition in the nine years that I have been visiting Northern Ireland. Londonderry has a new city centre which won an award last week. There is a new £23 million bridge nearby. Large new bungalows and substantial modern houses occupy attractive sites on farms over a wide area of the Province. Even in Belfast, many excellent homes have been built and renovated. Two weeks ago I visited two firms which have climbed out of receivership with the aid of the Northern Ireland Development Board—Tyrone Glass and Belleek China.
  Such success might be hard to believe when listening to Northern Ireland politicians. They continue ad nauseam to abuse those in authority. One even had the gall to try the Prime Minister for treason in the centre of Belfast and sentenced her to the electric chair. A new generation has grown up in that atmosphere, soured by the appalling actions of the Provisional IRA and INLA and the weekly propaganda from both sides. What was it that so soured Patrick Magee, now serving a life sentence, that he chose to try to blow to smithereens the leaders of the country where he grew up? How did he come to hate us to such art extent when he spent much of his youth in the pleasant city of Norwich? I suggest that when he returned to Belfast he became infected with all the sentiment, bigotry and propaganda that still prevail instead of being able to recognise the desperate need for changed attitudes.
  The stupidity of Anglo-Irish relations is that, whether we like it or not, we are all widely inter-related. Many second generation Irish sit in this House and even the Lord Chancellor has referred to his Irish antecedents recently. Irish men and women serve in the House and many of us have Irish ancestry in our blood. I have three Irish grandchildren myself. That is what makes the call "Brits out" so stupid. The message that I believe should go out to the Province from this House is, firstly, that the Anglo-Irish agreement is here to stay. and it will not be watered

  1239
  down. Secondly, despite our equable temperament in this land, the time may be approaching when we may feel constrained to say "Work together or go it alone."
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Now tell us about Polaris.
  Mr. Ross: That is the type of comment that I would expect from the right hon. Gentleman.
  Finally, I would like to pay a special tribute to the RUC. Despite all that it has suffered, I found on my recent visit that morale was high and its determination to see the summer through was evident, despite the likely provocation. Mr. Wright has a serious point when he calls for local politicians to put their act together and stop leaving the RUC to pick up the pieces and do all the dirty work. Mr. Wright echoes my sentiments entirely. I wish the RUC and the Chief Constable well in the tasks that lie ahead. They hold a tremendous responsibility this summer. If they succeed, as I believe that they will, there is just a chance that saner counsels will prevail. In the meantime, I wish that all citizens in Northern Ireland and those outside the Province would sit down, read and inwardly digest the words of the Northern Ireland accord.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. Ian Gow: I had hoped that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland this afternoon would have shown that there had been some narrowing of the gulf that I believe exists between the six Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office and the majority of the people in Northern Ireland. It is with deep regret that I have to say that I believe that my right hon. Friend's speech gave no sign of a greater understanding by those who sit on the Treasury Bench of the true feeling of the people of Northern Ireland.
  In answer to an intervention, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that his justification for the failure to have a referendum in Northern Ireland along the lines of the referendums held in Scotland and Wales was that, whereas the Scotland Act 1978 and the Wales Act 1978 proposed that Scotland and Wales should be governed differently from the way that they had been governed previously, the Anglo-Irish agreement meant that there was no change in the way that Northern Ireland was governed.
  I have to say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that neither the Government of the Irish Republic nor the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland agree with him when he says that there has been no change in the way in which Northern Ireland is governed. My right hon. Friend affirms, as he is entitled to do, his earlier argument that no analogy is perfect, but I put this analogy to him. If the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany were to lay claim to the French département of Lorraine, and if there were an agreement between the Government of the French Republic and the Government of the German Federal Republic that henceforth the Government of Germany would be able to put forward views and proposals in regard to Lorraine, and that the French Government would reach agreement on the proposals put forward by Germany for the government of Lorraine, does my right hon. Friend really believe that, in those circumstances, the people of Lorraine would say, "We are governed in the same way under the new arrangement as we were in the past"?
  Mr. Tom King: My hon. Friend made the interesting comment that, effectively, there was a change in government, and that that was the view of the significant majority, and also of the Irish Government. Will he give me the quotation to which he referred, in which the Irish Government state that there is now a change of the system of government in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Gow: Yes, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Irish Republic are both on record as having said in the Dail and elsewhere that the system of government in Northern Ireland was different after 15 November from the system before then. I shall happily give my right hon. Friend exact quotations from both the Irish Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Indeed, one of the tragedies of the Anglo-Irish agreement is that there has been a different interpretation upon the agreement by my right hon. Friend and by Ministers in the Irish Government.
  It is not only the assertion by my right hon. Friend that there has been no change in the system of Government for Northern Ireland — a view that is not shared by the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland — which reveals the gulf between the Treasury Bench and the people of Northern Ireland. I was much concerned when my right hon. Friend said that he was prepared to enter into discussions—I think that he genuinely meant this — with anybody in Northern Ireland without preconditions. But this afternoon my right hon. Friend spelt out one precondition that was most unwelcome to some of my hon. Friends, as it was to me. That precondition was that the Government have excluded, without further discussions, the possibility of what my right hon. Friend described as "total integration." Those words have never fallen from my lips. I have never used the words "total integration".
  It was noticeable that, in the most recent two questions that I asked my right hon. Friend, he answered a question that I had not asked. For the sake of accuracy, I have the Official Report here. On 5 June, I asked:
  "is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a growing body of opinion in the Province which believes that the best way forward now is through integration, which would offer proper safeguards for the minority in Northern Ireland?"
  My right hon. Friend replied, not to the question that I had put to him:
  "some concept of total integration would raise difficult issues." —[Official Report, 5 June 1986; Vol. 98, c. 1073.]
  I did not use the words "total integration". They were the words of my right hon. Friend. A week later, on 12 June, I put this question to my right hon. Friend:
  "Would he acknowledge that, even if that"—
  that is, devolution—
  "is the preferred solution of the Government today, he will not exclude from his consideration the fact that we should govern Northern Ireland in the way in which we govern other parts of this kingdom?"
  My right hon. Friend replied:
  "Obviously we would seek to govern Northern Ireland as fairly, equally and impartially as we seek to govern every part of the United Kingdom. However, to suggest that that involves total harmonisation of every structure of government flies in the face of experience and practice of the present situation." —[Official Report, 12 June 1986; Vol. 99, c.508.]
  When I remind my right hon. Friend of the two questions that I asked, one on 5 June and the other on 12 June, I think that he will confirm that I have never suggested "total integration" and that I have never

  1241
  suggested what he described as "total harmonisation". I have never put forward such a suggestion. I want to spell out, in language that all of us can understand, what I mean by integration, or the alternative description of the same thing—administrative devolution. I should like my right hon. Friend to pay particular attention to what I say, as I know he will, because I want to give way to him at the end of this part of my speech.
  I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether he is excluding from his consideration and from discussions with the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, and from discussions with others, the possible solution that I am about to describe. That which I am about to describe is nothing new to my right hon. Friend. He was a member of the shadow Cabinet when the 1979 general election manifesto was being drafted. I have to assume that he aquiesced in, if he did not actually support, that which appeared in the manifesto:
  "In the absence of devolved government, we will seek to establish one or more elected regional councils".
  That is an exact quotation. Of course, the policy that was set out in that manifesto was abandoned following the assassination of our late right hon. Friend the then Member for Abingdon, Airey Neave. My right hon. Friend is unwise to exclude from his consideration the very policy that was advocated by a person for whom everybody in the House had, and for whose memory all have, the greatest respect, yet it is precisely that which my right hon. Friend seems to he doing.
  What do I mean by integration? Again, I quote from what my right hon. Friend said on 12 June, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne):
  "At present very little lies between Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office and councils, most of which sadly are not meeting, and which have little more power than parish councils."—[Official Report, 12 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 510.]
  Let us start at the bottom. I would give to the 26 district councils, which my right hon. Friend is right to say have little more power than parish councils, modest additional powers. That is my first suggestion.
  Ms. Clare Short: Which powers?
  Mr. Gow: I said "modest additional powers"
  Ms. Short:Which powers?
  Mr. Gow: We have been asked not to make too long a speech. I said "modest additional powers" for the 26 district councils, which my right hon. Friend rightly described on 12 June as having powers that at present are analogous to those of parish councils. So I say "modest additional powers".
  That is my first suggestion. My second proposal is that there should he a regional council similar to a regional council in Scotland and analogous to a county council in England. The powers of such a regional or county council would not need to be identical to the powers of a regional council in Scotland or a county council in England.
  My third suggestion is that legislation for Northern Ireland should be dealt with in this place and another place in the same way as we now deal with legislation for Scotland and for Wales.
  Ms. Clare Short: It is different for Scotland and Wales.
  Mr. Gow: Absolutely. That is why my right hon. Friend's use of the words "total harmonisation" is inappropriate, because we deal with Scotland and Wales differently.
  Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend speaks about the methods of legislation in Northern Ireland as compared with Wales and Scotland, but does he bear in mind the fact that we sometimes legislate by primary legislation through public statute, and sometimes by way of Grand Committee, sometimes on the Floor of the House and sometimes in Committee? Can my hon. Friend be more precise about the sort of analogy that he would like to pursue between the way in which we legislate in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?
  Mr. Stephen Ross rose—
  Mr. Gow: I give way to the spokesman for the Liberal party.
  Mr. Ross: What form of electoral system would the hon. Gentleman use to elect the county councils?
  Mr. Gow: I shall deal with that straight away. It is not surprising that the solitary representative of the Liberal party, unaccompanied by his colleagues from the alliance, refers to his passion for proportional representation. It is to our deep regret that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is not seeking election next time. He will not be surprised to hear that I am strongly opposed to the system of proportional representation, whether in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. I belong to that school of thought which believes in majority rule under just law.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), and I believe it is timely to remind my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that we deal with Scottish legislation differently from English and Welsh legislation. For example, the separate Housing (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1981 conferred the right to buy on Scottish people which had material differences from the Housing Act 1980 which was passed through the House by my predecessor.
  Is my right hon. Friend excluding from h is consideration the possibility of giving modest additional powers to the 26 district councils? Is he excluding from his consideration the specific policy concerning regional and county councils, on which he and I fought and won the 1979 general election? Is he excluding the possibility of getting rid of legislation by Order in Council for Northern Ireland? If my right hon. Friend is excluding that possibility, because, as Secretary of State, he does not think it is the best way to govern the Province, and if he is excluding from his consideration the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, that is a very grievous statement.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: My hon. Friend is aware that I agree with many of the ideas that he has put forward, but he has not dealt with one critical matter. Is he proposing, given the special circumstances in Northern Ireland, that a regional county council-type authority should also be a police authority? I fear that it could not be.
  Mr. Gow: No, Sir, that is not my suggestion. It would be no part of my proposal — if my suggestions were followed—that the regional or county councils for the Province should also be the police authorities for the Province.

  1243
  I should be deeply concerned if my right hon. Friend were to exclude, as he certainly appears to do, the possibility of integration regardless of what might be the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. I have reason for concern. When the Anglo-Irish agreement was being fashioned, I have to assume that my right hon. Friend did care about the wishes of the minority but that he was careless—I use that word in its correct meaning—of the views of the majority. It may be that, when my right hon. Friend and some of his colleagues advised the Cabinet to enter into the Anglo-Irish agreement, he said to himself and perhaps to his colleagues, "Well, we may have a bit of trouble from some of the wilder elements in Northern Ireland but the majority of the Unionist people will acquiesce in this agreement." That may have been the view of my right hon. Friend.
  In my opinion, the depth and strength of feeling in Northern Ireland on 19 June 1986 against the Anglo-Irish agreement is just as strong and deep as it was on 15 November 1985. I do not think my right hon. Friend has made any progress in persuading the people of Northern Ireland of something which I know he believes to be true—that the Anglo-Irish agreement will achieve peace, stability and reconciliation. I do not believe my right hon. Friend has been successful.
  What concerned me at that time and what continues to concern me is that the Government believed that the Anglo-Irish agreement would be moderately acceptable to the majority. I have to assume that my right hon. Friend was surprised by the reaction in the Province. We know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was surprised because, in an article which appeared in the Belfast Telegraph on 17 December 1985, as a result of an interview with Desmond McCartan, she said:
  "the reaction has been much worse than I expected. One is trying to find out why."
  What is my right hon. Friend's answer? Will he say that, regardless of the growing opinion which, I believe, exists in the Province in favour of what I have described as integration — not absolute harmonisation nor total integration — it could equally be described as administrative devolution — the Government know best? Will the Government impose upon the people of Northern Ireland some kind of devolution or impose upon them the present system of direct rule regardless of their wishes?
  I said that I wished to give way to my right hon. Friend so that I could ask him whether he was excluding from his consideration the kind of integration that I have described. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would be kind enough to tell the House his answer to that question.
  Mr. Tom King: I have listened with interest to the points that my hon. Friend has made. The conclusions which he tried to draw at the end are in total conflict with what I have just said to the House.
  I wrote down his words when he said that we would be seeking to impose some new solution—some devolution proposal on the people of the Province. He will accept precisely what I have said, which is that, so far from wishing to impose a decision on devolution, arrived at separately, we wished to enter into discussions to see whether it was possible to achieve a starting point.
  My hon. Friend referred to my comments concerning total integration. I have made it clear that that was not a
  1244
  possibility, but my hon. Friend has said that that is not what he has proposed. He said that he has never advocated total harmonisation—that is another possibility which I made clear I did not think was practicable. I have said that we are prepared to consider the possible ways in which the handling of legislation on other matters could be looked at in this House. I included a caveat about the route to integration which I believe—my hon. Friend draws his conclusions and I draw mine—would not be practical. The Government would not propose that; nor, I believe, would the House approve it.
  These are important matters and my hon. Friend has made a serious speech about them. It has become clear that it is dangerous to get into the world of slogans. There are slogans about devolution and integration, and everyone assumes that they know what the other individual means. I sought to spell out the areas which I thought were unrealistic and the areas in which the Government wished to proceed.
  Mr. Gow: I hope that my right hon. Friend now understands what I mean by integration, which I sometimes call administrative devolution.
  This is an important debate. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will not exclude from their consideration of the options for Northern Ireland that option which in my judgment would provide both the surest safeguards and protection for constitutional Nationalists in Northern Ireland and the greatest reassurance for constitutional Unionists.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: Four years ago last Monday when my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and I represented the Labour Front Bench on Northern Ireland we said that a Labour Government would not have introduced the Northern Ireland Bill to set up the Assembly. We did not think that it was particularly workable, but we regarded it as a fair and honest attempt to do something about the problems of Northern Ireland. We specified that we did not think its chances of success were good. Four years later the Secretary of State has tabled an order to bring the Assembly to an end. It may be that much has happened in those four years, and I recognise that the Assembly lasted a little longer than I anticipated.
  The Assembly has faced considerable difficulties and some of its achievements have also been considerable. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and I gave evidence to its Committees to assist the Assembly in its work. It is important to consider why we seek to wind up the Assembly, and in doing so we come back to the central problem for the Government, which is stating their position on Northern Ireland.
  As I have said on many occasions, both when I spoke on Northern Ireland and since I have moved to my Home Office brief, the problem is that everybody in Ireland, both in the north and the south, knows exactly what they want for the future of the border, but that successive British Governments have not known what they want. We now have a further difference in that the British-Irish agreement, as I prefer to call it, makes it more clear than previously that the British Government are happy to work towards a united Ireland and the Unionists know that.
  Although I understand the politics that say that we must not talk about certain matters because it makes

  1245
  difficult circumstances worse—I believe that that sort of politics rarely works—they are almost guaranteed to fail in this case because all the Unionists—the Democratic Unionists, the Official Unionists and all the other groups —know from the words and actions of the Government and the Labour party that the trend is towards a united Ireland. That is what makes the Unionist position so difficult.
  If Unionist Members come to the House and participate, they will undermine their position. If they stay away, as they are at present doing except for the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), they will also undermine their position. That is why the Unionist parties are tempted to take to the streets and to attack the agreement. There they find the great unifier of hatred and fear of a united Ireland.
  Yet that hatred and fear is more concentrated in certain parts of the Unionist parties than it is in Northern Ireland as a whole, and I believe that in recent years that hatred and fear has become less. Ordinary Unionists in the streets of Northern Ireland will now say, "If it is going to be a united Ireland, why don't we get it over and done with quickly?" They have said to me, "Since you have explained to us about human rights and joint citizenship, I suppose there are worse things." When one asks what they mean by worse things, they say, "We can't go on as we are, can we?" There is growing recognition in Northern Ireland that the island of Ireland is being treated as one political, economic and social entity, and that at the end of that road is a nation state. That is what we are moving towards and that is what the Unionists fear and are angry about.
  Today there has already been talk of the family of the nation. That frequently occurs in politics generally, but perhaps more than ever in relation to the politics of Northern Ireland. The family in this context is taken to be that of the United Kingdom — England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The Secretary of State got into a little difficulty, which he got out of well, when he referred to the political parties not organising in Northern Ireland. He got into some difficulty about whether the link was cultural, political or whatever. The truth is that there is a great deal of cultural overlap, not only between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but between the United Kingdom and southern Ireland. That has always been true, but for historical reasons, which are long and complex and which none of us would perhaps ever agree on entirely, there is a fundamentally different political system in Northern Ireland, and Ireland has been divided.
  Let us examine further what we mean by a family of nations. As the Secretary of State rightly noted, there is something profoundly odd and different about the position of Northern Ireland in this family of the United Kingdom. Nothing makes that difference more clear than the insistence of the peoples of Northern Ireland, above all the Unionists, to insert in Acts and statutes over many years that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom so long as it wishes to remain so.
  If we pursue the analogy of the family a little further and envisage walking into our family home at night to find that one member of the family has put a notice on his door saying, "I am a member of the family too, unless I choose to go", the meaning becomes clear. It means that that member feels uncertain of his position in the family. That is why I have always said that when Unionist parties insist on that phrase being used, they undermine and embellish the weakness of their political position. That is why the
  1246
  family argument is so profoundly dangerous to them. It is an argument, not about families but about political power and identity and the economic problems that stem from that.
  We need to begin a discussion about how we move toward a united Ireland. Let us consider how the position has changed in recent years. In 1979 when I first entered the House I did not get involved in the politics of Northern Ireland until the end of that year, and about a year later I moved to the Front Bench. Between 1980 and 1981 it was frequently said to me inside and outside the House that whenever I talked about the unity of Ireland I was encouraging terrorism. Nobody says that now. That argument has gone. Indeed, in Committee on the Northern Ireland Bill, when the right hon. Member for South Down said that terrorism fed on hope, I said that it did not, but that it fed on despair. Whether we consider the terrorism in Northern Ireland or the terrorism which I fear we are about to see in southern Africa, it is clear that terrorism is founded on despair of the political system. It has often been said that the political system of any country, for all its warts, is the alternative to war. That is how we settle our disputes. Terrorism has done immense damage to the body politic of this country and to the body politic of Ireland. It has ripped apart not just the lives of people but political democracy and the economic hopes of people on both sides of the Irish sea.
  The collapse of the Assembly is an example of what I meant in the past when I referred to there being no positive power in Northern Ireland. The problem for both the Republicans and the Unionists in Northern Ireland is that their powers are negative. They can prevent things from happening but they can rarely initiate anything.
  It was a little paternalistic of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) to accuse the Unionists and the Republicans of being unable to talk together. One group wants to take away the national identity of the other. The Unionist wants to take away the national identity of the Republican, and vice versa. As the right hon. Member for South Down pointed out, if the SDP and the Liberal party cannot agree on Polaris, why on earth should we expect the two groups in Northern Ireland suddenly and relatively easily to sit down and discuss together their future, which brings into question their national identity and, to some extent, their religious identity? Religion, or nationalism tainted by religion, is a profoundly powerful force. It is far stronger than social or economic class. I say that with regret, as a Socialist. Religion has a profound effect upon the political system and upon people's lives.
  There is a way forward. It is the same as it has always been. The way forward is to open up discussions with Dublin. If it is true that in Northern Ireland there is only negative power, equally it is true that positive power lies in London and Dublin acting together. What has stood out very clearly during the six years that I have been interested and involved in the politics of Northern Ireland is that it is crying out for leadership. What stands out now in Northern Ireland is splintering of the political parties, both Republicans and Unionists. The splintering of the political entity of a state—or semi-state, as Northern Ireland has been in some ways—is an indication of a lack of leadership towards a common goal.
  I have said before that we think of the various parties and groups in Northern Ireland as being strongly united They are not. They only appear to be strongly united. Even in the paramilitary groups, the image of unity is far less

  1247
  strong than we believe it to be. If we consider the number of Republicans who have been killed by the paramilitary groups on the Republican side and the number of Unionists who have been killed by the paramilitary groups on the Unionist side, we find that in each case the number is greater than those who have been killed by the security forces. Imagine how strange it would seem if I said to the House that during the second world war the British armed forces killed more British people than were killed by the Axis forces. It would be nonsense. The internal splintering tells us so much about what has happened to politics in Northern Ireland. They are being ripped apart and they will continue to be ripped apart until London and Dublin provide strong leadership.
  One of the reasons for my qualified welcome of the British-Irish agreement was precisely because it started out on that road. It is an important road. I regret that the Government were not more open about it. Instead they fed paranoia. Paranoia abounds in Northern Ireland. People fear being sold out.
  The Secretary of State rightly referred to the comments of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) who, at the time, expressed his concern about the agreement. I remember that the hon. Member for Upper Bann also said, when the agreement was announced, that if he had known that this was at the end of the road he would never have led his people to believe that the British Government would not betray them. Those were not his exact words, but they are very near to being his exact words. He was saying that the Unionists now know that the British will sell them out.
  I do not like the word "sell-out". I remember that over and over again the Unionists said that they believed that they had cemented their place in the union. Why did they refer to the role of Northern Ireland during the first and second world wars? Why did they refer to the blood of men in the Northern Ireland regiments that had been shed during the first world war in the battle of the Somme? It was because they believed that they had cemented for themselves a place in the heart of their mistress. Alas, 50, 60 or 70 years later their mistress is doing exactly what she did then. She is saying, "All right, up to a point, but keep your distance. We will never, ever treat you as a normal part of the United Kingdom because you are not a normal part of the United Kingdom." That is why the Unionists feel so deeply betrayed.
  However, people can change their political identity, and fit into new structures and new institutions. This House has the ability to bring that about, but only if the question is discussed openly. One of the reasons for my sadness about politics in this day and age is that people believe that we should not discuss difficult questions because they lead to arguments and fights. However, it is essential that we should discuss difficult questions. What everybody recognises as a difficult and unanswered question will not go away. It will stay there, and will continue to nag at us and aggravate us.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said that in many areas the economic, political and social systems of the north and the south could be integrated. He was quite right. I have mentioned many of them in the past. I have referred in particular to agriculture, because a large part of the economy of both the north and the south is founded on
  1248
  agriculture. The potential for the integration of food processing, biotechnology and education is very great. Colleges and universities in the north have spare capacity, whereas the south is looking for student places. There are so many areas in which integration could be expanded and built upon. In doing so, we should bring the people of the north together with the south. We should also increase and improve the link between Britain and Northern Ireland. That link is being forced further apart by the divisions within Northern Ireland. British failure to resolve our position in Northern Ireland has led to strains between Britain and Northern Ireland, although they are two nations which ought to be, and which historically have been, very close. That link must be rebuilt.
  Finally, we must look at the position in which we now find ourselves by our failure to address the Northern Ireland problem since the division of Ireland in the early part of the century. More than 2,000 people have been killed and thousands have been injured. The lives of their families have been ripped apart. The economy of Ireland, in particular Northern Ireland, is under-developed at best and in tatters at worst.
  Let us consider what we have done to our own democracy. As a result of the passing of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974, for the first time since the medieval period a member of the Government has the power to exclude a person from one part of the United Kingdom. That has not been known since medieval times in Britain. Also, we have to walk into the House of Commons through various screening devices. There are wire fences around the House of Commons. People have to be searched. This change has been brought about during the last eight or nine years. It has had an effect on the legislation that is passed by this House. Look at what the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, which we shall be renewing again later tonight, has done to our reputation overseas. This House, which is the model for democracies around the world, has allowed, because it has failed to address so many of the problems that have arisen due to the division of Ireland, its democracy to be undermined to the extent that Britain has been found guilty before the European Court of Human Rights on more occasions than any other European country, and many of those convictions have been the result of problems or convictions stemming from Northern Ireland. There is a way forward. The people of Northern Ireland are much more able and willing to move than we think. We need to give them leadership and to recognise that that leadership has to come from London and Dublin.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: It may be convenient for the House to know that the Front Bench will seek to catch my eye at 7.20. A number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate and perhaps they would make their own calculations.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Inevitably, this debate is a post mortem about the Assembly and, to some extent, it is also a post mortem about all the other initiatives that the Government have taken since 1972 in their attempt to find a political working arrangement for Northern Ireland. On looking back, it may be seen that the

  1249
  easy suspension of Stormont was one of the worst mistakes made about the government of the Province during all the years that it has existed as part of the United Kingdom.
  It behoves all of us to ask ourselves why each of the initiatives has failed and failed so dismally. I do not suppose there is any one answer and certainly some of the speeches from Opposition Members are pertinent to those failures. The attempt to bend democracy that we first saw in the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973 and the creation of a power-sharing executive never really enjoyed the full-hearted support of the majority in Northern Ireland. That executive finally foundered as a result of the Sunningdale conference and the setting up of an All-Ireland Council. Those things showed that the attempt to force democracy to work because it seemed the most politically apt way to approach the problem was not likely to produce the results that we wanted.
  The idea of power sharing has always remained somewhere in the Northern Ireland Office and it came alive again in 1982. The then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), believed that even if power sharing was a phrase that he dare not use—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) is leaving the Chamber because I shall refer to him in the course of my speech.
  Mr. Hume: Very well, I shall stay.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney thought that he ought to seek something that looked like power sharing, and he decided to do it by introducing an Assembly that could devolve powers to itself, the powers that Stormont had once discharged, if 70 per cent. of the members of the Assembly gave their assent. He knew and the hon. Member for Foyle knew that that depended upon the presence in the Assembly of the hon. Member for Foyle and the other members of his party. They would have to be in the Assembly if the Assembly was to be effective.
  I give full credit to the hon. Member for Foyle because he made it clear to my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney that he would have nothing to do with that Assembly and that he did not intend to take the members of his party to it, though he would fight the elections. That meant that the Assembly with its 70 per cent. veto—for that is what it was — would never have devolved powers because the hon. Member for Foyle did not choose that that should happen. No doubt he took that decision for good political reasons because, like the rest of us, he is a party politician and knows where his political muscle comes from. I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman for that because every hon. Member knows about these things. He knew that if he joined the Assembly he would not improve his political standing in the Province. By the same token, in order to improve his political standing, he stayed out of the Assembly.
  There was another thought in the hon. Gentleman's mind, and I hope that he will forgive me because I am reading his mind. He may tell me that I am talking nonsense but that is his prerogative. The other thought in his mind was that the Assembly was not what he was after anyway. He liked the idea of an Irish dimension and looming into his sights was the concept of the new Ireland forum and the possibility that somehow, unbelievably, the Government of the Republic could he brought into a
  1250
  dialogue with Her Majesty's Government. It was an ambitious project and to set the Assembly beside it in comparison was to set a minnow beside a whale. He set about his task, and brilliantly achieved his objective. I give him full credit for that because he pursued his political aims and did what any one of us would wish to do— he achieved a remarkable political victory.
  Mr. Hume: I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman's speech. He does not need to read my mind because I can tell him clearly what the position was. Ten years is not a very long time in a place like Northern Ireland. I remind the hon. Gentleman that during the 10 years before 1982 three attempts were made to devolve powers to Northern Ireland, and they were all based on fundamentally the same approach by a Government in this House. That approach was, essentially, power sharing acceptable to both sections of the community. Those three attempts all failed.
  The most recent attempt was in 1979 and it was made by the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) who was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. At that conference we said to the Unionist parties, "Since you say power sharing does not work and will lead you into a united Ireland against your will, we will agree to it for the life of two Assemblies in order to demonstrate both points of view." They said, "There are no circumstances in which we will ever share power with you." Three years later another Secretary of State decided to do the same thing.
  What sort of credibility would we have had with the electorate if we had accepted the same guidelines that we accepted three times in the previous decade when they were brought in for the fourth time? We said to the Secretary of State, "If you can get the Unionists to accept your guidelines this time, we will become involved." The Unionists rejected the guidelines before the Assembly election took place, thereby making it clear that the Assembly would not work. What did we do? We did the intelligent, honest, political thing and asked, "Why are they saying no? They said no because they were afraid of a united Ireland destroying their heritage. We then turned to the parties in the Republic and said, "Join us in showing that our future for Ireland threatens no one."
  We followed the logic of the situation in which we found ourselves and we do not apologise to anyone for that. As the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) rightly says, the position that we find ourselves in today arises because of that, because we are facing up to the reality of the problem, which is about the interlocking relationships between the peoples of these islands and not just about the relationships in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Foyle for making such a powerful intervention. I respect him for that and, as I have said, I respect him for his political ability. I think he would have to agree that, despite what the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said about the Unionists not sharing power in fact, they have worked for power sharing. They did that in 1973 when they helped to set up the power-sharing executive. Mr. Brian Falkner led that executive, and they worked for power sharing again in 1982 when they and the Alliance party went to the Assembly. The hon. Member for Foyle and his party did not go.
  Mr. Hume: For a very good reason.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: The hon. Member for Foyle says that it is the Unionists who have held up power sharing. I differ with him on that. He made his political judgment and decided that going to the Assembly did not suit his book. By creating the Anglo-Irish agreement at Hillsborough he must have known that he was carrying out the final act, giving the coup de grace to the Assembly, because once that treaty was in place the hon. Gentleman had created something else. He had created a new imbalance in Northern Ireland politics and, inevitably, that has led to the withdrawal of the Unionists from this House, and from the Assembly.
  In his moment of triumph, when the Hillsborough agreement was signed, the hon. Member for Foyle could have taken an opportunity to give new strength to the Assembly and to the concept of community government in the Province. He could have led his supporters back into the Assembly, and, even if he did not agree with the Assembly as it was, he would have shown his willingness, having won his great victory over the Anglo-Irish agreement, to work for a community government in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman did not choose to do so. Perhaps he was on a political high of a sort that few of us will ever experience. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to think that I am accusing him of doing something that was wrong, for I am accusing him of bad judgment. Whatever is the case, he has sentenced the Assembly to death and each one of us to thinking again about the political future of the Province.
  Mr. Hume: Did the hon. Member attend the debate on the Anglo-Irish agreement? I made a clear and specific offer, and in every week since I have repeated it, to the Unionists, to sit down and discuss devolution in Northern Ireland without preconditions. I want to spell out to them in detail how we see the future and I want to hear from them what they see in our view that threatens them and, for the first time, how they see the future—I know how they see the past.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I was at the debate. I interrupted during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I sat here for two days but, sadly, was not called. However, I had the pleasure of listening to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that the Anglo-Irish treaty is fatally flawed. He knows that it cannot work effectively without the involvement of the majority community in the Province. He knows that, because that majority has never been consulted about the agreement, it is not exceeding its rights in saying that it will not work with it. It is doing no more nor less, I suspect, than the hon. Gentleman and his supporters would have done if they had been left out of an agreement of that gravity about their future.
  Because of the flaw, each of us has the responsibility to try to find a way to put back that which was taken away. It is inevitable that, however important we may consider the Anglo-Irish treaty to be—no one would like to see it work more than me—we have to get those round-the-table talks. If the price of getting them is to set the treaty to one side for six months or whatever, then it is not too high a price to be paid. Nor is it impossible to do so. By the Vienna convention on treaties of 1971, articles 57 or 61, it is possible for a foreign country to set a treaty to one side or suspend it.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will discuss
  1252
  this matter with the Taoiseach and say to him that, in our view, a community government in Northern Ireland that represented all the strands of that society would be a greater political gain than an Anglo-Irish treaty that we cannot enforce and that carries with it the seeds of strife, bitterness and violence stretching into the future.
  I agree with all those hon. Members who have said that, in the end, Northern Ireland must govern itself. That is as it has to be. No English Secretary of State representing an English constituency can govern a province when his own party is not represented in it. Nor can those who come from Northern Ireland ever expect to have powers in this House. They cannot. It has been said, and I know it is true because I have worked and served in Northern Ireland, that it is a place apart. Its politics are different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. But it is possible to create a community government, albeit with Westminster making the laws. If the treaty were set aside for six months or nine months — not an open-ended period — then political leaders such as the hon. Member for Foyle and the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), and perhaps the Church leaders, could come together and realise that this is their chance to create something that would work, not something imposed by Westminster but something agreed among themselves. That gamble would be worth taking and I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that that is the line that the Government should take.
  6.55 pm
  Ms. Clare Short: Various hon. Members have asked why all the constitutional initiatives that have been taken since 1969 have failed. Others have tried to suggest new constitutional initiatives, be they integration, partial integration or some version of the local government structures that we have on the mainland. With respect to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), his approach and that of all other hon. Members fails to take account of the lessons through which we have lived in Northern Ireland's recent past.
  No constitutional mechanism and political structure will civilise Northern Ireland, bring equality to its people, make it a reasonable place in which to live or cause both communities to be able to live well together, unless there is a will to that end. Unfortunately, there is not that will in the Unionist community, which is why there has been continuous failure. They want domination. not equality. They do not want an end to discrimination or the equal provision of the local government services to which all people should be entitled. No constitutional dream or aspiration put together by the most clever constitutional lawyer in the world could put in that good will if it were not there. It is now clear to most hon. Members and to the people of Britain that Northern Ireland will never work because that good will is never there.
  We have a new era. The people of Britain are completely exasperated. That feeling is reflected among hon. Members, who speak less openly in the Chamber than they do elsewhere about the exasperation with the Unionists, Northern Ireland and the way in which they are behaving. The people on the streets and buses speak more and more openly and their feeling is reflected in opinion polls. It is a growing and mounting feeling that Britain is doing no good in Northern Ireland and should get out because it is a waste of time, resources and lives. The British people do not want us to stay there any longer.

  1253
  The Anglo-Irish agreement is and will always be an enormous historical turning point. Historians will see that clearly. The Unionists are right to say that, inevitably, the agreement will lead to an united Ireland. Their behaviour, their intransigence, their unreasonableness, their unwillingness to work with the agreement, have pushed the British people around that historical corner into a determination to withdraw from Northern Ireland.
  Northern Ireland could have worked, following partition, if the Unionist community had behaved differently. Of course the Republicans did not want to see their country partitioned, but if there had been equality and not discrimination, and if Catholics and Protestants could have lived side by side and respected each other and their cultural and historical differences, things would have been different. People can live like that within the rest of Britain—that is the experience of my life. I come from a Catholic family that originated in South Armagh but I grew up in Birmingham and experienced full equality in a way that my cousins who still live in Northern Ireland could not.
  Northern Ireland might have worked. Its people might have said that they were happy with the border, or equally the border might have faded away because the Unionists did not need it, because the two communities lived so happily in the north. Similarly, the Anglo-Irish agreement could have worked for the purposes for which the Government intended it — to help Northern Ireland to survive longer and to help generate co-operation and respect between the two communities. But the Unionists would not have it. They will not use any proposal that comes from the politics of Great Britain, to which they claim to be loyal. Each time their intransigence comes out; they say no to everything. They want to destroy every structure and every proposal. There can be agreement only if they are willing to give equality and respect to the massive minority community constituted by the Nationalists in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. David Winnick: Therefore, does my hon. Friend agree that the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), whose speech I listened to with much interest, are not realistic? He said that, if the Anglo-Irish agreement were suspended for six or nine months, the parties in Northern Ireland, and perhaps the Church leaders, might reach agreement, without it being imposed from Westminster. Have not years of history and experience shown that that is not possible? There is no way in which the Unionist and Nationalist parties will reach agreement, for reasons that my hon. Friend has been explaining. Therefore, does she agree that the agreement was an advance and should be maintained, and that in no circumstances should the Government give way on it?
  Ms. Short: I agree with my hon. Friend that, if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newbury were followed, it would be a complete disaster for Northern Ireland because Unionist intransigence and unreasonableness would have been victorious once again. The lesson it would teach the Unionists is that they should always be unreasonable and intransigent, that they should never give an inch, that they should never give respect or equality to the other community, and they will always win. I am afraid that that has been the experience of their history. They have to learn that it will not win. They must be faced
  1254
  down. I think that that is happening and that they are learning a bitter historical lesson that they will not get their own way this time, that the British people will not back off, and that they have to face up to the fact that they will not get their way again.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: If the hon. Lady has not already done so, she should read the report of the Northern Irish Convention to discover how much common ground there was among Unionists, the SDLI' and the Alliance. She will be surprised. She will find that her speech is unbelievably prejudiced.
  Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman now resorts to abuse. I respect the sincerity with which he made his speech, but his reading of history and of experience in Northern Ireland is wrong. I have explained why. If he simply wants to abuse me, it is no use my seeking to answer his point.
  Mr. Mallon: In the interests of honesty and accuracy, I must point out that there cannot be equality, which is the real basis of what the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) has been saying, unless there is justice. The process of justice in the north of Ireland is not in the hands of the Unionists but in the hands of this Parliament. If we want equality in the north of Ireland, we must get it through the process of justice. It is on the Floor of this House and this Parliament and Government that we look for justice. Let us not blame the Unionists for that, although there is plenty for which we can blame them.
  Ms. Short: I do not agree completely with the hon. Gentleman. The problems about the lack of justice and equal treatment before the law arise partly because some people in Northern Ireland are willing to use force to advance their political views. Their willingness to use force arises from the discrimination and inequality with which that community has been treated. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that many reforms are overdue and could be made by the House, but the whole answer does not lie here. Part of the problem that the House faces in Northern Ireland arises from the attitude of the Unionist community.
  I want to put on record clearly my reading of the current situation; I believe that history will vindicate this reading. The absolute unreasonableness of Northern Ireland Unionism, shown clearly over the Anglo-Irish agreement, means that from now the determination of Britain to withdraw from Northern Ireland will grow. I think that most hon. Members know in their hearts that that is right. When we seek new structures we must bear that in mind. We must look for structures that can lead to co-operation between North and South and among all the communities of Ireland. Britain is pouring resources into the Army, the building of prisons and the employment of more and more policemen and prison officers. Those resources could be poured into building creative things that would make a better new Ireland and create jobs and services for all the communities. We should move as rapidly as we can to the construction of constitutional opportunities for that new Ireland to be built.
  The real answer that will bring lasting benefits to all the people of Ireland is that new Ireland without Britain where the people have to live together in equality. I believe that it is coming soon because of the way in which the Unionist community in Northern Ireland has exposed itself to the British people so clearly in recent months.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). Although I admire her sincerity, I do not share her vision or her analysis, particularly of the Unionist intransigence, as she called it.
  I regret the disorder. Had I been here at the time, I believe that I would have voted for the original legislation. I regret that we are debating the order because it means that the Assembly has failed. The order was inevitable because the Assembly was being abused. In those circumstances, it was pointless to continue it, but it was not a total failure. As the Secretary of State pointed out, in its scrutiny capacity it achieved a certain amount of success, with 75 per cent. of its recommendations being accepted.
  One reason why the Assembly failed was the failure of the SDLP to participate in it. To give the SDLP its due, its members always made it clear that they would not take their seats. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) suggested that the SDLP should have gone into the Assembly post agreement. That would not have been realistic when the Assembly was being abused by other Members and was being hi-jacked for political protest. In those circumstances, I do not think that anyone could have expected SDLP Members to take their seats, so one cannot blame them for that.
  I was heartened by the remarks of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) on 12 June when he said that he wanted to sit down to talk about devolution. I was heartened also by the remarks of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) in reply to my intervention. I believe that the hon. Gentlemen want to participate in devolution. When a new order is brought before the House to give effect to new elections, there may be a possibility of the essential prerequisite of all-party agreement on participation in the Assembly. Having heard what the hon. Gentlemen have said, I think that there is every possibility of them agreeing to go into an Assembly in the future.
  There is scope for a new order. Do we want to resurrect the Assembly? I have always been in favour of devolution. I have always been suspicious of total integration and even of integration such as was talked about by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) because that approach would irretrievably alienate the minority in the North.
  My preferred option has always been one of devolution. Northern Ireland has had devolution for the best part of five decades. It has not worked because there has not been the necessary element of justice or power sharing within it. But there is scope for devolution. I believe that that is the only way to involve the minority in public life in Northern Ireland.
  The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) talked about Unionist intransigence over home rule earlier in the century. It is ironic that were it not for that Unionist intransigence—the minority intransigence—there would be a united Ireland with home rule within the United Kingdom. Many Conservative Members have that dream. I should like to see a united Ireland. However, it would be a different united Ireland from that envisaged by the hon. Member for Ladywood. I should like to see a united Ireland governed by Dublin with some form of home rule
  1256
  in Belfast. It would be a united Ireland with some form of loyalty to the Crown, perhaps as a dominion, certainly within NATO. That is why the devolution argument is so important. I believe that it is the only way forward. The only way the Unionists in the north would ever accept a united Ireland would be if that essential attachment to the Crown were retained in some form.
  The Anglo-Irish agreement is the key issue; indeed, it is the only issue. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, I visited Ireland recently. One of the things that struck me, as it struck my hon. Friend, was the deep sense of betrayal, outrage and dismay. I sensed it in moderate, sensible industrialists— ordinary people from all walks of life. I came across it also at 1 o'clock this afternoon when I met the Minister of State and a party of industrialists. These moderate, sensible industrialists, who are at the sharp end of wealth creation, spoke about betrayal in a way they have not done before. They feel strongly about the agreement, but they feel even more strongly about the fact that they were not consulted before it was reached. I am reminded of a quotation from Hosea, chapter 4:
  "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou halt rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee".
  I believe that the cardinal mistake made by the Government whom I support was that they did not consult beforehand.
  The Secretary of State made it clear that the Government will not renege on the agreement. Therefore, we must go forward on the basis that the Government will stand firm. I believe that there is only one way forward for Unionist parliamentary representatives. They must return to Westminster. I was heartened by the remarks of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh in that respect. They have a good case to argue, but they are not here to present it. The Prime Minister invited them to come and talk about devolution and the way forward for Northern Ireland. She invited them to discuss the future of the Assembly, but they turned down that offer. She invited them to talk about the conduct of Northern Ireland business in the House. That invitation was confirmed only a few hours ago by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State would like to see major changes. I should like the Under-Secretary of State to give us more details of what changes he wishes to see. Condemning Northern Ireland business to the early hours of the morning, incredibly anti-social hours, as happens now, is not heartening or encouraging.
  We must face up to reality. I believe that there is a chance that the agreement can be absorbed into the democratic process, because the Government in power now are different in character from the Government in power in 1974. At that time, a new Government, with a small majority, came to power. The will to persevere just was not there. Today, the position is quite different. We have an extremely determined and strong Prime Minister. She will not give in.
  Ms. Clare Short: She is on the way out.
  Mr. Bellingham: I doubt that.
  Another reason why I do not think that all hope is lost in terms of absorbing the agreement in the democratic process is that it provides an incentive to all politicians in Northern Ireland. Article 4 makes it clear that if there can be devolution in Northern Ireland, on a basis which secures widespread acceptance throughout the community, the role of the intergovernmental conference will be

  1257
  reduced, and certain functions that it is considering will not be apportioned to it. There is an incentive to make devolution work. I believe that Unionist politicians will see that there is an incentive to get devolution going.
  There is another reason why it is in the interests of Unionist politicians to make the agreement work. There has not been much discussion about that, although there will probably be some later on. I refer to security, especially cross-border security. If it becomes apparent to the vast majority of Ulster people that there is progress on the security front and in the fight against terrorism, and if the people of Northern Ireland see that two of the factors in the progress are the agreement and the enhanced cooperation between the two Governments, a great deal of pressure will be placed on Unionist politicians. Last Thursday's events were a move in the right direction.
  I am pleased that the Secretary of State was able to say that the talks that took place that Tuesday represented a significant landmark in co-operation. He said he was satisfied that we are embarking on a policy of much closer co-operation than there has ever been between police north and south of the border. Those are brave words if they are not true. I believe that they are true. From meetings which I have had recently with the RUC, I know that there is every indication that there has been a significant move in the right direction in the crucial fight against terrorism—against the enemy of all Ireland.
  I say to the hon. Member for Foyle, before he leaves the Chamber—it is the second time he has been on his way out, to where I do not know— that Conservative Members feel that there is a need for his party to promote full-hearted support for the security forces in the minority community. Anything that he can do to boost the confidence of those security forces would be welcomed. That is probably what he intends to do. However, some assurances in that direction would be welcome. They would be welcomed by hon. Members who supported the agreement and those who have supported his conduct in the House over the past year or so. I ask the Minister whether he has any evidence of an increase in the commitment by the Republic Government in terms of resources for border security and border effort. I should be grateful if he would respond to that.
  I recognise the pressure on our Unionist colleagues. Recently, at a meeting with a member of the Democratic Unionist party, I pointed out that the patience of my constituents was wearing thin and that I strongly believed that the word "loyalist" was being abused. He said, "Do you really expect me to put a noose around my neck just to put a smile on the faces of your constituents?" I know that the hard men are lurking in the shadows and the pressure that Unionist people are under. Surely the place of that member of the DUP is here at Westminster, so that he can put his case.
  For example, during the crucial run-up to the decision on the Ministry of Defence contract for the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessels, where were the Belfast Members of Parliament lobbying Ministers and their fellow Members? They were not here. Where did their constituents want them to be—in Belfast demonstrating and protesting, or here in the corridors of power? I say to them, "For goodness' sake, you have a case to put. You cannot go on saying that the agreement is simply the result of terrorism succeeding." If they say that, how can they expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to give in to another form
  1258
  of blackmail? That argument flies in their faces. Their place is here. I urge them to return here and to argue their case with us.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I would not wish to follow the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) throughout his arguments, but I am sure that the House has taken note of his last comments on the absence of Unionist Members of Parliament, with the exception of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell).
  One page of what I think is the last booklet from the Unionist camp—"Why Unionists Say No"—includes a quote from "The English Constitution":
  "The moment we distinctly conceive that the House of Commons is mainly and above all an elective assembly, we at once perceive that party is of its essence … party is inherent in it, is bone of its bone and breath of its breath."
  I wonder why the Unionists would wish to quote such an important man as Walter Bagehot in relation to the House of Commons yet not take their seats here.
  This debate has been one of the most interesting that I have heard in the Chamber in the past three years. It has highlighted the fundamental problem that faces the Unionist camp in Northern Ireland. That problem was amply reflected by the speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who sought to draw the Secretary of State on matters such as the administrative devolution of Northern Ireland and total integration. When I was a younger lawyer, we talked about negligence and gross negligence. A famous judge once said that they were both the same, except one had the epithet added. I surmise that the difference between integration and total integration is about the same.
  We have not heard a great deal about an independent Northern Ireland, which is surprising. That proposal has been gathering pace in certain quarters, and I shall, therefore, not devote too many of my remarks to it. The difficulty faced by the Unionist leaders is that they seem not to be able to face up to the reality of the community in which they live. They cannot shed the vestiges of a colonial past. Because the Unionists cannot define a common line or goal, it is hardly surprising that the British public cannot understand what the Unionists want within the framework of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West touched on that aspect when he referred to one of his constituents.
  The Unionists, in their own peculiar context, have created, if I may use the phrase from the World cup, "space and movement". It is a space into which others are likely to move in order to fill the vacuum. The movement in this country is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said, away from a belief that Northern Ireland has anything to do with the rest of the United Kingdom.
  If I may interpret the Unionist position, it is essentially one of hostility to the Anglo-Irish agreement. That hostility is so irrational that, in the end, Unionism has punished itself. Bernard Shaw once said "If your face is dirty, you wash it; you don't cut off your head." The Unionists appear to have lopped off their heads without even looking into the mirror. They have set aside the Catherwood proposals, by which they set great store. They have wound up the devolution committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly. They have declined further to scrutinize

  1259
  legislation that comes before the House by way of Orders in Council. The Secretary of State referred to that work, saying that 75 per cent. of the Assembly's recommendations had been agreed by the House and by the Government. We feel that the Secretary of State might be somewhat beleaguered in his position on the Treasury Bench, but he has told the House and the country that he is an avowed Unionist. Even as early, or as late, as last November, he was urging the Unionists to make full use of the Northern Ireland Assembly. He told a meeting at Cambridge university that the Assembly was one of the best ways in which the Unionists could continue to have their views heard in London. That advice went unheeded. Apparently, the Unionists have not heeded the advice that he gave on 12 June to the House when he urged
  "the Unionist parties to return to this House to argue their case and to take up the offer of the Prime Minister to discuss …devolution … a round table conference; the future of the Assembly; arrangements for handling Northern Ireland business at Westminster". —[Official Report, 12 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 505–6.]
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne made cogent and well-constructed arguments when he challenged the Secretary of State to say what he thought of devolution, regional councils, and so on. The right hon. Gentleman told the House tonight, as he did on 12 June, that there could be talks without preconditions. I always understood that "talks without preconditions" meant exactly what it said. The Secretary of State clearly said that there can be no way forward for Unionists in Northern Ireland or for Northern Ireland on the route of integration. We welcome and support that statement.
  The House must ask itself in these circumstances and in view of the Unionists' position why the Unionists have turned their backs on the proposals of Sir Frederick Catherwood who, when he published the last report of the devolution committee, made a call
  "To open negotiations on structures for devolved government on these bases and to consider practical amendments to the Northern Ireland Act 1982."
  The bases to which he referred were devolved Government with a committee system, an executive and a Bill of rights —all, of course, built on a Unionist majority of some 70 per cent. in the Assembly. The only novel feature in a proposal which effectively would have meant a return to majority rule, devolved Government—in other words, "back to the future" — was a proposal to allow the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to sit in judgment on any measure which the minority community might think discriminatory.
  Of course, that was a Freudian slip by Sir Frederick. We have long held the view that Northern Ireland is our last colony. It has been a colony with its own Parliament and governor, its own right to raise taxation, where Great Britain was responsible for external defence and for an annual subsidy to supplement public expenditure, but where this Parliament had no say in its internal affairs.
  It was a colony unique in British history which had the right to send 12 Members of Parliament to Westminister, but they played no role here, participated in no Government, answered no questions on behalf of their constituents and put no questions to Ministers because their Government was elsewhere across the Irish sea. They had their Government in Northern Ireland. They simply
  1260
  exercised a watching brief, ensuring that Unionism was not eventually subjected to those pursuing the course of a united Ireland.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As a matter of fact, under the Government of Ireland Act 1920 the House had full and unrestricted powers of legislation in Northern Ireland. The House did not exercise its rights and duties in respect of Northern Ireland for many decades because of a ruling of the Chair that it ought to be treated as if it were a dominion. That was not the consequence of the constitution of 1920.
  Mr. Bell: The right hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of history, will know that a Privy Council decision in 1924 on the boundaries between North and South was interpreted in the House as meaning that the House had no responsibility and would not discuss legislation as it relates to Northern Ireland. That continued until 1969.
  I shall briefly return to the proposals of Sir Fredrick Catherwood, which said that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the one to which I have just referred, had to be the final arbiter in matters which might relate to discrimination in Northern Ireland. If those proposals had been accepted, we would have placed Northern Ireland back into the context of a colony in the same position as other colonies and former colonies which still refer to the Privy Council as a final court of appeal.
  We are not entirely sure who buried the Catherwood proposals. Have they been lost under the weight of the Anglo-Irish agreement or have they been jettisoned by the Unionists themselves who are turning away from the concept of a devolved Government? If they are turning away, how sincere were they in their document "The Way Forward" which was a Unionist response to the proposals in the All-Ireland Forum? That document stated:
  "The Ulster Unionist Party takes the view that some form of devolved Government is necessary for Northern Ireland. In only one part of the United Kingdom, namely Northern Ireland, are major services subject to no real democratic control."
  That commitment has apparently been washed out to a sea of lost opportunity by the Unionist reaction to the Anglo-Irish agreement. The Unionists are wont to rely on the so-called justice of their cause. My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood referred to that. That means that having had their way in the past they will be able to have their way in the future, to turn their back on history, the lack of consensus in Northern Ireland and the continuous and continuing erosion of civil liberties within a minority community. To continue with the sea metaphor that I used earlier, King Canute could not turn back the tide, and he never believed that he could. He simply went down to the beach to prove his advisers false. The Unionists can no more turn the tide to a recognition of minority rights any more than King Canute could. They should accept the Anglo-Irish agreement and stop trying to reverse what has already come about.
  I wanted to speak about an independent Northern Ireland. That concept has been floated. It was looked at by the national executive committee of the Labour party in 1981. No one was particularly interested in it at that time. The consequences of such a possibility are so remote that perhaps I should not go into it now. Essentially, an independent Northern Ireland would mean the creation of a non-viable state. A majority for such a state would not

  1261
  be found within the six counties because two of those counties, Tyrone and Fermanagh, are already Republican in their majority. The forbearance of those in the north who consider themselves part of the Republic would be overstrained by the creation of an independent Protestant state and it could hardly be considered to be in the national interest of Great Britain.
  How could an independent Northern Ireland exist economically? In this important debate it is necessary to lay to rest the prospect that somehow there could be an independent Northern Ireland, dependent, nevertheless, on our country which puts in about £1,500 million, inclusive of social security payments. Therefore, I doubt whether that concept will go far.
  We have to treat the concept of integration seriously, and I believe that we do. On that matter I refer to the remarks of the right hon. Member for South Down. He has long put forward a view of integration with the rest of the United Kingdom. He has an able and, if I may say, powerful supporter in the hon. Member for Eastbourne. The right hon. Member for South Down has been representing a Northern Irish constituency since 1974. In that time he has sought to bridge the gap in Unionist thinking whereby they wish to return to the Stormont days of the Protestant ascendency and also insist that they are an integral part of the United Kingdom. They remind me of Marie Antionette who, being apprised of the fact that the peasants had no bread, suggested they might try brioche. With the utmost respect to the right hon. Member for South Down, the general Unionist proposition is one of having both bread and brioche at the same time, that is to say — to borrow a phrase that has been used tonight — having administrative devolution and total integration at the same time, or, in my words, it means wishing to be treated as a colony and as a part of the United Kingdom.
  The right hon. Member for South Down has taken the view that in order better to preserve the Protestant ascendency there should be full integration of Northern Ireland with Great Britain. He wishes to take a series of steps forward so that that aspect of Northern Irish rule can be continued while at the same time there can be integrity of Northern Ireland with Great Britain. Tonight we heard the proposals of the hon. Member for Eastbourne who was seeking to put forward solutions which would harmonise that idea of integration at the same time as the idea of devolution.
  The right hon. Member for South Down has protested in the past at the way in which we have handled our Northern Irish legislation. That has come up on a number of occasions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), in private meetings last year with the leadership of the Unionists, proposed that we should move towards altering the treatment of this legislation. Those discussions were an early victim of the Anglo-Irish agreement because they did not get very far.
  There is some seduction in the view of the right hon. Member for South Down because, for as long as Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom—it has remained so since 1921 notwithstanding the multitude of aspirations for Irish unity—for as long as there is direct rule from Westminster, as there is for Wales and Scotland and England, why should the legislation affecting Northern Ireland be treated any differently? Why should there not be the appropriate Northern Ireland Standing
  1262
  Committee or Select Committee to analyse legislation or issues affecting Northern Ireland so that they can be debated before they come to the Floor of the House? That is a matter of logic. I believe that to proceed to some kind of variation on how we do business here would be welcome to hon. Members. The Secretary of State put that forward as a positive suggestion in his statement to the House on June 12.
  Unfortunately for the right hon. Member for South Down, his long-held aspirations towards integration suffered a cruel blow when the. Government whom he has long supported signed, without his advice or approbation, the Anglo-Irish agreement. No amount of invective which was hurled across the Floor of the House towards the Prime Minister has matched the depth of his disappointment on this subject.
  I have outlined the dilemma which I see faces the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland as they face the dissolution of their Assembly and the continuance of direct rule. At the end of the day, we must say that they must resolve those dilemmas for themselves. The role which they believe they should take is a matter for them. It is a road which must be democratic and constitutional. If I may borrow a phrase from President Reagan, they can run from the Anglo-Irish agreement, but they cannot hide from its consequences, nor, may I add, from the opportunities which the Anglo-Irish agreement offers them. We must all hope that the time is not far off when Unionist Members will again grace the proceedings of the House, that the offer of discussions with the Prime Minister is taken up, and when the Unionists understand that if there is a place for a minority community in Northern Ireland, with its religion, its culture and its nationalist aspiration, there is equally a place for a majority community which has shared with us not only a common culture and heritage, but a common bond in adversity in decades gone by.
  The Opposition have no more intention of turning their back on that majority than have the Government. In the circumstances, the Opposition see no alternative but to support the order tonight and the continuance of direct rule until such time as there can be devolution in the interests of the minority and majority communities in Northern Ireland, whatever their ultimate aspiration may be.
  7.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I commend to the House both the orders that we have debated this evening. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) described what was happening today as a farewell party. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) drew an analogy with certain people in California who put dead bodies on ice. I regard it rather as the sort of farewell that one gives to someone who may need to leave for a period of rest and recuperation before returning to full health.
  I reiterate the belief, which was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), that it is devolved government, rather than the route which has come to be called integration, which provides the only solution and way forward for the government of Northern Ireland.
  I echo the tribute that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West paid to the Speaker, the Clerk,

  1263
  the staff and others who strove so mightily to make the Northern Ireland Assembly a success. Members of the Assembly are having their final debate now, and I echo the tribute paid by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to those who played a constructive role throughout its life.
  I shall return later to discuss in more detail some aspects of the Anglo-Irish agreement and especially its benefits. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was at pains to say that in presenting the Anglo-Irish agreement and in arguing for it we should make it clear that it is not just security and cross-border security co-operation that should matter. Of course, I agree with that. There are economic, political, and cultural matters that can also benefit from the discussion that takes place in the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and in sub-groups which work between meetings of the conference.
  The communiqué of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference which was placed in the Library of the House following the meeting on 11 March listed well over 50 examples of cross-border co-operation in a variety of areas: education, tourism, fisheries, training, water resources and drainage. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West will be pleased to hear that horse breeding is another example of cross-border co-operation. The range is impressive. I commend to those who are interested those examples of cross-border co-operation. Most of them pre-dated the Anglo-Irish agreement, but they can benefit from the existence of the agreement.
  The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) posed the wrong question to the Assembly when it was established. I shall paraphrase for the sake of brevity what the right hon. Member for South Down said. He said that the right hon. Member for Waveney had asked the Assembly to reconcile the irreconcilable in the work that it was undertaking. I believe that the purpose of my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney in establishing the Assembly in 1982 was to determine whether sufficient common ground existed for the differences, which in constitutional matters are fundamental, to be put aside while elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland could co-operate to share discussion and ultimately decision-making on matters that affected the day-to-day lives of people living in Northern Ireland.
  I am sad that an Assembly which I believe suffered from the outset from the understandable but, I still maintain, mistaken decision of the SDLP Members not to take their seats, and which has ended because of the refusal of the remaining Unionist Members to carry out the functions that Parliament has laid upon it should have come to an end. I regret it, but I believe that it will be but a temporary absence. I repeat my assertion that I believe that devolved government is the way forward for Northern Ireland.
  I say to the right hon. Member for South Down—he took it from the physical reaction of my right hon. Friend but I repeat it now — that of course it is the Government's intention to ensure that courteous and proper treatment is accorded to those who have been Members of the Assembly and will cease to be so when the order which we are debating is finally signed. The Clerk is writing to Members of the Assembly to set out the
  1264
  arrangements which will be in hand for them to remove their equipment and belongings from the precincts of the Assembly.
  The Government and the House are entitled to reciprocity in this matter. The behaviour that led Members of the Assembly to invade a part of the building that did not belong to them, with the result that they had to be removed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, is not acceptable. I hope that we can look to those Members of the Assembly to behave with responsibility and courtesy. In return, we shall show it to them.
  The right hon. Member for South Down made great play of the origins of the role of government in Northern Ireland. Historically, his analysis was totally correct. But he takes a huge leap forward when he says that, because the genesis of the concept of the role of government for Northern Ireland was based upon the aim of bringing about a united Ireland, that is why we now have devolved government in Northern Ireland, and that successive Governments have come to that idea simply to see the distinctive needs of Northern Ireland, and have established local arrangements so as to meet those needs. I shall return in more detail to the arguments about integration later in my speech.
  Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends raised what they called the Irish dimension—in effect, the Anglo-Irish agreement. This is not the time or the place to go into detail about that agreement or why I maintain it is of immense importance to the future in Northern Ireland. I should like to make one thing clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). He said that it would be better if these discussions could take place within the context of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council rather than the conference. I want to make it clear that the conference operates within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council. Because it is charged with the work of dealing with north-south matters, it is obviously appropriate, as envisaged in the Anglo-Irish agreement, that it should be Northern Ireland Office Ministers who should be concerned with the work of the conference. But it is working within the framework of the Intergovernmental Council.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: The difference is that the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference is the centre of an unequal treaty whereas the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council is an organisation where Ministers from two sovereign states can meet on completely equal, reciprocal terms.
  Mr. Scott: I shall come to that point because it was suggested that in some way the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental agreement had caused some sort of inequality. The proposition that was put before the House was that the Irish Ministers were in a position to put forward views and proposals on behalf of the Nationalist community while my right hon. Friend would have to take account of the interests of all the citizens in both communities in Northern Ireland and somehow there was some inequality in this arrangement. There is, but only for so long as the representatives of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland decline to come forward and use this House and the Assembly and all the other avenues that they have for contacting Northern Ireland Office Ministers in Northern Ireland. Ultimately all that the Irish Ministers can do within the context of the conference is to

  1265
  put forward views and proposals. The decision-making process remains absolutely with my right hon. Friend. Nothing in the Anglo-Irish agreement affects that fundamental constitutional position.
  I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West —and the point was also alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion —about the benefits of the agreement. I can assure the House that benefits are beginning to flow, not least in the area of cross-border security co-operation. Extra resources have been moved by the Garda Siochana to the border areas. But in a sense it is not just the numbers but the nature of cross-border security co-operation that will be important in the development of work in that area.
  We have already had the first fruits of the work of cooperation between the RUC and the Garda Siochana and those will be the building blocks upon which, in time, we shall erect a strategy throughout the island of Ireland, agreed and operated by the two police forces, which will deny the terrorist the explosives, guns, money and free movement of men that he needs to carry out his work.
  Already, important work at policy and practical levels on fugitive offenders is being carried forward. The switch in the January elections towards constitutional nationalism and away for support for Sinn Fein is another important benefit that has already flowed from the existence of the Anglo-Irish agreement. However, the fruits that we have seen are but a start in the work that will eventually flow from the agreement.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I simply want to ask my hon. Friend whether he had any news of the date of ratification by the Republic of Ireland of the convention on the suppression of terrorism.
  Mr. Scott: No. As was made clear when the Justice Minister of the Republic signed the convention on the suppression of terrorism, it will need legislation. It is envisaged that that will be introduced in the autumn of this year. I think that that has been clearly understood. However, I am by no means an expert on the Irish legislative processes, so I cannot say how long it will take to go through the Oireachtas.
  I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that it would be wrong— indeed, it would be impossible — for the House or the Government to impose some sort of solution for the political future of Northern Ireland. That must spring from the people of Northern Ireland. The Assembly was an attempt to provide the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland with a framework in which they could create that way forward. That must still be the principle on which we work. Only widespread agreement involving the elected representatives of both traditions can possibly provide the framework within which that progress can take place.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), with his customary, impressive forensic skills, presented a formidable but flawed case to the House this afternoon. The 1979 manifesto of the Conservative party said:
  "In the absence of devolved government,"—
  I emphasise those words—
  "we will seek to establish one or more elected regional councils with a wide range of power over local services."
  I re-emphasise the words
  "In the absence of devolved government".
  1266
  There is no room for devolved government and a regional council. Even Macrory said that there was room for only three tiers of government in Northern Ireland — district councils, Stormont and Parliament. If my hon. Friend is urging us to accept a regional council, he clearly envisages the end of the search for devolved government and the Government are not convinced of the validity of that argument. But he made it clear this afternoon that he did not envisage any such council being elected by proportional representation. Does he—he would have to address this — envisage such a council being run on majority rule lines? If that were his proposal, I can see not the slightest chance of the House passing legislation to that end, nor of the widespread acceptance in both communities in Northern Ireland which would be essential for any progress on that front.
  Mr. Gow: The words which my hon. Friend and I quoted are, not surprisingly, identical:
  "In the absence of devolved government"
  we shall seek to set up one or more regional councils. emphasise the words
  "In the absence of devolved government".
  Does my hon. Friend agree that, since 4 May 1979, when the Conservative Government took office, there has been both an absence of devolved government and an absence of a regional council or councils? Is that not in breach of the very promise that was made in the 1979 manifesto?
  Mr. Scott: The whole thrust of what I have put before the House so far is that we should retain the search for that devolved government because that provides the only sound way forward for Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Murphy: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier that there will be consultations on these important matters without preconditions, he is in danger of creating those very preconditions?
  Mr. Scott: With respect, I am going on to deal with some of the difficulties that those who advance some form of integration face in carrying their arguments through. But, no, the talks may be about amendments to the present arrangements for handling, for instance, legislative matters, but still against the context of the Government's commitment to a search for devolved government.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out, in his opening speech, the differences between Great Britain and Northern Ireland which justify a distinctive approach to the political arrangements that are made for the Province. Ever since the creation of Northern Ireland some 65 years ago, it has had different arrangements from those which have obtained on this side of the water. Of course, that is not to say that no change should take place if arguments could be sufficiently right or convincing to carry the day. But the Government are not convinced by those arguments.
  Today, three propositions have been put before us—that there should be changes in the legislative arrangements, aiming, where possible, to legislate for Northern Ireland by Bill rather than by Order in Council; that we should abandon the aim of devolved government for Northern Ireland; and that we should have an increase in the powers of local government.
  I do not think that any hon. Member will need convincing of the extra strains that we would put upon the timetable of the House of Commons were we to say that

  1267
  we should legislate only by Bill for Northern Ireland. A Grand Committee or a Select Committee, which have been referred to, would give rise to difficulties of membership and of balance within those Committees. I am aware, having served as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office for nearly five years now, of the resentment —I do not think that is too strong a word —that exists about the present legislative arrangements in the House of Commons. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has specifically offered to talk to representatives of the Unionist party and others about those arrangements. It is up to them to put forward specific proposals which could be discussed with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State about alternative arrangements which would better suit the needs of Northern Ireland legislation within the House.
  I shall not make great play of the administrative upheaval which would be created by some of the arrangements suggested this afternoon. But if we were to abandon the search for devolved government and go down the integrationist route, the Ulster Unionist party would be far from unanimous in changing towards that course. The Democratic Unionist party, the Alliance party and the Social Democratic and Labour party would be completely hostile to any such change. Indeed, they have all made clear their hostility to it. Certainly there would he no chance of getting any widespread acceptance of the principles behind an integrationist approach.
  Integration, in effect, would mean permanent direct rule for Northern Ireland — all the disadvantages of having a Secretary of State and other British Ministers ruling the Province, with no prospect of a body in Northern Ireland that could advise, disagree, argue, and persuade British Ministers on necessary changes in order to make that legislation reflect the needs of the local community in Northern Ireland.
  Since 1982, I have seen clearly how effective the Assembly has been in monitoring the work of the Northern Ireland Departments, and how willing British Ministers in Northern Ireland have been to make changes in the legislation so as to make it more amenable to the needs of Northern Ireland.
  We see an end to the Assembly today. We have to find a new way forward for Northern Ireland. That can happen only if the representatives of the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland are prepared to talk to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about their genuine concerns. The Anglo-Irish agreement is an international treaty and it is not going to be put aside or suspended. But surely all elected representatives from Northern Ireland, Unionist and Nationalist, have a duty to engage in talks. The sooner they take place, the better.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Dissolution) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

  Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Extension)
  Ordered,
  That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 4th June, be approved.—[Mr. Tom King.]

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)
  8 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move,
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.
  I welcome this opportunity to restate the Government's policy on security in Northern Ireland and to explain why the Government feel it necessary to propose the continuation of the temporary provisions in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act.
  I shall begin with a brief review of security since the last renewal debate. So far this year, 13 members of the security forces and 14 civilians have died as a result of the security situation in the Province. I make no secret of the fact that the threat from Republican terrorism, mainly the Provisional IRA, remains high. It takes different forms, including shooting attacks on the security forces, the use of home-made explosives, and developments in mortar attacks against security force bases. To counter that threat the security forces are maintaining the most intensive rate of operations since 1981.
  Against that background, the House will no doubt share my dismay and understand the frustration of the security forces when public disorder and intimidation, associated with so-called Loyalist protests against the Anglo-Irish agreement, divert vital police resources from the crucial task of dealing with terrorism. Disgraceful and cowardly attacks on off-duty policemen and women, and their homes and families, have made the job of the Royal Ulster Constabulary even more dangerous and difficult than usual.
  Against that background, I know that the whole House will join me in praising the courage, impartiality and steadfastness of the RUC. The professional attitude that marks the RUC is a constant reassurance to all law-abiding people in the Province. I must also pay tribute, as I know the RUC would wish me to do, to the unstinting support provided to it by the Armed Forces. Significant extra military resources have been deployed recently in the Province to assist the RUC, to protect police stations and to mount additional patrols, while the men and women of the Ulster Defence Regiment continue to bear the brunt of front-line support for the RUC over much of the Province.
  . Clive Soley: Is the right hon. Gentleman minded to act on the recommendation of Sir John Hermon, that the decision to allow a march or to reroute one and soon, should be taken out of the hands of the police and given to an independent body? If he made such a suggestion, it would make life easier for the police — and it is profoundly difficult at the moment — and would find support in various quarters of the House.
  Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interest in that point. However, I hope that he will forgive me if I comment later on marches and so on.
  I would not wish my tribute to the security forces and the brave and courageous task that they discharge in the Province to exclude my tribute to the dedication with which members of the prison service approach their duties. Those duties are, of course, made that much more difficult

  1269
  by the nature of the prison population in Northern Ireland and, sadly, by the attacks that they too have suffered at the hands of so-called Loyalists.
  The threat that terrorism presents to society in today's world demands an international response. Work on cross-border security, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State referred earlier, has certainly made an encouraging start following the Anglo-Irish agreement. There have also been developments since the last renewal debate. I refer, for example, to the important signature of the Government of the Republic of Ireland to the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. We look forward to the presentation of legislation in the Dail, and hope that it will make good progress.
  The House will also be aware of the substantial majority in the Senate Committee which examined the extradition treaty between the United States and this country. We obviously hope that there will now be speedy progress through the Senate. Constant vigilance, surveillance and intelligence are an essential part of the fight against terrorism, which often has an international dimension, if not being positively sponsored by other unfriendly nations. In that respect, the House will realise the commitment and dedication that is represented by the successful prosecution of the bombers involved in the outrage at the Grand hotel, Brighton. Hon. Members will also have read of those found guilty of the appalling outrage at the Droppin' Well Inn in Ballykelly.
  Moreover, in recent months there have been substantial arms finds in Roscommon, just over the border in County Sligo. There have also been successes in Amsterdam, Boston, and most recently in Le Havre. Such successes are not accidental but the result of determined co-operation and of a growing sense of international commitment to working together to root out the evil of terrorism that threatens the democracies of the western world. We are committed to the fight against terrorism by apprehending supplies of arms and by ensuring that there are effective extradition arrangements, so that those who should stand charged of some of the most grievous crimes against their fellow citizens can be brought back to face trial. We must ensure that there is no safe haven to which terrorists can easily flee.
  . Peter Bruinvels: No one could deny the courage and determination to fight terrorism that have been displayed so well by members of the RUC. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most unfriendly nations is that run by the madman Gaddafi? He has announced that he will send £1·3 million to support the IRA. Does that not mean that there will have to be even more control and observation along the borders so that we can fight terrorism that is sponsored by a country that has no respect for democracy?
  Mr. King: I have already mentioned the threat posed by state-sponsored terrorism. If the latest intelligence is correct, the Libyan Government are determined to return again to the path that there is clear evidence to show they were on before. That is most unwelcome. The House will have noted and appreciated the extremely prompt response of Mr. Peter Barry, the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic, who made it clear that that was totally unacceptable. He gave instructions that representations were to be made immediately to the Libyan Government, with whom the Irish Government still have, I believe,
  1270
  diplomatic relations, in order to make it clear that such activity would be quite unacceptable whether north or south of the border. Everything that he said is entirely in line with our thinking on the subject.
  That remark emphasised once again a point which must be increasingly understood, that one of the tragedies of the present position—the list of deaths that I have just read out —is that these murders are being committed with less and less point. I have heard the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) stress that these murders are pointless and that there is no longer any objective to be obtained through such terrorism. That is not the way that aspirations will be achieved.
  The increasing political and human irrelevance of the IRA and other terrorist organisations proves that they no longer have a moral basis for their activities — not that they ever had one. That clearly emphasises that the terrorists recognise that they cannot persuade or command genuine support in a democratic society. Therefore, terrorism is their worst and last refuge.
  It is significant, and many hon. Members will have noticed, that one of the features of recent murders is that three of the victims were Catholics, members of the minority community. Nothing can confirm more clearly that a permanent tyranny of terror is now all that the IRA can offer to people north or south of the border in Ireland.
  Our commitment is to fight and to defeat the evil of terrorism. That must be done on a basis that our security policy is founded on the belief that the fight against terrorism is based on a strict observance of the law and on bringing terrorists to justice before the courts. In the face of the problems, difficulties and criticisms that they face about the system and the administration of justice that operates in a society where terrorism exists and where there is intimidation, whether that be of juries or witnesses, I would like to pay tribute to the great courage and commitment of the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland judiciary for the brave way in which they still discharge justice in the most difficult circumstances in the United Kingdom.
  I would like to consider in that spirit the emergency legislation under which the judiciary operates in Northern Ireland. I recognise, as everyone recognises, that these are exceptional provisions to meet exceptional circumstances. We have sought to establish the minimum adjustments to ordinary law to enable the security forces and the judicial system to cope with the problems of terrorism.
  When the Emergency Provisions Act as a whole is looked at in this light, I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that Parliament's duty is to ensure that the derogations from the normal legal processes are as limited as possible and that any such derogation is fully justified. I and my predecessors and my ministerial colleagues have given very considerable and careful thought to the issues which arise. We have studied and discussed Sir George Baker's recommendations for amending the Act. We have also given careful consideration to the views of individuals and organisations — notably the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights — who have commented on Sir George Baker's recommendations. The Government have thus accepted that there is scope for amending the Act and we will be introducing legislation for this purpose as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits, and certainly within the life of this Parliament.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I believe that the Secretary of State, in seeking our trust in this undertaking, is going a little far, for we may not be here in this Session next spring. Would he go further and say that he will introduce the legislation in the next parliamentary Session?
  Mr. King: I am a stickler for parliamentary conventions and will not anticipate any Queen's Speech. I certainly will not anticipate the date of the next general election. We understand and believe in the importance of the legislation and I hope that it will be possible to reflect the spirit of what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has said, and the target time which he had in mind.
  During the debate on a continuance order on 25 June 1985, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) set out in general terms the Government's main proposals for amending the Act, arising from Sir George Baker's recommendations. These proposals included an increase in the Attorney-General's discretion to certify cases out of the scheduled mode of trial — which has now been achieved by an amendment order which came into effect in January this year; the repeal of the police power in section 11 of the Act, which duplicates the arrest power in section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act; recasting section 2(2) so that the onus in bail applications will be on the prosecution, and widening section 2(5) to include members of the RUC and RUC Reserve; and making the temporary provisions of the Act renewable annually by Parliament and subject to a maximum life of five years without re-enactment.
  My right hon. Friend also said that he was considering Sir George's recommendation that magistrates should be able to remand persons accused of scheduled offences in custody for up to 28 days without consent so as to avoid wasteful and meaningless remand hearings. I can now say that I propose to implement this recommendation. I also propose that certain powers in the Act — the powers of entry and search in section 11(2), the power of arrest without warrant in sections 13 and 14, and the powers of entry and search in section 15(2) and (3)— should be exercised only on the basis of "reasonable suspicion". I should like to take this opportunity to describe in general terms some additional proposals which the Government intend to incorporate in that amending legislation.
  We intend to propose provisions governing the rights while in custody of suspects arrested under the emergency legislation to have someone informed of their arrest and to have access to a solicitor. These provisions would effectively replicate for Northern Ireland the provisions of sections 56 and 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as they apply to persons arrested under the terrorism provisions.
  We also intend to take the opportunity to introduce measures intended to inhibit the exploitation by paramilitary organisations of the private security industry in Northern Ireland. It is a matter of deep concern to me that members of paramilitary organisations should be able to masquerade as private security companies while engaging in what is little more than a glorified extortion racket. This concern has also been voiced by many public representatives in Northern Ireland and by the Northern Ireland Assembly. We propose a relatively simple scheme in which private security companies would be required to seek a certificate from the Secretary of State, and such a certificate could be denied if the Secretary of State were
  1272
  satisfied that the granting of a certificate would further the aims of a paramilitary organisation. whether directly or indirectly.
  It is obvious to all observers that the border with the Irish Republic plays a large part in the current phase of Republican terrorist activities. It is against that background that my earlier reference to the importance of the work of the Anglo-Irish agreement for improving cross-border security co-operation is so valuable. I know that some of my hon. Friends have expressed anxiety and impatience for early results. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who is so familiar with police matters, knows the time, preparation and depth of work involved in trying to achieve real improvements and the basis for effective cooperation that is necessary.
  I can report to the House that the most encouraging item at the last Anglo-Irish conference held on Tuesday was the report received from the Chief Constable and the deputy commissioner of the Garda on the measures agreed to improve arrangements for the exchange of information and to develop liaison structures. A significant amount of work has been done and more will be carried out shortly. That offers the best prospect that there has ever been for close co-operation between the two police forces, faced as they are with the challenge and threat of terrorism.
  Before I conclude my remarks on the order, I should like to add something, as I said I would, on the thorny issue of parades and marches in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has a long tradition of marching to commemorate various historical events. Most of those processions are colourful and enjoyable occasions, but regrettably some have become strident and triumphalist in tone and purpose and a focus for sectarianism. The Public Order Bill currently before Parliament addresses the issue of how public processions should be controlled in England and Wales, and the House has shown during the debates on the Bill that it supports the right of any person or group of persons to hold a public procession so long as it does not unreasonably interfere with the lives of people living and working in the area, or involve the prospect of serious public disorder.
  My hope is that a similar attitude will prevail in Northern Ireland. How can it benefit anyone to march through an area where the inhabitants do not support the views being expressed by the marchers, and where the only result is to exacerbate tension in the area? This is a straightforward issue, and my views on the subject arise from my concern about the effect of such marches on inter-community relations within Northern Ireland. It is an issue on which the Chief Constable called for common sense and tolerance from both sides of the community in successive annual reports long before the Anglo-Irish agreement was signed.
  . Seamus Mallon: The Secretary of State said that he hopes that the same attitude will prevail in Northern Ireland. Surely he should be telling us that he hopes that the same legislation will prevail in Northern Ireland. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is in the mind of the Government to ensure that legislation to deal with that matter is introduced, not just that he hopes that the attitude will prevail?
  Mr. King: I have already told the House that we are waiting for the Public Order Bill to complete its passage

  1273
  through the House before we consider its implications for Northern Ireland. In the light of the Bill and any amendments that are made in either House, we shall consider the ways in which we might apply such legislation in Northern Ireland.
  Under the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. the control of public processions is a matter for the police. I want to make that point absolutely clear. It is a police responsibility, and not mine, to decide whether to impose conditions on the organisers of a parade. It is true that I have a reserve power to prohibit processions and public meetings, but I want to make it absolutely clear that that power has invariably been exercised on the basis of police advice. Let me make it clear that that will continue to be my position. I would not intend to exercise that power save only on the advice of the police, on the proper law and order grounds.
  The House will be aware that this year there have been hundreds of parades, and most have gone off entirely peacefully. Many hundreds more parades will take place in the next few months. I do not know how many — the House will realise that there are more than 2,000 marches and parades every year in Northern Ireland. That is a massive undertaking, with a massive responsibility and work commitment for the RUC. If the organisers, in discussion with the RUC, can act responsibly and choose routes that are not provocative, it will be possible for the marches to take place much more peacefully, and in a way that creates the maximum enjoyment for those involved, without interfering with the daily lives of those who might not share the marchers' views or beliefs.
  I am sure that the whole House will join me in sincerely encouraging people in Northern Ireland who are in any position of responsibility — parade organisers or members of the various orders — to consider carefully before finalising their proposals this summer, and to take account of the impact that their marches could have on inter-community relations.
  I respond to the question asked by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). The Chief Constable himself has put forward proposals in his most recent annual report on the way in which those marches and the issues raised by them might be dealt with in the years ahead. That proposal can be considered and discussed. It is not relevant for this marching season. This season will take place under the rules that are already well established, whereby the Chief Constable has the responsibility.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: With regard to the proposal that has been attributed to the Chief Constable, will my right hon. Friend make sure before he carries it far that he discusses it with the other police staff associations, particularly the Association of Chief Police Officers on this side of the water, which he may well find takes a different view?
  Mr. King: My hon. Friend said "attributed", but the proposal is in the Chief Constable's annual report. As far as I am aware, it has not been taken further at this stage. I am aware that there are some concerns about that, and that there are some who feel that it would be a bold gentleman who took on that responsibility. In Northern Ireland, one can see what a responsibility it might prove to be. I shall simply note what my hon. Friend says. As far as I am aware, the proposal has not been taken further, and it is unlikely that it will be until after the marching
  1274
  season, when further lessons may be learned and further views formed as to whether it is worth pursuing. If it is, it should involve consultation with the various associations, as my hon. Friend suggested.
  Mr. Soley: We recognise that the responsibility cannot be given to local authorities in Northern Ireland. No one is suggesting that. The principle is to take the police out of the problem of having to decide the route or conditions between competing political parties, which is often what it is about. If the police are taken out of that, and that responsibility is given to the independent bodies, as Sir John suggested, the duty of the police is more clearly to enforce the law. That is easier to do if they are not part of the discussion beforehand on whether the route is correct, and so on. I recognise that there are difficulties, but the police need to be taken out of the vice between competing groups.
  Mr. King: The decisions on the suitability of routes are taken not on political grounds, but entirely on grounds of law and order, and the risk of disorder. I shall not go further because we see some real problems with the proposal, and this is not the moment to discuss it. After the marching season, and if it is wished to pursue the proposal further, there will be an opportunity for consideration to he given to it.
  I hope that what I have said has demonstrated the concern that we have, while recognising the need to retain the emergency legislation that applies to Northern Ireland. to keep it under continual review. I certainly look to the opportunity to place the proposals that I will make before the House in legislative form. I should be interested in any thinking and views that right hon. and hon. Members and outside organisations may have on my comments. I include in that the political parties in Northern Ireland
  I have therefore conceded that the Government believe that the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 should be amended in a number of respects, but the question before us tonight is whether the temporary provisions of the Act should continue in force. For the reasons that I gave, regarding the security situation, the background against which the security forces and the Government have to operate. and the potential threat of terrorist violence that continues to hang over the people of Northern Ireland, I believe that it is essential that the order is renewed. I commend it to the House.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Peter Archer: The Secretary of State has one advantage over me today. According to my calculations, this is the sixth debate in which I have taken part devoted to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. In each one, I have said the same thing. I make no apologies for that. I imagine that I would be open to criticism if I had not. We have all on occasion recognised that we may have been mistaken, but normally consistency is considered to be a virtue, and on this subject our views have not changed. So I have said the same thing. There comes a time when one exhausts the various ways of saying the same thing. There are hon. Members on the Government Benches who have just as consistently disagreed with us, and that is their right. There are also those who have made no effort to understand what we on this side of the House have been saying. They have never directed their minds to the issues we have raised. They

  1275
  have sought to refute us by reciting facts, obvious to everyone, as though we had overlooked them. They have invented opinions which we do not hold, and they have invented proposals which we have never made. As I cannot leave our arguments to be caricatured by those who do not understand them, if they were minded to do so, I fear that, at the risk of being tiresome, I will have to repeat what I have said so often. I will try to do so briefly as this is a short debate, and I will confine what I have to say to the specific issue which the House is deciding tonight.
  This debate is not about who cares the most for law and order. We yield to no one in this House in our condemnation of lawlessness. Those who suffer most when the law ceases to be respected are those who are most vulnerable — the elderly, those on low incomes, those who are condemned to live in shadowed thresholds, dark with fears. We need no lessons on the evil which may be inflicted by human wickedness. We have no illusions about how innocent people can suffer from indiscriminate violence — in whatever cause — whether it is carried out on the instructions of a commandant, or a godfather, or the Libyan Government, or ordered by an American President. I hope we will he spared a lecture about the evils of terrorism, because anyone who pretends that that is what this debate is about is either incapable of understanding the issues or suffers from the oblivion of the wilfully deaf.
  Nor are we oblivious of the difficult and dangerous tasks which we call upon the police and the law enforcement bodies to undertake. On other occasions we have paid tribute to them for the way in which they carry out their unenviable job. But they will tell us that their task does not become easier if we take away the normal guidelines within which they are expected to operate. We can judge lapses with some sympathy and understanding, but that is not the same as saying that anything goes. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), I was pleased to see the comments of Sir John Hermon. The police are protected if they are responsible to an authority which is fair and is manifestly seen to be fair—
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: That does not make sense.
  Mr. Archer: Before we heard that explosion, I had intended to say that I recognise that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has a point. It does raise questions for debate, but this is not the occasion to debate them.
  We on the Opposition Benches have two anxieties, and I am aware that they are shared by some hon. Members on the Government Benches whose minds are not completely closed.
  First, we are aware of how provisions which were introduced in an emergency can become so entrenched in our habits of thinking that we come to regard them as normal. Not only do we cease to ask whether they can lead to unfairness, but we cease to ask ourselves whether they serve their original purpose, or whether they make any contribution to reducing crime. A conviction becomes a success, irrespective of whether we have convicted the right person.
  In Northern Ireland a whole generation of lawyers, police and politicians have grown up with the 1973 Act and its successors. They have spent their professional lives
  1276
  knowing nothing else. As one provision succeeds another and standards are gradually eroded, those who set out to destroy our way of life can take comfort because they will have succeeded. If we in this House cease to scrutinise each provision at least twice a year, we shall have fallen from the standards set by those who originally drafted the legislation. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for having said that that is a function which the House must faithfully discharge.
  I offer one example of how a power on the statute book encourages law enforcement authorities to act in ways which are both oppressive and pointless and which, on reflection, the authorities would not wish to do. On 22 October 1980 a young lady, Miss Ann Walsh, was arrested in her home by members of the armed forces. She was taken to the police station in a Saracen armoured car in full view of the neighbours. She was subjected to the humiliation of being searched and photographed. She was detained for about two hours and then released without any apology then or subsequently.
  Ann Walsh was a school teacher and was described later by the Lord Chief Justice as
  "quiet, unassuming and of at least average sensibility."
  Neither she nor any member of her family had ever been in trouble. It later transpired that someone had suggested that she had been associating with a member of an illegal organisation. That was untrue. It was a piece of gossip, and no one has ever discovered how it arose. But even if it had been true it would not have justified her arrest. Asked later in legal proceedings of what offence she was suspected, the person who arrested her replied
  "That's what we wanted to find out."
  The military authorities apparently thought they were entitled to arrest Ann Walsh under the emergency provisions Act in the hope that they might find out some reason for their suspicions. They could only have thought that because section 11 of the Act has not been repealed. That section was clearly intended to be used only as a preliminary to detention under section 12. No one has been detained under section 12 for years. So far as I am aware, and certainly so far as I hope, there is no proposal to activate section 12 again. Yet sections 11 and 12 remain on the statute book.
  There are other perfectly adequate powers of arrest, as Sir George Baker pointed out. The Lord Chief Justice had forthright criticisms to make of the authorities, and in the event he awarded Miss Walsh substantial damages. I do not suggest that the military authorities acted otherwise than in the interests of law and order. I think they got carried away, and I mention the case not by way of criticism of the military authorities, but because what happened was because of the existence of an unnecessary provision. If the authorities are invited to use unnecessary powers, there will be occasions when they exceed even the powers given to them.
  There are provisions in this legislation which, as the right hon. Gentleman recognised fairly, are agreed to be no longer justified. Sir George Baker listed some of them. We are not persuaded that he went far enough, but that is an argument for another occasion. Sir George believed that some of the provisions and some of the powers were unnecessary and unfair, and even counter productive. He reported in March 1984 and, until now, his recommendations have been gathering dust on the shelves. We were pleased to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said tonight — and I am grateful for his invitation for our comments.

  1277
  He would not expect us to respond off the cuff — that would he silly. We will consider them. I hope we shall have an opportunity to debate them on another occasion. We do not believe, however, that this House would be doing its job if it simply rubber stamped the continuation of the present provisions.
  Our second anxiety is that the strongest foundation for law and order, the strongest deterrent to lawlessness, is a conviction in the mind of the public that the law is manifestly fair and that those who enforce it go no further than is essential. The factor most likely to dissuade someone from lawlessness is the disapproval of his or her peer group — those among whom he moves and whose good opinion he values. If they can be persuaded that the law goes no further than is necessary, that it is fair between one group and another, that it protects those who are vulnerable, they will be more effective in dissuading potential law breakers than a whole army of policemen.
  If the local communities in Northern Ireland can believe that the way to redress grievances is by constitutional politics and by the use of legal redress that freedom under the law is a reality, then the men of violence will be isolated and their recruiting ground will be denied them.
  Nothing in Northern Ireland has given greater aid or comfort to the paramilitaries than the supergrass trials as they have come to be used. I shall not rehearse all the criticisms that we have made. It would afford us some comfort to learn that there will be no more supergrass trials, but I understand that that is not necessarily to be the case.
  I know that accomplice evidence is admitted in other jurisdictions, including the courts of England and Wales, but its use in the Diplock context with a multiplicity of defendants, with long remands in custody before trial, and with inducements to lie, such as resettlement, immunity from prosecution and remission of sentence, is something different, and I believe that it would not have been tolerated by the authorities themselves a few years ago. They have become inured to falling standards.
  I do not believe that this is something which can be left to the police, the prosecuting authorities or the courts. They can only administer the existing law. A legislative provision is needed to the effect that no one is to be convicted under the Diplock procedure on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. As I understand it, that is the intention of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). He will no doubt seek to speak in the debate, but I hope he will forgive me if I pre-empt him by asking what the Government's intentions are in relation to that Bill. Will the House be given time to debate it?
  It is essential that the law enforcement agencies are scrupulous to remain within the law and that they are manifestly seen to be scrupulous. If under the stress of the moment a policeman or soldier makes a mistake, I hope that we shall always make allowances for the pressures of the circumstance. That is not the same as condoning illegalities or sweeping inquiries under a carpet.
  There is widespread anxiety about the Stalker inquiry. I know nothing of the matters under investigation in relation to Mr. Stalker, and I make no comment about them, but part of the anxiety arises because the public has been told nothing. It would not he surprising if people
  1278
  asked why it was announced that Mr. Stalker was removed from the Northern Ireland inquiry before the allegations made against him appear to have been investigated.
  .Mr. Mallon: It is crucial that we know whether Mr. Stalker had completed his report, and what Mr. Sampson has been charged to investigate.
  .Mr. Archer: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows more about the matter than I do. I am only asking a neutral question would it not have been wiser to suspend the inquiry until the allegations had been investigated? And when the Minister replies, perhaps he can tell the House how much of the inquiry was completed under Mr. Stalker's direction, how much remained to be carried out, and when he will be in a position to make a further announcement.
  This debate is brief and I promised that I would not repeat what I have already said in five previous debates. We of the Opposition believe that hysteria, resentment and grievances are the enemies of law enforcement. We believe that the most effective foundation of law enforcement is the confidence of the public, and that legislation should be designed to reinforce that confidence. That is why we shall divide the House tonight.
  8.42 pm
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I appreciate the position of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), but I have seldom heard a speech which less justified the decision announced at the end. He made a civilised, intelligent, sensitive speech, not agreeing wholly with but welcoming a good deal of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. It certainly lived up to the issues before us and to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's knowledge of them. But suddenly, at the end. as if he were chucking a stone into a pond, he said
  "That is why we shall divide the House."
  There may be good reasons for that and we may hear them, but we certainly did not hear them from him. Perhaps his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) will repair the omission.
  On Monday the House debated a subject for which we have no direct responsibility and over which we have little power South Africa. The House was packed, the media were agog and the BBC recorded the proceedings live. Today we are debating an important part of the United Kingdom, for the citizens of which this House has absolute sovereign responsibility. It is an area where a large number of our fellow citizens have been killed and many live in peril. It is a province to which we provide more subsidy per head than any other part of Britain and where our investments dwarf those in South Africa. Yet today the House is virtually empty. I find that odd, but on reflection I suspect that the House, not for the first time, is mirroring a change of great importance in our country, namely, that the British people are beginning to disengage psychologically from Northern Ireland. They are switching off, turning their backs on the Province.
  There are many reasons for that. Nobody enjoys the sight of killings and murders or the scenes of hopelessness and helplessness which often afflict us when we look at Northern Ireland. Above all, no one can countenance the failure of constitutional device after constitutional device, the last of which was dissolved today, or the sight of Northern Ireland politicians squabbling with each other whatever is proposed. To that extent, the House is

  1279
  reflecting a profound public disillusionment which the politicians of Northern Ireland should take with the utmost seriousness.
  I am a Unionist. I hope that the Union will prevail. But I perceive the main threat to the union today not as being the IRA or the Anglo-Irish agreement but the progressive disengagement of the British people on this side of the water from a quarrelsome Province. And my anxieties are reinforced — I hope I say this with complete fairness — by what I detect to be the evolving attitude of some Labour Members.
  At the Labour conference some speakers wanted to turn their backs on Northern Ireland and walk away from it. Some Labour Members — I am not referring to any of those present — may say before the general election that the Labour manifesto should include some commitment to have one more go at a solution but if no agreement can be reached with the Republic over progress towards a united Ireland, then the Labour party should commit itself to getting out of Ulster completely. I do not know whether that will happen, but such voices can certainly be detected within the Labour movement.
  The Labour party in government may also get into severe economic difficulties. I believe it will do. And I have been in the House long enough to know that drastic decisions are taken by Cabinets when they face economic crisis. Aden had to go because of prescription charges. It is possible that Labour may say, "We cannot afford to continue with Northern Ireland. We have other things to do with our money."
  As a supporter of the Union, I am anxious about those matters. I raise them today because the message that needs to go out from the House to the politicians of Northern Ireland, especially those who are not present, is that their constant unwillingness to resolve differences, to find peace, to talk with British Ministers, to join in the political process — this abdication on the part of the representatives of Northern Ireland from the processes of our national life — is likely to accelerate the disengagement of the British people from Northern Ireland. We have a duty to give that warning to those in Northern Ireland whose friendship and loyalty I wish to preserve.
  I turn to the subject of public order and terrorism, to which this order is specifically directed. I welcome the Secretary of State's decision that the order must be extended. I welcome it with regret because all of us regret the draconian powers of the emergency provisions. But in the present circumstances I do not think that the police and security services in Northern Ireland could possibly operate without them. They could not otherwise provide the protection for persons and property that our citizens are entitled to expect. So if this House were to remove the powers which provide that protection, we should be in dereliction of our duty. That is why I shall find it strange if the Opposition vote against the order.
  Broadly speaking, my right hon. Friend is right to say that there has been some improvement in the terrorist situation. Four strong blows have been struck at international terrorists over recent weeks. First, the conviction of the Brighton bomber and his accomplices was a remarkable police achievement. The House ought to pay tribute to the forensic experts of the Metropolitan police and to many forces up and down the country who pursued patiently and diligently a very difficult quarry. We
  1280
  should also pay tribute to the co-operation between the police on this side of the water and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Brighton was a severe blow to terrorism.
  So, too, was the successful conviction — indeed, there was confession — of the murderers of 17 young people at the Droppin' Well pub in Ballykelly. The morning after that massacre 1 went to the ruins. Some of the bodies were still stacked up like dominoes. I saw a satin dance shoe belonging to one of the young girls. That brought it home to me. And as it happens, I heard over a radio that was switched into the BBC's "News at One" programme that back here in Westminster Mr. Kenneth Livingstone was entertaining that very day the representatives of Sinn Fein at County Hall. I must confess that I reacted strongly to that news in the ruins of the Droppin' Well pub. When 1 returned to London I took that slipper across the river, went into Mr. Liverstone's office, banged it on the desk and invited his people to hand the slipper to the Sinn Fein representatives.
  I am proud of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and I am glad that they should have achieved the conviction of that group, including females as well as males, who blew up those young people at the Droppin' Well pub.
  My right hon. Friend also mentioned the successes of the police and the security services in France, Holland and elsewhere in making a series of arrests — charges no doubt will follow — of gunrunners in Le Havre and elsewhere who have been involved in getting weapons — some of them sophisticated — to the IRA. That is a further great success. I believe that it reflects, more than anything else, the new collaboration that is emerging between the police and the security services of western Europe and North America.
  For that—I hope that I put this objectively — the Libya raid must be thanked. Before the Libyan air strike, summit conferences had said many fine things about increasing collaboration on measures to counter terrorism. The foreign Ministers had met and the home Ministers had met and they had said the same. But my experience is that before Libya the words were strong but that the action was weak; since Libya, however, there has been far closer collaboration in the sharing of intelligence and in the working together of the police services and this has helped to bring about the convictions and arrests that we must now greet with satisfaction.
  It is to also be welcomed that this increasing international co-operation is buttressed by the efforts of the Reagan Administration to ensure that the CIA and the FBI give us better support than we have ever had before. I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will confirm that. The United States has helped enormously.
  Then, too, there is the Anglo-Irish agreement. This causes serious problems of conscience for many members of the RUC, to which I shall turn in a moment, but it must also be recognised that the agreement has put the stamp of political approval on the cross-border co-operation that for years had been developing between the two police forces. This has now been given a political momentum that is greatly welcomed by those who are the practitioners of security on both sides of the border.
  I must mention another matter. It is a useful step forward that the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate has agreed, by a larger majority than

  1281
  some of us might have expected, to report out the extradition treaty. This does not go all the way. But it goes a large part of the way. It will, I believe, be helpful.
  It is perfectly understandable, when one considers the traditions of the United States, that some Senators were reluctant to allow extradition without a court process. I recognise that Senator Eagleton and his colleagues need the consent of their courts to be incorporated in the arrangements before they would report out the Bill. But I have one question about this to ask my hon. Friend. Accepting, as I do, that the Senate's version is likely to be agreed to by the United States Congress as a whole, is he able to say whether he perceives that there could be difficulties with some of the United States jurisdictions when they look at the Diplock courts and consider whether a fair trial is available? The Americans are used to the jury system. It could be that in some federal appeal court jurisdictions the absence of a jury, because of Diplock, might be used as a reason for refusing extradition. This is an important matter. I do not ask my hon. Friend to give assurances that are beyond his ability. I just want to be certain that the matter has been looked at and discussed with the Federal authorities.
  I make this further suggestion. It is not within the ability of any American court actually to determine on the ground whether the processes in Northern Ireland provide a fair trial. A court does not have a researcher who can be sent over here to check up, and we should resent it deeply if it did. I also suppose that the practice in this country, if there were any question as to whether or not a jurisdiction abroad were fair, would be that it would be up to our Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to provide a certificate to the court, saying that he was satisfied that there could be a fair trial in a particular country.
  I ask my hon. Friend to consider making representations to the United States that, in the event of a United States court resisting extradition on the ground that the Diplock procedures did not provide for a jury, it should be sufficient for the United States Secretary of State to provide a certificate giving his assurance that he was satisfied beyond any question that the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland are fair. I put that proposal to my hon. Friend, because it needs to be considered.
  I move from the general proposition that there is a measurable improvement on the security front to a warning that it would be madness to become complacent. As my right hon. Friend has very fairly said, murder, bombing, kidnapping and assassination are still parts of the arsenal of the IRA.
  Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman has declared himself to be a Unionist. Does he maintain that these are the tools only of the IRA? Are they not the tools that are also used by paramilitaries on the Unionist side that he espouses?
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: It makes no difference from which side murder, assassination or kidnapping comes. I attributed those things to the IRA, but I condemn all those who do such things.
  I should like to speak for one moment about the pressures and strains on the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I make no bones about it: for a force that has expanded rapidly from about 3,000 to 8,000 regulars, or to 10,000 if we include the immediate reserves, over some seven or eight years, the RUC has made remarkable progress. It is
  1282
  probably the most proficient counter-insurgency civil police force in the western world, and it deserves congratulations on its professional efficiency and on the dedication and courage of its members.
  On Monday night the Secretary of State and I attended the annual conference of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland. It was most agreeable to hear the tribute that the Secretary of State paid to the force. His words were sincere and greatly appreciated. Large numbers of RUC men are nevertheless going through a crisis of conscience. Some of them are bewildered; they do not quite know where they stand. One reason for this is that the RUC is overstretched. The force is being expected to do too much. The RUC in fact is a police force with four separate roles.
  Its first role is to carry out all the ordinary police tasks. Crimes of disorder, traffic offences, drugs and corruption are growing all over the world; and coping with those things alone would be enough for the RUC. But, on top of that, it has other roles that are not carried out by our other police services. Thus its second role is to tight a terrorist offensive. The RUC is a counter-insurgency force and a large part of its time, probably 40 per cent. of its time in one way or another, is expended not on fighting conventional crime, but on counter-insurgency.
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary's third role is as the guardian of an international frontier. That, too, is an armed role and a special one that the RUC and its predecessors have had since the setting up of the border. This task demands a great deal of a civilian police force; indeed, when one visits some of the border posts, one sees that the RUC is not really policing at all. In many cases its members are besieged in semi-fortresses, festooned with barbed wire. Its officers are often unable to go out to carry out the conventional tasks of serving warrants and apprehending criminals without the armed protection of the Army.
  It is the RUC's fourth role that is the most difficult of all. Since the Anglo-Irish agreement, the RUC has been confronted by a major public order problem arising from the hostility of a very large number, probably a majority, of the people of Northern Ireland who are against that agreement. As a result of that perceived hostility, many members of the RUC have been faced with some impossible dilemmas.
  There are professional dilemmas. How does one police against the wishes of the majority? How does one police without what we like to describe as consent? What is the position of a police officer when, as one of them put it to me, he is expected to "give them a tanning in the streets and drink with them in the evening?"
  There are personal dilemmas too when police officers are expected to ban or stop marches and then go back and live within the community from which those marches traditionally have originated. Police officers who have grown up in one culture, lived among one group of people now find themselves spurned, despised and cold shouldered by their neighbours and friends. Inevitably, that has an impact on their working lives.
  I have seen nothing worse nor more unforgivable in Northern Ireland than the attacks by so-called Loyalists on members of the police force. We have all seen and condemned them, but I shall give just two examples. I went to talk to a young constable who had proudly bought his own home. He and his family had been burnt out of it by

  1283
  a petrol bomb. They had taken refuge in one of the houses that had been provided expeditiously by the emergency housing authority.
  I talked to the young man about the practical questions — what compensation would he get, would he be able to buy another house, would his mortgage be extended, would his bank lend him money when it knew he was a target? But what will remain with me was not our discussion of the practicalities but the look of sheer hurt and bewilderment that he, as a police officer, who had come into the service to do his utmost for the community, should now suddenly be petrol-bombed and burnt out of his home by people who called themselves Loyalists.
  The second example was in Dungannon. In the basement of the police station, I was shown six plastic bags. Those contained all that remained of the belongings of three young policewomen. These three girls, all of them of the age to be the daughters, if not the granddaughters, of every hon. Member present, had joined the RUC and were living in flats provided by the police in Dungannon. One night, all three were bombed and everything that they had was smashed or destroyed. All that was left of their possessions was put into the plastic bags. I looked inside and saw a charred squash racket, a few pairs of shoes and some underwear. That was all that was left. And these girls too put it simply: "How can those who call themselves Loyalists do that to us, the police?"
  That is the working reality for many Northern Ireland policemen. They are faced with terrible dilemmas a result of the agreement. It is essential that the RUC should not be depicted in Northern Ireland either as the guardians of the agreement, for they are not, or, as some would suggest, as being duty-bound to their communities to oppose the agreement, which they must not do either. The police are politically neutral. They must be impartial. They are not the servants of any Government. They serve the Queen as the limbs of the law. Just as the police during the miners' strike here were not enforcing the wishes of the Government, so the police in Northern Ireland must not be seen to be the enforcers of Government policy either. They must be seen to he the impartial guardians of the law, and they come into the Anglo-Irish agreement only when persons use violence or illegality against it. If the police will keep that clear line in their minds — that they guard the law, not the agreement — many of their dilemmas, I believe, can be resolved.
  I turn to some of practical questions that I hope that my hon. Friend will mention in his reply; if he cannot deal with them fully, perhaps we may discuss them in other ways. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West was right to mention Mr. Stalker. I have known a deal about the Stalker investigation for a long time. I confess that I have always visualised a disturbing denouement when all the facts became known.
  It is unfortunate that the same chief constable who has been asked to take over Mr. Stalker's investigation—and I wish him good luck in it and hope that he will be speedy in his conclusion—has also been asked to examine the personal allegations against Mr. Stalker. It would have been better if a different chief officer had been asked to deal with the Greater Manchester force problems than the chief officer who has been asked to go to Northern Ireland to carry through the Stalker report. Having the same chief officer doing both is bound to lead
  1284
  mischievous people to conclude that there is a connection between the charges that may be brought against Mr. Stalker and the reason why he has been removed from the Northern Ireland investigation. It would be unfortunate for anything to be done in an official capacity that suggested that Mr. Stalker was removed from the investigation because of what was happening in Northern Ireland.
  Some hon. Members may have seen the "Panorama" programme the other night when it was suggested that there was a conspiracy and that Mr. Stalker had been removed from the investigation because he was likely to spill the beans. It was suggested that the RUC, in a subversive manner, had decided to rubbish, devalue and besmirch him and to get him removed from the investigation lest he produced embarrassing matters against them. I have no intimate knowledge of the details. But I suggest that the House would be unwise to adopt the foolish conclusions of the "Panorama" programme.
  The inference that the RUC has engaged in a deliberate character assassination of Mr. Stalker to prevent his investigation exposing improprieties in that force is a serious allegation against the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Of course, it must be, and I am sure will be, fully investigated, but I hope that the House will not simply adopt such a smear before the evidence is out. Both in the case of Mr. Stalker personally and in the investigation of the incidents that he was dealing with, it is crucial that the job be now done quickly, that there is full disclosure and that this brave force is able to get back to the real business in hand.
  Now to my practical points which are rather like a laundry list, for which I apologise. First, the gag. I hope that my hon. Friend will find — with me if I can help — ways and means of solving the problem of the muzzle that has been placed by the Chief Constable of the RUC on the Police Federation for Northern Ireland. This has gone on for far too long. There is right on both sides — I mean no pun in saying that — but it is urgent that the matter be resolved. There will not be a proper relationship between the Chief Constable and the representative body set up by Parliament until the gag is removed.
  It is no less important to make speedy progress with the review of the constitution of the police staff association in Northern Ireland. The time has come to take the federation, which represents 99 per cent. of the men and women of the force, out of the staff association corset, which is cumbersome and unwieldy, and allow it to be treated in the same way as police federations are treated in England and Wales. The more closely we assimilate the staff arrangements of the RUC to those which obtain over here, the better for all concerned.
  It is important that the question of federation attendance at the police authority is resolved. I had the opportunity to speak with Sir Myles Humphreys about that the other night. The reasons the police in Northern Ireland are excluded from the police authority — they are admitted in every other force in the United Kingdom — are an insult to them. First, they are not admitted because it is alleged that their presence would impair the confidentiality of the police authority's proceedings. That is absurd. Every police officer in Northern Ireland must sign a declaration under the Official Secrets Act. He is used to keeping confidentiality at all times.
  Secondly, the police are kept out of the authority because of impartiality. It is alleged that the impartiality

  1285
  of the police authority would be compromised if the RUC were to be admitted, implying somehow that the federation is a sectarian Protestant body that would upset the balance between the Protestant and Catholic religions. That reason is equally insulting to the federation. I hope that my hon. Friend will try to deal with those petty problems that are impairing morale at a time when it needs to be high.
  To conclude, there is progress against terrorism. But difficulties have arisen as a result of the Anglo-Irish agreement. I suspect — I hate to say it — that the Anglo-Irish agreement may, before long, go the way that the Assembly and many of the other constitutional devices that we have attempted to bring in to resolve the problems of Northern Ireland have gone. But whether the agreement stays or goes, I am quite certain of one thing. The future maintenance of public order, the rule of law, the administration of justice, and freedom and security for the people of Northern Ireland must involve cross-border cooperation and a southern Irish dimension. One way or another, that must be brought in to any arrangements for the security and politics of the Province.
  To sum it up, many police officers are worried about the Anglo-Irish agreement. Some are bewildered by it. But all of them, operationally, understand the need to work with the Garda.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: I understand that it is desired that the debate should conclude as quickly as possible. There are indications from certain quarters that it should conclude at around 10 o'clock. Therefore, I shall not speak for as long as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) spoke. This is my first contribution to the debate. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said that it was his sixth contribution. I was not looking forward to the debate.
  The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds made the most bizarre speech on law and order that I have heard for some time. He reminded me — it is the last time I shall use the expression tonight — of a well-rehearsed supergrass. The hon. Gentleman bore all the traits of those I have seen in witness boxes. who were put through their paces by Government or whatever section of the police service they worked for, and came up with a well-rehearsed piece of evidence. The hon. Gentleman came up with a well-rehearsed piece of evidence rather than a contribution to the debate.
  I have seen terrorism and violence. I know what they are. I shall not fall into the hon. Gentleman's trap of recounting all those instances. They are more gory and greater in number than the hon. Gentleman recounted. Everything I shall say in the debate will be said against the background of my abhorrence of all types of violence, from whatever source. Violence was demonstrated in my constituency on Tuesday. A young man whom I knew well — I know his family well — was found lying dead on the side of a road. He had been shot. That night, when I attempted to get to sleep, 150 people with masks on their faces took over my village. They did so in the name of Unionism, which the hon. Gentleman espouses.
  That is the type of situation in which we live, so let us please have no condescension and patronising attitudes.
  1286
  Those who live amongst all that is happening know exactly what it is like. We do not need that sort of patronising attitude shown by anyone.
  My first crucial point was touched on in the previous debate on other issues. Can there be natural, normal law in an unnatural, abnormal situation created unnaturally and abnormally to sustain an unnatural and abnormal majority within an abnormally divided country?
  The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West pointed out that there is a generation of policemen, lawyers and young people who have never known anything but the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. I did not know anything other than the emergency provisions legislation that went before it, nor did anyone who lived in the north of Ireland. It was much worse than this Act. On one famous occasion, a member of the South African Government claimed to want the provisions of the special powers legislation for his own country. We have had emergency provisions since the day the north of Ireland was founded.
  The key question is: can there ever be a normal society, a normal legal process and a normal system of justice in an abnormal society? The answer is no. Unfortunately, as long as Northern Ireland exists and the constitutional position remains unchanged, there will be this type of legislation.
  I have always referred to the rake's progress in relation to Northern Ireland because every time one bends the law one makes more paramilitaries. Since 1969, it has been proven conclusively in the north of Ireland that, each time the law is bent, more people join the UDA, UVF, IRA, or INLA. They have been given a reason to become paramilitaries. That rake's progress is there for everyone to see. That is why this legislation is objectionable.
  If the legislation were capable of working, it would have worked during the past 64 years, but it has failed. We are faced with the prospect of similar failure during the next 64 years, if this legislation lasts that long. No amount of scare tactics or gory detail will change that reality. To get to grips with the process of justice and law in the north of Ireland, we must realise that reality.
  One aspect that is absolutely objectionable in relation to this legislation is the Diplock system in the courts. The House took away the protection that the individual had within the court system — the protection of the jury. While this type of legislation lasts, the House has a duty to replace that protection, at least partially. That will riot be the real answer, which is a return to the jury system. Until that system returns, the House must replace it with a system of three judges who hear all cases concerning scheduled offences. Unless that is done, the individual will not have the protection which is normally available under the law and to which he is entitled.
  The relationship between policing in Northern Ireland and the position of Mr. Stalker is a controversial point. found it difficult to restrain myself when the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was making his references to Mr. Stalker. I met that man and I gave evidence to him. I regard him as a man of immense integrity and professionalism and all the innuendos about him are grossly unfair and not worthy of the type of consideration given to them by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman must have misheard. I did not asperse Mr. Stalker. I share the hon. Gentleman's view about Mr. Stalker's professional

  1287
  competence. However, I believe that the matter of the investigation into this action, which is sub judice, should be completed quickly.
  Mr. Mallon: I was saying that it is evident that it is now coming to the point where a man has been removed from his position without knowing why. He has been investigated by the man who has taken over the leadership of his inquiry in the north of Ireland. That is happening within a British society which claims to have total respect for that which is just and right.
  There is a grave suspicion in Northern Ireland that Mr. Stalker has opened a can of worms, that that can has spilt out in more places in Northern Ireland, and that that is part of the reason why a good, honest and just policeman has been made a sacrificial lamb in stakes which are much higher than his own position within the Greater Manchester police service.
  I have one simple question to ask which is the key to the issue. There are two elements to the report. The first is the substantive element which Mr. Stalker inquired into in relation to the whole ethic of policing, attitudes towards policing and the type of attitude we have seen within a special branch which was a force within a force. Does that report remain with the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Chief Constable and eventually with the Government, or does it die with Mr. Stalker? That investigation and report cannot be repeated by Mr. Sampson unless he is given at least two years.
  The other element of the report is that which deals with the incidents themselves. That can, and I hope will, be speedily investigated and concluded by Mr. Sampson. What about the substantive element of the report? Is that the kernel of the problem or will we see that report coming to the Government and to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief Constable of the north of Ireland for action? When we know the answer to that, we will know what is behind this problem.
  I shall finish on one point, which I raise only because' it was raised by the Secretary of State. We are entering into the marching season in Northern Ireland. It is causing and will cause enormous problems for all of us. It is incredible to realise that in 1986 we have over 2,000 such marches in a very small area of land with a very small population. The cost of the marches is incredible, not just financially but in time, inconvenience and loss of businesses. I know, because I live in a village which has a parade of some kind or another every Friday night, apart from those on Sunday. That lasts for seven months of the year.
  I listened with interest to the points made and put to the Secretary of State in relation to some other body making the decisions rather than the police. I suggest that it is crucial that the decision must rest with those who take the political decisions because it is only they who can decide whether millions of pounds of our money is spent on making that type of provision. It is only they who eventually will be able, if they have the courage, to say that this cannot continue, year in and year out, to the detriment of the police, business people and everyone trying to live a normal life, and, above all, to the detriment of the public purse. That is where the matter rests.
  One of the real challenges of administrative politics is having the courage to go in and make such a decision. No
  1288
  attempt should be made to shove that responsibility on to somebody else. It lies fairly and squarely on the Government Benches.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Every three weeks my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State comes to the House and answers questions on Northern Ireland and refers to the current security situation. He gives the good and the bad news. He reports on the number of people who, sadly, have been killed in incidents as a result of the security position in the Province. On 5 June 1986 he gave the good news that so far this year 264 people have been charged with serious offences, including one with murder, and 17 with attempted murder. In the same period, 96 weapons, 10,600 rounds of ammunition and 1,200 lb of explosives have been recovered.
  The reason why there is a success story comes straight out of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. Northern Ireland has been a country of conflict. There is no doubt that the RUC has a difficult task. Wherever its men go they are under constant threat. They are courageous. They have to adopt an impartial attitude to the way in which they are able to enforce the rule of law. Two per cent. of the RUC are members of the Roman Catholic faith. They have to deal with many difficulties. The attitudes which they have to take in fighting terrorism in every way possible should be supported in the House. It does not matter to me how a terrorist is caught as long as he is caught. I want the RUC to be given the best possible powers so that they can maintain a free society in Northern Ireland.
  Too many lives have been wasted already and too many lives have been lost. If section 11 gives the power of arrest without warrant of any person suspected of being a terrorist, so be it. That is taking the terrorist off the street. [Interruption.] Labour Members may object to the plain truth, but too many people are suffering in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and we should give it proper protection.
  There are 11,000 members of the RUC and 10,000 members of the Army in Northern Ireland and if we are to catch terrorists they must have every possible resource before them. This order is just one of the useful ways of fighting terrorism. It will not get just the members of the IRA. Indeed, it does not. It will get the paramilitary organisations and the other people who are undermining society over there.
  However, we must face the fact that the security forces in Northern Ireland are living dangerously. Fifty-four members of the security forces died in 1985 and 27 have died this year to date. The Democratic Unionist party has said that when the Northern Ireland Assembly goes it will bring politics on to the streets. It is distracting the RUC from trying to catch the terrorist.
  The prison officers bravely maintain law and order in the prisons in difficult circumstances, when members of the IRA are deliberately anti-establishment in the prisons. Twenty-four officers have lost their lives in the past 10 years. They need protection on their way home. I want to see more protection for our prison officers. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replies he will confirm that everything possible is being done to protect the prison officers, not just in the prisons but in their "safe" homes.

  1289
  The same must be said for all members of the RUC. It is a shocking indictment that a prison officer and a police officer can never be off duty; can never be completely safe. Their names and addresses are openly circulated and if the IRA has an opportunity to get them it will do so because they are seen as the establishment and the IRA will not stomach them.
  Therefore, the emergency provisions will help security, just as much as America, which is now responding on the extradition treaty and, indeed, seems to be calming down on the amount of money being sent through Noraid. I believe that our forces are still acting within the law. That is not a hope but a genuine belief. The courts have been very responsible. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, they have difficult duties and responsibilities to bear. When they sentence people — all right, they may have been charged following a supergrass trial—they are guilty. The more guilty people who are convicted and put into prison, the better. If it means that there is no time for jury trials, so be it. I have faith in the judicial system in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already admitted that he will improve safeguards for suspects.
  Much has been said about the Anglo-Irish agreement. It is common knowledge that I am not its greatest fan. But it is early days and we cannot yet tell how much improvement there has been in cross-border co-operation. However, it certainly seems better than before. The two police chiefs are now talking to each other, and security on the border is being regularly maintained. The House must always hack the security forces in fighting violence.
  The agreement has certainly meant close border cooperation. Much more must be done. We are lucky if an IRA attack is shown on national television. We have become rather complacent about the number of attacks and incidents in Northern Ireland. It is no longer news to see someone being bombed. That is no good. We as a people must fight the terrorists. with force if necessary. The Americans, who are still giving to Noraid, would be shocked if they knew how so many brave security officers had been murdered and attacked. If we could give full reports of those incidents and could describe exactly how someone had been murdered, the Americans would no longer believe that they were funding political folk heroes, and would realise that they were funding political cowards who do not believe in the democracy of Northern Ireland.
  This order is essential for the continued future and safety of the people of Northern Ireland. They want the order. It has been in existence for a long time. While waiting to be called, I have read the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 in its entirety. Many of its provisions, introduced, incidentally, under a Labour Government, have assured better security for the people of Northern Ireland.
  There is always controversy over religion, but talk of the heroes of the south of Ireland is not acceptable to the people of the north. The border must be maintained even more carefully. There must be regular patrols. We must publicise the outrageous acts of the IRA, and be even more prepared, now that Colonel Gaddafi, that madman and warmonger, has announced that he is to recommence donating substantial sums to the IRA, to put all members of the RUC on red alert. Colonel Gaddafi is talking about giving. £1·3 million to kill innocent people. That is state terrorism.
  .Mr. Bob Clay: What about the people killed in Libya by aeroplanes from British bases?
  Mr. Bruinvels: In the other place the Lord Chancellor said that state terrorism was a treasonable offence and that the death penalty was already available for it. If we had the death penalty for terrorism, the IRA would think again. If three or four terrorists lost their lives, they would not become the martyrs that they imagine. We must be tougher about protecting a very important part of our country. The order will ensure regular safety and protection under the law for the inhabitants of Northern Ireland. We owe that to them. Peace must be maintained. I am surprised that Opposition Members cannot support an order that will ensure peace and that will protect those who need our protection now.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. Martin Flannery: Mr. Speaker, can you tell me when the winding-up speeches are supposed to begin? I do not want to intrude on anyone's time. I have had to sit and listen to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) speaking for longer than either of the Front Bench spokesmen and the rest of us could not get in to speak. I will be as quick as I can and make a few points.
  We have heard miserable nonsense from Conservative speakers and nothing political emerged from the speeches. The Northern Ireland problem is political and it needs political answers. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds spoke at massive length but did not speak a single word of politics. I do not need to say anything about the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels).
  The debate is about the emergency provisions and the account by Sir George Baker. The National Council for Civil Liberties set out in its evidence to Sir George Baker — and this bears out the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—the reasons why the council came into being. Having been given so little time to speak, this will be my major point. The NCCL stated that it was Northern Ireland which brought it into being. The NCCL stated in its evidence to Sir George Baker:
  "In 1936, the NCCL established an independent Commission of Inquiry to take evidence in Northern Ireland and to examine the administration and constitutional validity of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Acts, the precursor of today's Emergency Provisions Act.
  It reported in 1936 and concluded that through the operation of the Special Powers Acts, 'contempt has been begotten for the representative institutions of government'; that 'abrogation of the rule of law has been so practised as to bring the freedom of the subject into contempt'; that the Acts had secured the domination of one political faction which by its actions had driven legitimate movements underground into illegality—thus driving its opponents into the ways of extremists; and lastly that the Acts had been used against innocent people whose injuries had gone unrecompensed and disregarded."
  That is the position with the Emergency Provisions Act. It is present because one faction, aided by the Labour party and the Tories, was allowed to develop until it festered and blew up in our faces. In the face of that, all we hear from the Conservatives is a miserable account of what is happening about security. We have not heard a single sentence about how to solve the problem. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench—and I am cutting my speech short to hear what he says—

  1291
  will, in all conscience, say something political. The people in Northern Ireland will continue to be slaughtered as long as the border exists, and as long as nothing is done to remove the border which is wrong and abnormal, and which is stealing territory from a sovereign nation which once again wants to be sovereign.
  9.43 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to wind up this debate on behalf of the Opposition and to follow the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). He is absolutely right to say that, in the context in which he made his short intervention, we are dealing with a curious situation in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is a democracy and we are part of a democracy. Northern Ireland has an international border and that border causes total instability and destabilises democracy in Northern Ireland and the democracy of these islands.
  I recently had the opportunity to write an article in which I stated that the difficulties and problems of Northern Ireland spoil the harmony of our own country. The problem that we have discussed at length earlier will continue to fester and cause us heartache. However, more than that, it will cause heartache and distress to those who live in Northern Ireland. The consequences of the instability can be seen every day of the week. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) made a long contribution — as he sat through the previous debate for most of the evening—and he referred to the difficulties faced by the police and the attacks made on members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
  I have before me a magazine called Focus, the magazine of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland. It states:
  "In March, 43 police officers had their homes attacked and 11 families have had to flee from certain areas. The attacks … have … been particularly brutal."
  I could go on at greater length, because there are quite a few of those attacks on members of the RUC in Northern Ireland. They have shocked the conscience of the British people as much as the IRA. I have always taken the view that the IRA cannot and will not bomb or terrorise the people of these islands into any sort of submission along the lines of IRA policy. That is inconceivable in the long run. It is similar to the remark that I believe Winston Churchill made in 1943 about Germany and Hitler:
  "What kind of people do they think we are?"
  What sort of people does the IRA think we are? The paramilitary — those who have perpetrated such violence on members of the Protestant community — equally reveal the deep wells of hatred and cynicism on both sides of the sectarian divide, adding to the destablising situation.
  We in the Labour party make no bones about our position. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds spoke in fear of our next election manifesto, and thought that we might have a policy that gave dates for withdrawal from Northern Ireland or some such aspect. I only repeat the remarks made by the Secretary of State earlier. He said that he could not anticipate the legislation to be announced in the Queen's Speech. I cannot anticipate our legislation, and what will be in our manifesto. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our policy is that we believe in a united Ireland. We believe that we should work for that united Ireland. We believe that, in the long run,
  1292
  Ireland will be united in peace and through the consent of the people of the north. That is our objective, and that is our policy.
  With regard to the renewal of the emergency provisions, it is a matter of deep regret that they are before us at all. One has to understand the deep anxiety that we feel on issues such as the Diplock courts. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds made an interesting and intriguing point. Will extradition take place from the United States to a country where a judge takes the role of 13 people? He takes the role of the 12 members of the jury and that of the judge. He is not only the arbiter of the law but the arbiter of the facts. In all the cases that I have taken before our criminal courts, the judge always addresses the jury and tells them that the question of fact is a matter for the jury. I respect the judiciary, and I associate myself and my colleagues with the remarks of the Secretary of State about the judiciary in Northern Ireland and the Lord Chief Justice, but it is too great a burden on a single individual for him to have to disseminate the facts as well as the law.
  We are most concerned, and have been for many years, about the supergrasses. There was an interesting review of the entire supergrass system in the Law Quarterly Review, in an article by Steve Greer, a lecturer in law at the university of Sussex. He makes several cogent and important points about supergrasses, and about how we in England and Wales have handled the trials of those who have given evidence against their former accomplices. He shows the great discrepancy that is developing between the law of our own country and the law in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it makes us all extremely nervous to be confronted with section 7 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and to have to vote for it.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said, we repeat our support for the security forces, and for all those who fight terrorism. We are as happy as anyone in this country at the finding of guilty in the Old Bailey trial of the Brighton bomber and his cohorts, and the case of the Droppin' Well incident, when there were pleas of guilty. We support all those actions of the security forces.
  We are nervous, and we have consistently pressed the Government to implement the recommendations of the Baker report. I note that the Secretary of State is present for the reply to this debate and we congratulate him on the positive approach he has taken with regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the Baker report. Former Secretaries of State have told us that they proposed to carry forward these recommendations, but tonight we have had an assurance that these recommendations will be brought in within the lifetime of the present Parliament. I do not know whether that gives us a hint as to when the next general election will be, but the promise is welcome.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West has said, we have waited three years and we have still not got those recommendations on the statute book. Therefore, in the interest of our constitutional duties as well as in the interest of the fine balance between the civil rights of an individual and the courts and the powers of the police in our country, we have no alternative—I say this with the utmost sincerity and firmness—but to divide the House.
  9.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I apologise in advance that I will be unable to address myself to a number of the detailed points that have been raised in the course of the debate because I have had to truncate my remarks. I recognise that a number of Members have raised questions concerning the Stalker report and I shall address that matter immediately.
  I wish to make it absolutely clear that neither my right hon. Friend nor myself have seen the report submitted to the Chief Constable by Mr. Stalker. On 13 June my right hon. Friend told the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) that he understood this to be an interim report. At one point, however, there was a misunderstanding, wherein my right hon. Friend and myself believed it to be a final report on which certain supplementary questions had been asked. In fact, this was an interim report and I regret if anybody has been misled as a result of our misunderstanding.
  The task, upon which Mr. Stalker had embarked and had largely completed, will now be carried to its conclusion by the same inquiry team consisting of the same officers but now under the leadership of Mr. Colin Sampson, the chief constable of West Yorkshire. As I have not seen the report, I cannot comment further on the suggestions that have been made in the course of this debate. I certainly agree with those right hon and hon. Members who urge that the report should be carried through to a conclusion as quickly as possible. We are anxious to see that that happens.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). who opened this debate, sought to explain the position of the Labour party in relation to the renewal of these provisions. I would not suggest for one moment that the Labour party is not aware of, and does not sympathise with, the problems that are faced by the security forces in Northern Ireland. I do not question its total opposition to terrorism in the Province, but I question its judgment in deciding to vote against this order tonight. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) that it would be a gross dereliction of duty if this House did not pass this order to renew these provisions which are absolutely essential to the continued battle against terrorism in Northern Ireland.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West implied that, in some way, we now accept these provisions as an entrenched feature of life in Northern Ireland and that they are easily passed by this House. We continue to renew the provisions every six months, to go through them with some care and to answer the points made about them. Equally. we have had frequent and totally independent reviews conducted into the nature of this legislation, most recently by the late Sir George Baker who concluded, among other things, that we could not do without legislation broadly along the lines that at present exists. Nobody takes this for granted and we want, as my right hon. Friend said in opening this debate, the minimum movement away from normality in Northern Ireland necessary to cope with the situation that confronts society, and especially the security forces in the Province.
  I cannot comment on the particular case about Miss Walsh which the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised. It predates even my time in Northern Ireland, and I do not quibble. However, the armed forces are empowered to
  1294
  arrest under section 14 and the police under section 11 of the legislation. Therefore, if the armed forces arrested Miss Walsh, they would have done so under section 14. Regarding armed forces' arrests and police arrests, we intend to introduce in an amendment the test of reasonable suspicion. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will regard that as a move in the right direction. The power of detention is included in section 12, and, although we have no intention of reactivating or reusing that power, the Government judge that it would be premature to remove it from the statute book now.
  I must challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman about his allegation of falling standards of justice in Northern Ireland. I do not believe it is possible to follow the road he suggests of ruling out in all circumstances uncorroborated evidence, even where it is given by a former accomplice. However, one can expect the courts to treat any such evidence with the utmost rigour, and in Northern Ireland they do just that.
  When the Director of Public Prosecutions decides whether to prosecute, he must make his decision on the basis that if there were a jury a conviction would be likely beyond reasonable doubt. That is the only standard applied by the courts in Northern Ireland. The judges must warn themselves about the danger of accepting such evidence, and if there is a conviction, unlike the position in Great Britain, anyone convicted in a court of first instance or in the High Court of Northern Ireland has an automatic appeal to a three-judge court. The DPP and the judges in the courts in Northern Ireland have, with the utmost integrity, sought in the most difficult circumstances to uphold standards of British justice.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds delivered a message to absent Unionist Members of this House with force and vigour, and I hope that they have ears to hear that message. He paid a proper tribute to the police forces of Britain, Ireland and the continent and to the law enforcement agencies in the United States. There is a new mood of co-operation about in the international battle against terrorism. I do not claim that we have beaten terrorism either internationally or within the island of Ireland. The IRA, in particular, and other terrorist organisations retain their ability to murder and maim, but there is a new momentum, not least within the island of Ireland, where it can be attributed to the Anglo-Irish agreement and the impetus that that has given to cross-border security co-operation.
  My hon. Friend asked about defendants who might seek to avoid extradition from the United States, even after the passage of the supplementary treaty by the whole of the Senate. He said that they could claim that they had not or would not receive a fair trial in Northern Ireland. I would not expect that to happen. When the United States federal judge Sprizzo upheld Joseph Doherty's appeal against extradition in 1984, he also made absolutely clear his opinion that Doherty had received a fair trial in Belfast in 1981. He specifically rejected the contention that the Northern Ireland system of justice, including Diplock courts, was unfair. We expect. United States courts to continue to get that right. I t was a most important judgment, of which I hope that other courts in the United States will take note.
  In cases where these matters are in dispute, we certainly make available witnesses to go to courts in foreign

  1295
  jurisdictions to give evidence about the nature of the judicial and prison systems in Northern Ireland and any other factors that may be taken into account by the courts.
  My hon. Friend went on to pay particular tribute to the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) who also mentioned, rightly, the pressures that prison officers are under at present in Northern Ireland, and paid tribute to those prison officers. I endorse both tributes. By financial and other forms of support, the Government have shown their support for the work that has been done by the RUC. Expenditure on the police service has increased fivefold in the last 10 years and there have been two increases in the authorised establishment in the last five years. In terms of the total hours worked in Northern Ireland, we have now the highest level of police effort since the time of the hunger strike in 1981. That shows the Government's commitment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
  Other points have been raised in the debate. I shall write to hon. Members to clear up any outstanding matters. I commend the order to the House.
  Question put
  The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 57.

  Division No. 228]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Galley, Roy

  Ancram, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Ashby, David

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Gow, Ian

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Gregory, Conal

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gummer, Rt Hon John S

  Benyon, William

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Best, Keith

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Harris, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Harvey, Robert

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hawksley, Warren

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hayes, J.

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Hayward, Robert

  Bright, Graham

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Brinton, Tim

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hind, Kenneth

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hirst, Michael

  Budgen, Nick

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Burt, Alistair

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (Wton S)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cash, William

  Jessel, Toby

  Chope, Christopher

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

  Key, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Coombs, Simon

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Cope, John

  Knowles, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Lang, Ian

  Crouch, David

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dover, Den

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Dunn, Robert

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Durant, Tony

  Lightbown, David

  Evennett, David

  Lilley, Peter

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Livsey, Richard

  Favell, Anthony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lord, Michael

  Franks, Cecil

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Freeman, Roger

  Lyell, Nicholas

  1296

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Powley, John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Raffan, Keith

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Rhodes James, Robert

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Major, John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Malins, Humfrey

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Malone, Gerald

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Maples, John

  Rowe, Andrew

  Marlow, Antony

  Scott, Nicholas

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Sumberg, David

  Merchant, Piers

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thurnham, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Watson, John

  Murphy, Christopher

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wheeler, John

  Newton, Tony

  Wolfson, Mark

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wood, Timothy

  Norris, Steven

  Yeo, Tim

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Portillo, Michael

  Mr. Tim Sainsbury and

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E.

  Mr. Michael Neubert.

  Powell, William (Corby)

  NOES

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Hume, John

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Barron, Kevin

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Bell, Stuart

  Madden, Max

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Mallon, Seamus

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

  Michie, William

  Caborn, Richard

  Nellist, David

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Pike, Peter

  Clay, Robert

  Raynsford, Nick

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Redmond, Martin

  Cohen, Harry

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

  Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

  Deakins, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dobson, Frank

  Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

  Dormand, Jack

  Snape, Peter

  Dubs, Alfred

  Soley, Clive

  Fatchett, Derek

  Straw, Jack

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Wareing, Robert

  Fisher, Mark

  Welsh, Michael

  Flannery, Martin

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Winnick, David

  Foster, Derek

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Tellers for the Noes:

  George, Bruce

  Mr.Norman Hogg and Sir

  Haynes, Frank

  Ray Gower.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (INSIDER DEALING)
  Resolved,
  That the draft Company Securities (Insider Dealing) (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 1st May be approved.—[Dr. Boyson.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND (COMPANIES)
  Resolved,
  That the draft Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 1st May be approved. —[Dr. Boyson.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND (BUSINESS NAMES)
  Resolved,
  That the draft Business Names (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 1st May be approved.— [Dr. Boyson.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND (COMPANIES CONSOLIDATION)
  Resolved,
  That the draft Companies Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 1st May be approved. — [Dr. Boyson.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

  BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES
  That the draft Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 21st May, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  Question agreed to.

  Council House Sales (Valuation)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd]
  10.12 pm
  Mr. Ian Gow: Sometimes an hon. Member is able to bring to the attention of the House a particular case which reveals a failing in legislation, and where the Minister, by adminstrative action, can remedy an injustice not just for the citizen who has sought help from his Member of Parliament but for thousands of others as well. The House is considering such a case this evening.
  My hon. Friend the Minister, to whom I owe a great deal, will be able, by administrative action, to help not only my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Lee, who have journeyed to Westminster for the debate, but many others in a similar situation. Mr. and Mrs. Lee live at 23 Colwood crescent, Eastbourne. Mr. Lee is a skilled mechanic, working six days a week. His wife looks after their four year old son Daniel. They are a super family. Their house at 23 Colwood crescent is owned by the Eastbourne borough council. Last year, Mr. and Mrs. Lee sought to exercise the right conferred on them by Parliament to buy their own home. On 2 August 1985, the borough secretary wrote to my constituents placing an open market value of £17,500 on the house, from which Mr. and Mrs. Lee were entitled to deduct 39 per cent. because of their nine years' tenancy. Quite properly the borough secretary said in his letter:
  "As mentioned in my previous letter, the above property is a prefabricated reinforced concrete house of the 'Parkinson' type. I must point out that should you decide to proceed with the purchase of the property, you will not he entitled to assistance from the Housing Defects Act 1984."
  When Mr. and Mrs. Lee received that letter they consulted their Member of Parliament about the value of £17,500 which had been placed on their defective house. On 9 August that Member of Parliament wrote to the borough secretary in the following terms:
  "Is it really the view of your Council that, if it was to place this house on the market, the price which it would realise (freehold and with vacant possession) is £17,500? Have you asked Estate Agents for their advice as to the price which they think that they would be able to obtain for your Council, at the present time, if it was minded to sell the house with vacant possession?"
  The borough secretary replied on 19 August as follows:
  "It is correct that the Council considers the value of the property to be £17,500. I have not sought any advice from Estate Agents on this matter. If Mr. and Mrs. Lee consider that the valuation is incorrect, perhaps you would remind them of their rights under Section 11 which I did point out to them in my letter of 2nd August."
  Mr. and Mrs. Lee did indeed exercise their right of appeal to the district valuer. On 28 February 1986 he issued his determination, from which I quote:
  "The property was inspected on 16 January 1986 and is a semi-detached, 3 bedroom house of prefabricated reinforced concrete construction with a tiled roof and was built in the 1920s. … Representations either verbal and/or written from the landlord and the tenant have been considered together with all relevant valuations and available market evidence. Accordingly I determine the market value in accordance with the Act as at 10 April 1985 at £16,250. … No structural survey has been made".
  So the district valuer decided not to make a structural survey even though he knew that this was a prefabricated reinforced concrete house of the Parkinson type.
  1300
  Mr. Lee came to my surgery on 5 April and handed to me the district valuer's determination dated 28 February. Three days later, on 8 April, I wrote to the district valuer as follows:
  "My constituent Mr. Glen Lee … came to see me on Saturday morning. He handed to me your letter to him dated 28th February 1986, and I have before me a copy of your Determination of the same date. In the sixth paragraph of your Determination you say that you have considered 'all relevant valuations and available market evidence'. So that I may advise my Constituent, could you please make available to me those 'relevant valuations and available market evidence' which you considered? Why did you make no structural survey of this property? Surely, when you know that this is a Parkinson type house, there is a overwhelming case for a structural survey to be carried out?"
  The district valuer replied to my letter of 17 April:
  "I am looking into the questions you have raised and will write again as soon as possible."
  On 21 April the chief valuer's office wrote to me as follows:
  "It would not be appropriate for him"—
  that is the district valuer—
  "to give you the information which you now request. The DV has made his statutory determination using his professional knowledge and taking into account all relevant matters of which he was aware. … I regret that I consider further discussion of any individual cases subsequent to a determination would serve no useful purpose."
  I was dissatisfied with that reply from the assistant chief valuer. Three days later, on 24 April, I wrote to the chairman of the board of Inland Revenue, Sir Lawrence Airey, in the following terms:
  "In my opinion, the two specific questions which I asked … of my letter dated 8th April were reasonable questions to be put by a Member of Parliament, who has been consulted by one of his Constituents. May I ask, please, that you should re-consider the Assistant Chief Valuer's decision not to answer those two questions?"
  Meanwhile on 29 April, the private secretary to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction had written to me about a possible approved method of repair for the Parkinson type of house. The private secretary said:
  "The NHBC
  the National House-Building Council—
  tells us that two firms are now preparing schemes for the repair of Parkinson houses but that none has yet been submitted for appraisal. We have approached both of those firms … direct. Both are engaged in other, commercially more attractive, repair schemes and although they are proceeding with the development of schemes for Parkinson houses, they doubt that these will he submitted for approval until the summer. This means that they could not be approved, if that was indeed the outcome, before the autumn."
  I sent a copy of that letter dated 29 April to the district valuer on the following day. I asked him to confirm that when he placed a value of £16,250 on the property he had taken proper account of the information contained in the private secretary's letter. That is relevant, because the building societies are extremely reluctant, and in many cases refuse, to lend on the security of an unrepaired, prefabricated reinforced concrete house. That reluctance or even refusal of building societies is even greater where there is no approved method of repair. I have not received a reply to my letter dated 30 April 1986 to the district valuer, although, in fairness to him, I should say that he has written that he hopes to be able to reply shortly. The answer is simple, had he taken into account that fact of which I believe he was unaware when he made the

  1301
  valuation—namely, that there is no approved method of repair and there will not be one until the autumn of this year.
  Another option was open to my constituents. If they were dissatisfied, as they were, and in my view rightly, with the valuation which had been placed on the house originally by the borough council and then the reduced value of £16,250 by the district valuer, it would have been possible for them to have achieved their ambition and hope of becoming owners rather than tenants if the borough council had been willing to move them and their son, Daniel, to another council property and to move into 23 Colwood crescent a family that did not want to exercise the right to buy.
  I wrote to the chairman of the housing committee of the Eastbourne borough council on 8 May in the following terms:
  "The District Valuer has now re-determined the value of the property at £16,250. Mr. and Mrs. Lee and their Member of Parliament believe that that figure of £16,250 is still much too high; that is to say that if your council was to offer the property for sale with vacant possession, we do not believe that it could find a purchaser who would pay £16,250 for the property. As you know, Building Societies are most reluctant to lend, if they will lend at all, on the security of an unrepaired prefabricated reinforced concrete house …
  However, the purpose of this letter is to ask whether your Council will please re-consider its decision not to offer a transfer for Mr. and Mrs. Lee. Many of your tenants do not wish to buy their home, or cannot afford to buy their home. Because of the problems, which are self-evident, in Mr. and Mrs. Lee buying their present home, would it not be reasonable for a tenant who did not wish to buy or who could not afford to buy to live at 23 Colwood Crescent, and for Mr. and Mrs. Lee and their son to move into another of your properties, not made of pre-fabricated reinforced concrete?"
  On 14 May I received an acknowledgement from the chairman of the housing committee saying that the request which I had made for a transfer would be considered at the meeting of the housing committee on 28 May. To my regret, the chairman has not replied to me, even though the housing committee met as long ago as 28 May.
  On 20 May I received a letter from the deputy chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue:
  "The District Valuer, who does not act for either party, is required to give his valuation of the price which the property would realise at the relevant time if sold on the open market … the District Valuer is put in the position of an independent expert here. The legislation makes no provision for appeal, nor is the District Valuer required to render an account of how his professional judgment was informed and exercised … There is no invariable rule on the necessity for structural surveys in the valuation process."
  Those are the facts of this case. All that Mr. and Mrs. Lee ask is that they should be enabled to exercise that right to buy which the House has conferred upon them. They have the misfortune—not from their choice, but because of the accident of events—to live in a prefabricated reinforced concrete house owned by Eastbourne borough council. They have a choice—either they can buy their present house at the value determined properly under what is now section 127 of the Housing Act 1985—
  "The value of a dwelling-house at the relevant time shall be taken to be the price which at that time it would realise if sold on the open market by a willing vendor"
  or the council could, and I believe should, accede to Mr. and Mrs. Lee's request for a transfer to a house of conventional construction.
  As to the second option of a transfer, I readily concede that that does not fall within the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State or of any of his
  1302
  ministerial colleagues. That is a matter for the borough council. But it is within my hon. Friend's responsibility to deal with this question of a valuation. I believe that in a case of this kind, when it is known that the property is defective and is of a Parkinson type—a type designated under the Housing Defects Act 1984—it is surely right that there should be a structural survey.
  Reflect on this: it would be inconceivable for someone buying that house on the open market, knowing of its defects, to proceed without a survey. If that is the standard on which anyone buying in the private sector would insist, there should be no lower standard where the public sector is involved.
  I believe that the district valuer should be willing to disclose in cases of this kind the evidence on which he has based his valuation—in this case £16,250. There is no need to give names or addresses. My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Lee, could have been satisfied, although I think it most unlikely, if the full evidence on which the district valuer had based his valuation had been made known to them and to their Member of Parliament. It is not truth that shrinks from disclosure, it is only the possibility of a valuation which could not be sustained by the facts and the true evidence which shrinks from disclosure.
  The deputy chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue was right when he said that under what is now the Housing Act 1985 there is no provision for appeal against the determination by the district valuer. That is so. However, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that it is always possible to seek a judicial review of conduct of this kind by a district valuer.
  The action which I hope that my hon. Friend will take is, as I said, administrative. It does not require legislation In a case like this the Inland Revenue should ask district valuers to make a structural survey. The Inland Revenue should make available the evidence on which it bases the valuation which is fixed by the district valuer. It is all the more important that that evidence should be made available at the request of the prospective purchaser where there is no right of appeal against the decision of the district valuer.
  It may mean that when the story of these times comes to be written the case of the Lee family will not receive even a footnote in the history books. However, their case is one which deserves the sympathetic consideration of the Government. The case of Mr. and Mrs. Lee is reproduced over and over again in other constituencies, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to gibe me the assurances for which I ask. I remind my hon. Friend that there remains one last protection for a citizen who has been treated unfairly and that is to petition the courts for a judicial review of an administrative decision of this kind.
  10.32 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I begin by saying how fortunate Mr. and Mrs. Lee are to have such a diligent Member to champion their case in the House. No one who listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) said could fail to be moved by the story of Mr. and Mrs. Lee, who are simply trying to exercise a right given to them by Parliament and purchase a house at a price that they feel to be fair.
  Some of the questions put to me by my hon. Friend fall outside my ministerial responsibility. As he will know better than me, part of the responsibilities he referred to

  1303
  relate to the Treasury. The particular points he put to me, that it should be mandatory to make a structural survey and that evidence should be disclosed by the district valuers, are matters which fall to my colleagues at the Treasury to whose attention I shall bring those observations.
  My hon. Friend's contributions on the subject of the right to buy are always particularly welcome in view of his knowledge and experience as a former Minister for Housing and Construction. Indeed, he is the architect of the Housing and Building Control Act 1984, which made important improvements in the right-to-buy scheme.
  I know, from the work I have done with my hon. Friend, how concerned he has always been to ensure that right-to-buy valuations should be fair. I hope to refer to some of the steps that he took as Minister for Housing and Construction to test their accuracy.
  There has been a debate on this matter in the context of the Housing and Planning Bill, which provides for an increase in the discount on a flat sold under the right to buy. The case which my hon. Friend has raised, that of Mr. Glen Lee, concerns a house rather than a flat, a house built of prefabricated reinforced concrete — PRC for short. But the same issue arises — how to establish a fair valuation for a type of property that rarely changes hands on the open market.
  My hon. Friend asked some specific questions about the valuations and about making evidence available. In view of his interest, and because I knew that he was going to ask the specific point, I have made some inquiries. I think that my hon. Friend understands that I am not able to reveal the prices at which other Parkinson houses in the area have changed hands because that would be a breach of confidence.
  However, I understand that other sales have taken place at prices higher than the value that the district valuer has determined for Mr. Lee's house. That is not conclusive evidence in itself. We do not know how far those prices took account of the nature of the properties, but they do provide a useful input for the district valuer's valuation. Those facts were taken into account, together with other information about the local property market.
  Listening to my hon. Friend's speech, it was not quite clear whether he had in his possession a letter to him dated 18 June from the district valuer/valuation officer, dealing with some of the points that he had put in his earlier letter. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has that letter which begins:
  "I hope this reply will reach you in time for Thursday's debate."
  Mr. Gow: No.
  Sir George Young: It is a misfortune of the post that the copy has reached me but the original has not reached my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Gow: What date is it?
  Sir George Young: It is dated 18 June and is marked "FIRST CLASS POST".
  That letter answers the specific questions that my hon. Friend has put. He asked about the repair schemes for Parkinson houses and that is referred to at the end of the letter where it says:
  "As to the matter of repair schemes for Parkinson houses, naturally the property Press is looked at constantly to
  1304
  monitor progress on all PRC houses and although I am aware that steps have started to prepare schemes for Parkinson houses, my determination is related to 10 April 1985 which was before applications were invited for approval."
  The letter also deals with other points. I hope that my hon. Friend will receive it in his post tomorrow morning.
  In the correspondence my hon. Friend asked what evidence had been taken into account in this determination. The second point that he put to me was why no structural survey had been carried out. I think that my hon. Friend has seen the response given in the correspondence. I am advised that structural surveys of non-traditional houses are of little practical value unless
  "destructive survey techniques are used."
  Those involve the removal of linings and renderings which could cause considerable damage to the property and so might not be acceptable to the prospective purchaser.
  But the district valuer had taken into account the report of, at the time, a recent survey of the property which had been carried out by the local authority's structural engineer. The district valuer also considered a report produced by the Building Research Establishment on the structural condition of Parkinson-framed houses.
  It seems to me, listening to the debate, that the most fruitful course, given that there is no appeal against the district valuer's valuation, is to pursue the question of a transfer. As my hon. Friend said, it is not a matter within my power to compel Eastbourne borough council to offer a transfer to Mr. and Mrs. Lee and I was distressed to learn that my hon. Friend had not had the courtesy of a reply from the chairman of the housing committee. But if the debate has served any useful purpose, it might increase the pressure on the borough council to offer a suitable property, I hope not of PRC construction, to Mr. and Mrs. Lee. The discount is, of course, transferable should they move to another local authority home. That would be an honourable way out.
  An alternative approach is for Mr. and Mrs. Lee not to complete the purchase—they are under no obligation to do so—and if they feel, as my hon. Friend does, that the valuation is unrealistic, and that subsequent events will prove that to be the case, they can reapply at a later date and have another valuation put on the property. They will be entitled to a higher discount as the years roll by. The points concerning the Treasury will be referred to my hon. Friend the Minister, and I know that he will want to write and deal with the specific comments made.
  One cannot be complacent about the valuation of property sold under the right to buy. My hon. Friend outlined a real difficulty when the district valuer is required to determine the value of a property that is of a kind that does not change hands often. In such a case, the valuer must make the best use he can of such market evidence as is available. The Government do not think it appropriate to set up a special system of forced sales, which my hon. Friend put forward as one solution to deal with the question of the valuation of flats, particularly in high-rise blocks. There would also be difficulties in arranging for a test sale of a comparable property whenever there is difficulty in valuing a PRC house such as Mr. Lee's.
  But we are monitoring re-sales of former council properties in selected areas in order to look for signs that the original valuations were excessive, and will certainly look very carefully at any evidence that there is a significant problem. As my hon. Friend will know from the

  1305
  exercise that he initiated in the London boroughs of Wandsworth and Ealing, the initial valuations by the district valuer were proved to be roughly in line with market valuations when other flats in the same block were put on the market. I realise that my remarks will not be of any great consolation to Mr. and Mrs. Lee, and that is as much a matter of sorrow for me as for my hon. Friend.
  1306
  But if the possibility of a transfer can now be vigorously pursued with Eastbourne borough council, my hon. Friend's initiative may not have been in vain.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Pensions (Payment)
  Pensions (Payment)
  Crown Agents
  Crown Agents
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Mr. Derry Mainwaring Knight (Trial Costs)
  Mr. Derry Mainwaring Knight (Trial Costs)
  Legal Services (Royal Commissions)
  Legal Services (Royal Commissions)
  Attachment Orders (Leicester)
  Attachment Orders (Leicester)
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  Teachers of the Deaf
  Teachers of the Deaf
  Secondary Schools
  Secondary Schools
  Vocational Qualifications
  Vocational Qualifications
  University of London
  University of London
  Sixth Form Colleges
  Sixth Form Colleges
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Local Office Staffs
  Local Office Staffs
  Legionella
  Legionella
  Cancer (West Cumbria)
  Cancer (West Cumbria)
  National Childbirth Trust
  National Childbirth Trust
  Social Security Reform
  Social Security Reform
  Benefit Fraud
  Benefit Fraud
  District Health Authorities (Rates)
  District Health Authorities (Rates)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Junior Hospital Doctors
  Junior Hospital Doctors
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
THE ARTS
  Visiting Arts
  Visiting Arts
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Colliery Waste
  Colliery Waste
  Fishing Vessels
  Fishing Vessels
  Animal Welfare
  Animal Welfare
  Cheese
  Cheese
  Annimal Feed Processing Units
  Annimal Feed Processing Units
  Cereals (Co-responsibility Levy)
  Cereals (Co-responsibility Levy)
  Rice
  Rice
SCOTLAND
  Job Creation, Renfrew
  Job Creation, Renfrew
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
  Power Generation
  Power Generation
  Hunterston (Fire)
  Hunterston (Fire)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Semi-natural Woodlands
  Semi-natural Woodlands
  Labour Statistics (Stirling)
  Labour Statistics (Stirling)
EMPLOYMENT
  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Job Creation (Portsmouth)
  Job Creation (Portsmouth)
  Clean-up Campaign
  Clean-up Campaign
  Unemployed Persons (Newspaper)
  Unemployed Persons (Newspaper)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Tourism
  Tourism
  New Businesses (Survival Rates)
  New Businesses (Survival Rates)
  Co-operatives
  Co-operatives
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Greece
  Greece
ENERGY
  Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive
  Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Reactors
  International Strategic Alliances
  International Strategic Alliances
  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Republic of Ireland (Prime Minister)
  Republic of Ireland (Prime Minister)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Electricity Service (Site Sale)
  Electricity Service (Site Sale)
  20 Main Street, Milliste, Co. Down
  20 Main Street, Milliste, Co. Down
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Conversion Grants
  Conversion Grants
  Lough Neagh
  Lough Neagh
  Grammar Schools
  Grammar Schools
  Dublin (Ministerial Visit)
  Dublin (Ministerial Visit)
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Palace of Westminster (Tours)
  Palace of Westminster (Tours)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Film Releasing (Experiment)
  Film Releasing (Experiment)
  Post Office
  Post Office
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Patent Office
  Patent Office
  British Steel Corporation (Cleveland)
  British Steel Corporation (Cleveland)
  Steel Workers (Schemes)
  Steel Workers (Schemes)
  British Shipbuilders (Cleveland)
  British Shipbuilders (Cleveland)
  Al Fayed Investment and Trust (UK) plc and House of Fraser plc
  Al Fayed Investment and Trust (UK) plc and House of Fraser plc
  Departmental Advisory Services
  Departmental Advisory Services
PRIME MINISTER
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  North Yorkshire
  North Yorkshire
  F111 Aircraft
  F111 Aircraft
  Kenilworth
  Kenilworth
  Hippy Convoy (Hampshire)
  Hippy Convoy (Hampshire)
  Offshore Oil-related Industry
  Offshore Oil-related Industry
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  La Belle Discotheque, Berlin (Bombing)
  La Belle Discotheque, Berlin (Bombing)
  Minister for Information Technology (Speech)
  Minister for Information Technology (Speech)
WALES
  Trawsfynydd (Radiation Levels)
  Trawsfynydd (Radiation Levels)
  Hospitals (Performance Monitoring)
  Hospitals (Performance Monitoring)
  NHS (Private Practice)
  NHS (Private Practice)
  School Leavers (Unemployment Benefit)
  School Leavers (Unemployment Benefit)
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
  Health Authorities (Staff)
  Health Authorities (Staff)
  Gynaecological Treatment
  Gynaecological Treatment
  Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Housing
  Housing
  Unfit Houses
  Unfit Houses
  Cardiff Harbour Mouth Barrage
  Cardiff Harbour Mouth Barrage
DEFENCE
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  RAF Exercise (Carnoch Glen)
  RAF Exercise (Carnoch Glen)
  Service Personnel (School Visit)
  Service Personnel (School Visit)
  Trident
  Trident
  Lucas Aerospace
  Lucas Aerospace
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
  Weapons Systems
  Weapons Systems
  SP70 Howitzer
  SP70 Howitzer
  LAW 80 Anti-tank System
  LAW 80 Anti-tank System
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Job Creation (Public Expenditure and Taxation)
  Job Creation (Public Expenditure and Taxation)
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Personal Equity Plans
  Personal Equity Plans
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Job Creation (Public Expenditure)
  Job Creation (Public Expenditure)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Business Expansion Scheme
  Business Expansion Scheme
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  TUC (Economic Activity)
  TUC (Economic Activity)
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Married Man's Allowance
  Married Man's Allowance
  Taxation and Unemployment
  Taxation and Unemployment
  Charities
  Charities
  Pound Sterling
  Pound Sterling
  CBI (Public Expenditure)
  CBI (Public Expenditure)
  Economic Growth
  Economic Growth
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  VAT (Safety Clothing and Footwear)
  VAT (Safety Clothing and Footwear)
  Taxation and National Insurance
  Taxation and National Insurance
  Taxpayers (Social Security Benefit)
  Taxpayers (Social Security Benefit)
  North Sea (Fiscal Regime)
  North Sea (Fiscal Regime)
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Tax Evasion
  Tax Evasion
  Health Education and Housing
  Health Education and Housing
  EEC (Freedom of Movement)
  EEC (Freedom of Movement)
  Tax Units
  Tax Units
ENVIRONMENT
  Dog Licences
  Dog Licences
  Listed Buildings (Demolition)
  Listed Buildings (Demolition)
  West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council
  West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Drinking Water
  Drinking Water
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Consultative Council on Local Government Finance
  Consultative Council on Local Government Finance
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain
  Privately Rented Housing
  Privately Rented Housing
  Conservation (Management Agreements)
  Conservation (Management Agreements)
  Co-operatives
  Co-operatives
  Regional Planning
  Regional Planning
  Widdicombe Report
  Widdicombe Report
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Nationality
  Nationality
  Mr. Gerry Gable
  Mr. Gerry Gable
  Chernobyl
  Chernobyl
  Natural Disasters
  Natural Disasters
  Arrests
  Arrests
  Police Manpower
  Police Manpower
  Data Protection
  Data Protection
  Dr. Frank Skuse
  Dr. Frank Skuse
  Drink-Driving
  Drink-Driving
  Mr. Werner Bruckhausen
  Mr. Werner Bruckhausen
  Member's Correspondence
  Member's Correspondence
  Anwara Begum
  Anwara Begum
  Mr. Mohammed Aslam
  Mr. Mohammed Aslam
  Hippy Convoy
  Hippy Convoy
  Drug Offences
  Drug Offences
TRANSPORT
  Leadenham Bypass
  Leadenham Bypass
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Truro): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

School Libraries
Baroness Stedman: 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 what steps they are taking to improve library services in schools in the light of the report School libraries: the foundations of the curriculum, published by the Office of Arts and Libraries in 1984 and subsequent reports by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the White Paper Better Schools (Cmnd. 9469) makes clear the Government's view that the function and use of school libraries should form part of the curricular policy of every local education authority and school. Schools are better placed to extend the range and depth of their pupils' learning when library services are included in their curricular policies. The Government recognise the importance of school libraries and look to local education authorities and schools to explore ways in which the resources available can be most effectively deployed.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that most encouraging reply and for accepting that libraries have a part to play in the curricula of schools. However, will he be able to ensure that the role of school libraries in the curriculum is promoted in the schemes of in-service training which are presently being undertaken through specific grants? Will he or his department urge local education authorities to use the falling rolls in schools to make sure that libraries are completely available for general use and do not, as in many cases, just remain part of a classroom used for teaching? Will they also encourage local education authorities to appoint more chartered librarians on to their school staff?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked a number of supplementary questions. We certainly give all the encouragement that we can. The new arrangements are designed to promote more systematic planning and delivery of in-service training, and that should help to ensure a more thoroughgoing consideration of in-service training needs in all areas, including school librarianship.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that over the past few years few schools have been able to extend their libraries due to the cuts in capitation allowances, and in the main libraries have been extended only through the contributions of parents?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, much is made of cuts in education, but the resources which taxpayers and ratepayers put into education have increased under the Government and record amounts are now being spent on the education of the nation's children. It is 18 per cent. more per pupil in real terms than in 1979. In regard to spending on books, since 1979 spending per primary pupil on books has increased by 2 per cent. in real terms, as measured by the GDP deflator, while that on secondary pupils has fallen by 15 per cent. However, spending per pupil on books and equipment has increased over the period in both sectors—by 8 per cent. per primary pupil and 5 per cent. per secondary pupil in real terms.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he is speaking about books in general and text books in particular but not library books, and there is a difference?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think I would agree with the noble Lord that there is a difference. Library books tend to be more expensive because they tend to be rather more posh. That is one of the facts of life.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in his reply to the original Question the Minister referred only to the responsibilities of local education authorities and schools. Is he not aware that the Broome Committee on school libraries made specific recommendations to the Department of Education and Science that there should be a statutory requirement on schools to have adequate libraries; that the Department of Education and Science should undertake a specific training initiative for school librarians and the appointment of chartered librarians in schools; and that there should be what the report called challenge funds, which might be taken in with education support grants, to encourage expansion of library and information service provision?
Will he take on board those recommendations to his department, rather than simply making exhortations to local education authorities?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the Department of Education and Science has taken on board a number of points raised by that committee and acted upon them. The report has led to the establishment of sub-committees or working groups to review school library services with a view to presenting the findings to the relevant committee. Some LEAs have issued policy statements or guidelines which specifically refer to those reports.
In addition, the senior chief inspector sent copies of the report to all chief education officers in England, inviting them to comment on its relevance to their schools. Comments were also sought from the Library Association and the School Library Association. Responses to that survey are under consideration.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the Minister remind the House of the financial and other arrangements made for the extension of library facilities through means of communication other than simply the printed word and books?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that I shall have to write to the noble Lords with those details.

Plutonium Exports: Use in United States
3.6 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 when they discovered that plutonium produced by the Central Electricity Generating Board was being used in the United States for military purposes.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, plutonium derived from the CEGB's Magnox power stations was exported to the United States before 1971 under the US/UK mutual defence agreement. The UK in return received a quantity of highly enriched uranium for the UK defence programme. The US authorities have said that it is not their policy to use this plutonium in weapons, and have confirmed that they have not done so.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, appears to have agreed that civil plutonium in this country has been exported to the United States and has been used there for military purposes? Do the Government confirm or deny that?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, was referring to plutonium sent to the United States under the mutual defence agreement to which I referred. He would have understood that, being exported under the MDA, the material would have been brought into the military cycle. However, in 1964 my noble friend, then Sir Alec Douglas-Home, when Prime Minister told the House that the United States had no intention of using the material in weapons. The United States Government have stated that they have not used it for weapons and that is still their policy.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House why we do not disclose the amount of plutonium that we have exported to the United States under the defence agreement?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for asking that question. It enables me to point out that the United Kingdom received a certain quantity of highly enriched uranium in return. That was for the military programme of the Ministry of Defence. It would not be in the national interest to disclose the quantity of plutonium exported, because that might indicate the quantity of highly enriched uranium received in return.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the other day there was a terrible row in this House which arose from the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, asking a Question about a train which left Oxford and never arrived at Brighton? Can the Minister give me an
1030
assurance that none of the plutonium will ever be sent by that train?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am sure that those of us who knew the noble Lord in another place rejoice in the fact that since coming here he has retained his highly active sense of humour.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, are we to understand from what my noble friend said that the export of the plutonium under those agreements went on continuously from 1964 to 1970? Can he remind your Lordships what Administration were then in power?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. These exports have taken place under the defence agreement that we have with the United States. They have gone on during the period of office of successive Governments of both parties.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the extent to which the United States military nuclear programme currently depends upon British plutonium being exported to that country?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I have, I think, made clear that the Americans have indicated to us and have confirmed to us that plutonium exported from this country is not used for military purposes. I reiterate that.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, whether it is or whether it is not, does it matter tuppence?
Lord Avebury: Surely, my Lords, if the Americans use this exported plutonium for civilian purposes it means that some other plutonium that would have had to be used for those civilian purposes can be diverted to military use.
Lord Gray of Contin: No, my Lords. The simple fact of the matter is that there is nothing in the treaty that would prevent the Americans using the plutonium for military purposes, but they have given an absolute assurance that it has not been and is not being used for military purposes. That we accept.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will not supply plutonium either from the electricity board or from other sources to America to assist it in its dangerous policy of expanding nuclear weapons?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, exports of plutonium and other nuclear materials can only take place on receipt of inter-governmental assurances covering peaceful use, the application of safeguards, physical protection and controls on re-transfer. That would be the position regarding any plutonium that was exported. The agreement that we have with the Americans is, in the view of the Government, absolutely satisfactory. We have no reason to suspect our American friends in any way.

SALT II Agreement: Observance
3.12 p.m.
Lord Molloy: 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, further to Lord Trefgarne's Answer on 6th June (col. 1201) concerning breaches of the SALT II treaty by the Soviet Union, they will specify what breaches have been made, and whether they will confirm that the United States of America have committed no such breach.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne told the noble Lord on 6th June, we hope the SALT II agreement will continue to be observed by both sides. The United Kingdom is not a party to the agreement and consequently does not have access to the records of the standing consultative commission. Nonetheless, Soviet activities give cause for concern. We are not aware of any breaches by the United States.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the noble Lord did infer that there had been a certain amount of cheating, or whatever you may call it, in respect of the SALT II treaty by the Soviet Union? Is she also aware that this is completely and absolutely contrary to the views of people like Senator John Chafee, head of the bipartisan group which recently went to see President Reagan to urge him to ignore people making noises to the effect that the Soviet Union had been breaking the treaty? The breaking-up of the SALT II treaty would be very dangerous. Would it not be much better if the Government, instead of opting to side with those who support President Reagan, took a reasoned middle course and saw both points of view so that we do not find ourselves unnecessarily interfering in the politics of the United States?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I have already made clear, we regard it as important that the SALT II agreement should continue to be observed by both sides. The door is therefore left open for a positive Soviet response.
Lord Renton: My Lords, how can there be a middle course between what appears to be the difference between right and wrong?
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Baroness not agree that the breaches alleged by the United States are complicated borderline questions arising out of different interpretations of the treaty? Can she say what is the attitude of other European members of NATO to what amounts to the abandonment of the treaty by the United States, and whether these countries should not have met together to concert a common view?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this is a very complex matter. We trust that we shall get a positive Soviet response. We believe that
1032
the door has been left open for a positive response. We hope that this will be possible in this complex matter. This is a view, I believe, that would be shared by our colleagues in the European Community.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, what does the noble Baroness mean in saying that the door is left open? Will the noble Baroness be good enough to explain? Is there to be a Soviet response to this? Is it not a mistake to abrogate a treaty of this importance unilaterally? Would it not be better for the two countries to come together, as the noble Lord suggests, and discuss the matter, rather than that it should be the subject of public propaganda that never does any good whatever?
Baroness Young: My Lords, on the general issue, we recognise, of course, the importance of arms control discussions and negotiations. Indeed, we hope that this will be possible. We want to see rapid progress made at the next round at Geneva. As to the particular point that the noble Lord raised, we trust that a positive Soviet response will make it possible for the United States to avoid exceeding the SALT II limits at the end of this year. This would leave the way open, we believe, for real progress to be made in arms control as envisaged by both leaders in Geneva last year. We would much regret it if the provisional decision of President Reagan to exceed the limits had to be implemented.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying that Her Majesty's Government are taking a positive initiative to ensure that there is no abrogation and that the two sides are brought together? Is that what she is saying?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am saying two things. We are not a party to the SALT II treaty, but we have made our view on the matter clear.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may I return to the original Question relating to the issue of breaches of SALT II alleged against the Russians by the Americans? Although everyone is well aware of the American allegations, are the Government equally well aware of the detailed refutations publicly made by the Soviet Union? Most important of all, will the Government state unequivocally whether they are aware of any breaches by the Russians except in so far as they have been informed of them by the Americans?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have just been asked whether we have been discussing this matter with the United States Government. Clearly, this is a matter that has been discussed. We are aware of their view of the breaches by the Soviet Union. What is important is that we hope that both the United States and the Soviet Union will comply with the treaty.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would it not assist the House if the noble Baroness could state whether or not Her Majesty's Government are independently aware of Soviet breaches as opposed to having been informed of them by the United States?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that I have made the position of our Government clear on this point.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, generally speaking, the attitude of the Government to try to save SALT II is absolutely correct? What the Government are doing wrong—it is the difference between right and wrong which I hope President Reagan will understand—is failing to recognise that there are important people in the United States, like Senator Chafee, who believe that wrong information is being given out. I refer to the words of congressmen in the United States. Is the noble Baroness aware (and, if not, she might like to check) of what was stated by Congressman Dicks, the key figure in setting the United States military budget, who stated that under SALT II the Russians had dismantled almost 10 times the number of missiles that had been dismantled by the United States? Is the noble Baroness aware that in advocating a middle course I was taking cognisance of what the senator said as well as what has been said by the extreme Right-wing in the United States? We want the truth, not so much to assist any particular party but for the benefit possibly of the whole of mankind through a system of verification.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is really most objectionable that the noble Lord, however sincere his feelings, should so breach our rules of order at Question Time by making such a long speech?

International Fund for Agricultural Development
3.20 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: 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 why they have refused to contribute to the new appeal for funds for the International Fund for Agricultural Development.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I assume the noble Lord has in mind the fund's special programme for countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. We are contributing our agreed share to the recent general replenishment of the IFAD, but beyond that we believe it is better to help agricultural projects in Africa bilaterally and through the voluntary agencies than to put the money into this separate extra appeal.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I was referring to the statement reported on 31st May by the right honourable friend of the noble Baroness, Mr. Timothy Raison, that Britain would not subscribe to the appeal of IFAD for a £200 million special fund. Is it not the case, in considering the massive and practical compassion which has been shown by the people of this country, that the Government should give a lead by supporting an organisation which, it is accepted on all sides, is both designed to be and is efficacious in preventing future famines not only in Africa but in all the poor parts of the world?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I appreciate the point that the noble Lord is making about this fund. We would indeed have put more into the general replenishment if we had thereby been able to use it to act as a lever to obtain extra contributions from the OPEC donors. As it is, we think that it is better to use the extra money for specific bilateral projects in Africa.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that agricultural development is the first necessity in Africa to overcome the fact that millions there die of hunger? Will the Government therefore consider anything which would assist the international fund which is in a practical way, dealing with this problem?
Baroness Young: My Lords, yes. We very much agree with the point that the noble Lord is making about the importance of agricultural projects in Africa, and to that end we have given very considerable amounts of aid. The proportion of our bilateral aid in Africa has increased. In 1984 it came to £66 million. We have recently announced the approval of some important additional projects in the Sudan, Zimbabwe and Kenya. The total British bilateral and multilateral aid to Africa was about £570 million in 1985, having risen from £447 million in 1982.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, can the Minister say what efforts are being made to ensure that whatever money is given to these very worthy projects goes eventually to the people who need it and not to organisations who spend a lot of time and money on administration. and corruption?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the point that the noble Lord makes is an extremely important one which has been raised in your Lordships' House before and by many other people. We make every effort to ensure that our aid is spent as effectively as possible. I think that there have been some very good examples of the use to which it has been put.
Lord Oram: My Lords, is not the important aspect of IFAD that, of all the international organisations, it is the one which specialises in aid to agriculture, and indeed that 100 per cent. of its funds go in that direction? Is it not therefore an outstanding channel for dealing with the famine conditions in Africa, making sure that agriculture there is supported? Is it not also the case that this admirable organisation has very small funds? Can the Government not therefore reconsider their attitude to this special appeal for extra money?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I indicated earlier, we were ready to contribute to a larger replenishment supported by all donors. However, this was not possible, notably because OPEC donors did not pledge more. But what we are not spending multilaterally, as this added contribution would have been, we shall be spending bilaterally. One important point about that is that British bilateral aid to Africa is usually on grant terms while the IFAD aid is usually through repayable loans.
Lord Oram: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the money which was requested for this special fund will be extra money on the bilateral programme?
Baroness Young: My Lords, no. I am saying that this money will come from the agreed amount of money for bilateral aid, but it will be a part of that money. It will be spent on these particular matters.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the Minister agree and inform the noble Lord, Lord Mellish and those who have supported him, that the International Fund for Agricultural Development is universally accepted as a fund of integrity with very small administrative costs, all the money going to poor farmers? I cannot understand the argument of the noble Baroness. Why is it that Her Majesty's Government are inhibited by the actions of OPEC with regard to their support for a fund universally accepted as preventing future famine in Africa, rather than their following a policy independent of the actions of other countries?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I would agree that the IFAD is a very valuable organisation which has done some good work. It is not a criticism of that organisation. But one of its merits is its pattern of agreed co-operation and negotiated burden sharing between and among the countries of the OECD and OPEC. This is absent on this particular replenishment, and therefore each donor has to decide what it should do. We have decided that the money that we would have given is better spent bilaterally on particular projects for the reasons that I have given.

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [H.L.]
3.27 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Select Committee on Broadcasting
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee on Broadcasting:—

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Swinton, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Winstanley, L.

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time:
That two be the quorum of the Committee:
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers;
That the Committee have leave to confer on matters relating to sound broadcasting and to meet concurrently for this purpose with any Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting appointed by the Commons for the purpose of deliberating and of examining witnesses; and have leave to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman for any such meeting—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Armed Forces Bill
3.30 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Armed Forces Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause
("Discrimination.
.—After section 69 of the 1955 Acts and section 39 of the 1957 Act, there shall be inserted the following section—
"Discrimination
"It shall be an offence for any person subject to this Act to discriminate against, harass, hold in contempt or ridicule any person or persons on the grounds of race." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords. I beg to move the first amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. Those Members of your Lordships' House who take an interest in these matters and who attended a previous stage will recall that at the Committee stage I moved an amendment that dealt with discrimination on the grounds of sectarianism. We had a useful debate, and I did not press the amendment. I was certainly satisfied with what the Minister had to say on that occasion.
At the Report stage I moved an amendment dealing with discrimination on the grounds of race. We had a debate during which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, indicated that he had some sympathy with the general possibility of discrimination on the grounds of race. However, there were other aspects of the amendment on which we could not agree. Therefore, I have brought an amendment forward at this stage.
The House will recall that substantially, if not wholly, the case which I made during a previous stage as regards discrimination rested on a fairly lengthy article that appeared in a Sunday newspaper. Members of the House who are not in government or (quite properly) privy to a great deal of information in, for instance, the Ministry of Defence have to rely upon what is said by reputable people in a number of places. The record will show that I made out the case for the

1037
amendment. I am bound to say that neither I nor the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was fully satisfied with what the Minister had to say.
Perhaps I may read to your Lordships from the Official Report of 10th June where, at col. 202, the Minister said:
"At that time I stressed that all forms of discrimination by members of the armed forces whether on racial, religious, sex or other grounds would not be tolerated regardless of whether the victims of such discrimination were members of the public or other servicemen".
Later in that column he said:
"I am fully satisfied that these provisions are more than adequate to make it quite clear that racial or other discrimination within the armed forces will not be tolerated and will be most firmly dealt with if any instances of such behaviour were to be discovered".
I accept completely, without any caveat, what the Minister had to say. However, we must reconcile that with the experience of other people.
Therefore, first, what steps has the Minister taken since previous debates to establish the bona fides, the honesty and the integrity of the evidence which has appeared in a number of newspapers and, as I shall quote, from reputable sources? The Minister cannot simply say, "We have no evidence" if other people are saying that we do have it. I can appreciate the Minister's not having it, but I cannot accept that the Minister is simply prepared to take the line of least resistance.
In the annual report of the Commission for Racial Equality, the chairman, Mr. Peter Newsam, said:
"As a country we are running out of excuses for failing to deal effectively with racial discrimination and disadvantage. Their extent and causes are known. So, too, are most of the remedies. What is still lacking is the will to apply these remedies within a timescale that makes sense to those who suffer from the lack of them".
The basic charge which I put to the Minister is the lack of positive action. In other words, he really ought to do what his ministerial colleague the Home Secretary intends to do in his domain. In an article written in a newspaper last week Mr. Douglas Hurd, the Home Secretary, when clearly referring to the police, said:
"I am disappointed and dissatisfied by the low level of representation of black and Asian Britons in our Police Service. It is a weakness in our society and one which I am anxious to tackle. It is fair criticism to say that the police should have been quicker in extending a welcoming hand to recruits from the ethnic communities".
He goes on to quote precise figures. A person of ethnic minority—a black person—can be very easily discernible. Individuals may have other characteristics that may not be easily discernible—for example, which school they attended, where they were born and their parents' jobs. Those are all part of the profile.
I am absolutely certain that in many of the regiments that have been the subject of comment in the past few weeks, there will be seen to be an even spread. There are people who come from all over the country. There are people who come from schools all over the country and from all kinds of schools. There are people who come from all kinds of backgrounds. What literally is missing is a very important element in our life—our social life and our multi-racial society—and that is the presence of people of ethnic minority serving in our armed services; indeed, not only serving but making advancement.
The Minister may say, "That has nothing to do with me or with us. We are not stopping them". I want the Minister to tell the House today what steps he and his colleagues are taking not merely not to stop those people applying but positively to encourage them to do so. If the Minister says that it is entirely up to them whether they are induced to serve, I simply say that the army or the armed services will be deficient. Of all aspects of life, the armed services should reflect at least something like the proportion of ethnic minorities in our society.
I was very disappointed with the Minister's response. No doubt he took note, as I did, of the alleged comments of the Prince of Wales after the Trooping the Colour last week. I say "alleged" because I understand that there may be some dispute. However, perhaps the Minister will allow me to quote from the Sunday Telegraph of last weekend, in which there appeared the headline: "Prince upset at Guards `colour bar' ". It went on to say:
"The Prince of Wales has expressed serious concern about discrimination against blacks in the Brigade of Guards and the Household Cavalry".
I understand from a ministerial Answer in another place that a categorical denial has been made and that there is no colour bar. However, what I am saying to the Minister is that in that article there is a further reference on which the Minister ought to comment.
It says:
"But a former senior officer in the Household Division said that while there was no ban on blacks entering elite units, they were 'passively discouraged' and few reached the Guards training school at Pirbright. He added: 'Prince Charles has felt strongly for some years that there should be more blacks in the Household Division. He has made his feelings known on a number of occasions, especially at Senior Colonels' Meetings. He feels it would be an excellent idea if there were more black faces in regiments which perform ceremonial duties such as Trooping the Colour'".
Does not the Minister share my curiosity, if not the disappointment of the Prince, that the situation is as it is? The purpose of the amendment is to elicit from the Minister a much more satisfactory answer and not merely that there is no discrimination. I am prepared to accept that prima facie. However, the Minister will know that the illustrations which appeared in what I call the prime newspaper document of two weeks ago give names, chapter and verse. If one wanted more evidence it could be found in the annual report of the Commission for Racial Equality and in other newspaper comments where the commission is quoted and on record.
What inquiries have been made of responsible people such as the Commission for Racial Equality and of the newspapers, who are certainly entitled to be held to account for anything misleading that they may have said? Against that you have the puzzlement that even if what they are saying is not exactly true, the facts are that when I look at the evidence, it does not appear to me that we are doing sufficient to encourage our armed forces to have serving in them something like the proportion of the ethnic minorities who live in this country.
There may be a good reason. We know the problems with the police, and the problems of oppression by the black community, and the stigma in some black communities if members of that community serve in the police. I know of nothing comparable which would

1039
inhibit a black person from seeking to serve in the armed forces. Whether it is a question of other criteria, such as the question of height, of education or other things, I do not know. I hope that the Minister will be able to better satisfy me now than he did on a previous occasion. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord in his questions, and add one question to which perhaps the Minister will reply in his answer. The reason that there appear to be no recruits accepted in the élite regiments may be—and I think possibly is to a large extent—that they do not apply to join. This is probably because they do not think that they have any chance of getting in. This means that if one wants to alter this, somebody must do something about it, and that person is the Minister.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am an ex-Household Cavalry officer. I, admittedly 30 years ago, never saw a black face in the Life Guards; I never saw one in the Royal Horse Guards; and I never saw one in any of the five regiments of Foot Guards. I suppose it is slightly difficult to have a Sikh wearing a turban when he should be wearing a German silver helmet on parade. That presents uniform problems which cannot be overcome.
It is something that has happened, and it is something that we ought actively to discourage. I am pretty certain it has happened by accident. I see no evidence that it has changed in those 30 years. But I remember seeing a picture in the newspapers of a black rifleman and a white rifleman being totally ad idem in their view, because they were both thumping an Irishman who had done something naughty in Belfast. It is perfectly possible for the armed forces, because of their esprit de corps, because of their spirit, to be a useful weapon in abolishing racial discrimination. But it is unarguable that there is passive discrimination in Household Brigade regiments—and I probably will not be asked to visit any other officers' mess again after having said this, but I am pretty certain that this is what happens.
Lord Alport: My Lords, perhaps I may give such evidence as I have from a different point of view. First from the point of view of the garrison town where I live, and which at one time I represented, Colchester. We have a succession of distinguished regiments passing through and my impression over these past years is of the number of black or coloured soldiers that I see about the town coming from the most distinguished regiments—what were the Rifle Brigade and are now the Green Jackets, and from other regiments too.
I know perfectly well, as many of your Lordships in this House who have served with, and have perhaps commanded, African troops know, what excellent troops they can be. I do not say that anybody should be given a special position simply because he becomes a statutory black man, or whatever it may be, but I am certain that there are many among the Asian, African, and West Indian communities who would carry out the duties of a member of the Household Brigade with all the distinction and responsibility with which they are carried out by anybody with a white face.
3.45 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has returned to this subject despite the assurances that I gave at an earlier stage. I can really do no more than repeat the assurances that I gave to your Lordships on 10th June at the Report stage of this Bill, and indeed that my right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave in another place on 10th April. Our policy on race relations has also recently been set out for the Select Committee on Employment in another place.
Let me say again that no form of discrimination is tolerated in the armed forces whether on racial, religious or other grounds. Recruitment and promotion are entirely on merit. I have also explained on earlier occasions the range of statutory safeguards that apply to the services: the Race Relations Act, the Service Discipline Acts and the code of practice on the treatment and questioning of persons by the service police. I remain fully satisfied that these provisions are more than adequate to make it quite clear that racial or other discrimination will not be tolerated and will be firmly dealt with should it come to light.
Against the background of the recent media coverage of this topic, which I dare say has rekindled the interest of noble Lords, it might be helpful for your Lordships to know that the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality—and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to their views—has written to certain editors of national newspapers commenting on their recent reports on racial discrimination in the armed forces to the effect that CRE has never said that it has any evidence of discrimination against nonwhite soldiers; that no CRE report criticising the Army's record of fair dealing with immigrants exists or is in draft; and that the commission's annual report for 1985 and the press release accompanying it contained no mention of discriminatory practices by the armed forces.
The true position is that the commission has been in touch with my department about our race relations policies; that we are reviewing these policies and considering the introduction of ethnic monitoring to the armed forces; and that no final decision has yet been taken on this matter. Any decision will be announced as soon as we are in a position to do so.
Perhaps I may touch on the Observer article to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred. The article in question was, in my view, an unbalanced account which in no way reflected the successful careers pursued by many members of the ethnic community in the armed forces. What I can say—and I stress this—is that any petitions for redress of grievance submitted on grounds of allegations of racial discrimination will be most thoroughly investigated. However, I should also add that it is our experience that servicemen from a wide variety of creeds, colours and nationalities work together in harmony, often under very stressful conditions. I hope that this will continue to be the case in the future, and I can assure your Lordships that we shall make every effort to ensure it.
May I again express the hope that your Lordships can accept the clear and repeated assurances that I

1041
have given on the policies of both the Government and the armed forces on race relations, rather than the inaccurate and anecdotal reports that have appeared in the press. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will not wish to press his amendment.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the noble Lord opened by saying that he was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and I should have put down this amendment again in view of the assurances that he gave at Report stage. But I think I speak for the noble Lord, Lord Graham, when I say that it was precisely because he gave no assurances in the statement on Report that we have put down this amendment again.
Today he in fact went a small way further than he did at Report. He now states that the Ministry is considering introducing ethnic monitoring. That is a small advance on his previous statement, and a great credit to the silver tongues of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and myself. However, we have had for over 25 years the problem of race relations in its acute phase. For 25 years, report after report has spoken about the ugly phenomenon of job discrimination. One authority after another has urged the public services to take the lead. One Minister after another has been agreeing and saying that the public services must take the lead.
Now in 1986 the Ministry of Defence is considering introducing ethnic monitoring. It is not good enough. It is profoundly unsatisfactory. Almost above anyone else, the armed services are in a position to help with our race relations problem. They can offer a fine career to young black men and women; a career which will undoubtedly enable them to take a leading part in their communities, both when they are serving and when they have retired. Yet for 25 years nothing has been done and now we are promised a consideration of ethnic monitoring.
What will this monitoring be? There must have been monitoring before, because in the late 1960s there was actually a quota. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong. In the 1960s there was a 3 per cent. quota on black people in the armed services. That was abolished by the then Secretary of State for Defence, Mr. Healey. We could not have had that without some kind of monitoring. I should like to ask the Minister about that as it is relevant to our present consideration.
How many black people were there in the armed services in the late 1960s? The figure must be known. What was the system of monitoring then? Were there any difficulties in the system of monitoring? If there were no difficulties in the system of monitoring, why all this delay about again introducing a system of monitoring? What do we want to know? What will this monitoring tell us? The Minister did not say. Will it simply tell us the proportion of black men and women in the armed forces? Will it tell us how the proportions vary between one regiment and another? We should like to know that. Will it tell us the number of applications to enlist from black people? We should like to know all those things.
Will this survey that we are told is being considered by the Ministry deal with discrimination after recruitment? We all know that the ethnic make-up of the American population and of the British
1042
population is different—very different indeed—but I should have liked to hear the Minister comment on the claim quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, at Report stage. I should like him to say whether he can test the claim that a few years ago there were 76 active or retired black generals and admirals in the United States of America. It would be interesting to know whether that claim is justified.
The Minister could tell us how many black generals or admirals there are in the British armed forces today. I think those are relevant questions to ask because the fact is that in the United States the armed forces have made a fine contribution to good race relations. Here in Britain the armed forces have been and are part of the race relations problem and the contrast is to me intolerable. The facts are shameful. I think we on this side will be coming back to this problem again and again until the necessary reforms are made.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe I need your Lordships' permission to speak again because I have already spoken once. If the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wants to speak in due course I am afraid he will have to do so without the benefit of any reply I may be able to give, because to speak three times would be unduly trespassing on your Lordships.
Lord Mishcon: I should be very short, my Lords.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, briefly to reply to the noble Lord, I am afraid I do not know the answers to most of the questions he put. Indeed, I do not know the answers to any of them without taking advice. But for the majority of the questions, answers do not exist because we do not monitor the ethnic make-up of the armed forces at the present time. I do not know how many coloured admirals, generals or air-marshals there are. I have never counted them.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am so sorry that the noble Lord the Minister did not allow me to make an observation before he replied, only because I believe the House might have welcomed that observation. What I shall say will be very short.
There was a time some years ago when very proudly I held the position of the chairmanship of London Fire Brigade. My anxiety at that time was to introduce, so far as I was able, recruits into the London fire service from the coloured community. My reason was twofold: first, because I wanted them in the London Fire Brigade, and, secondly, in trying to deal with the whole issue of racial discrimination I felt that the public of this country and certainly of London would learn to respect a community which was, in some respects with some of its members, clothed in the honourable uniform of the London Fire Brigade.
How much more important is the uniform of Her Majesty's armed services. It would go a long way towards reducing prejudice and encouraging respect if commissioned officers of Her Majesty's armed forces were seen in their uniform proudly walking through the streets of London or whichever city it may be in the United Kingdom. It is for that reason among others that this amendment is moved. It is to see not only that the constructive effort is made but that the destructive effort is defeated. I see no reason why the offence

1043
which is set out in this amendment should not be an offence under the Armed Forces Act.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I intended to intervene only to make a plea to my noble friend in regard to this amendment. I hope that he will not seek to press it, because this is a matter which I think ought to be pursued at a later stage when the Government have given further consideration to the issues before them.
For six years I was chairman of the National Bus Company. I had some 60,000-odd employees. I have to admit that I had some difficulty with the Commission for Racial Equality because I could not show that I had a balance of employees within my group on a regional or local basis that reflected the ethnic minority community in the area which those companies were serving. I gave to the Commission for Racial Equality the very assurances which the Minister himself has given; but the more I looked into it the more I came to the conclusion that if I were to meet what was perceived to be the right balance, taking into account the ethnic community in which my companies were serving, I should have to indulge in a deliberate act of discrimination in their favour. That would have meant making a very special effort in recruiting my employees within the minority ethnic community. That is a very difficult decision to take.
I am not in any way suggesting that the Government should have a definite policy of discriminating for the ethnic minorities in terms of service within the armed forces. On the other hand, it could well be that we could get more recruits within our forces from the ethnic minorities if we were to make a more conscious effort in terms of dissemination of information and the presence of recruiting teams in those particular areas.
My Lords, I think this is a subject which is so easy to talk about in public but so difficult to resolve. I think progress could be made if we were to raise this at a later stage. May I suggest that we have in this House a particularly useful committee which takes an interest in matter of defence? This is something which that committee might like to take on board, to see which are problems of the Government and which are the problems of the military, and the ways and means by which we could achieve the proper solutions for the ethnic minorities and their position in the armed forces.
I would hope that my noble friend would not press this amendment to a Division. I think he has a good case but I genuinely feel that more work needs to be done on it. Perhaps if your Lordships' House wishes to pursue it, I suggest you already have a committee which could look into it and make proposals to the Government. I hope this could be resolved not on a party issue or a conflict across the Floor of the House.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the first thing I have to say is that, while I appreciate all that my noble friend has said, it has nothing to do with the words of the amendment. If my noble friend wishes to join with others in suggesting how to improve recruitment, then we can go a long way. But this amendment deals not with how we can improve recruitment but with how we can apply the law to the armed forces with a little more bite
1044
than the evidence I have produced shows it has been applied, since, despite the Race Relations Act and other measures, it is still possible to find the evidence.
The noble Lord the Minister told the House that there had been some further statements made by the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality on misinterpretations, misunderstandings, journalistic licence and whatever it is. I am bound to say that the House would need to hear what appeared just a few days ago, again in the Daily Telegraph:
"'From all the evidence available, we are quite convinced that blacks and Asians, the ethnic minority, are getting a very bad deal in the services', said a spokesman for Commission last night. The facts are incredibly difficult to come by because existing black and Asian servicemen are unwilling to talk on or off the record, but details are leaking out from men who have served their time or who have achieved premature voluntary release".
I deeply respect the observations which the House has heard from noble Lords on the other side. They speak from two different levels of experience in this matter. They have led me, not to believe exactly, but I certainly formed the view from what they have said that what they want to see, whatever has happened in the past, is that there is no shadow of a question that this House, the British Government, the British people, will tolerate the kind of practices which it is alleged have been taking place.
Let me remind the House of the words I am asking it to agree to, because the Minister would not dispute them:
"It shall be an offence for any person subject to this Act to discriminate against, harass, hold in contempt or ridicule any person or persons on the grounds of race".
There is no one in the House who would disagree with those words. What we are disagreeing with is whether it is proper and appropriate to put them into and on the face of the Bill. In my view, it will strengthen enormously the conviction, not merely in this country and among our own people, but over a far wider field, that so far as possible we intend to make sure that anyone in the armed forces who stoops so low as to practise harassment and discrimination on the grounds of race will be dealt with severely. I beg to move.
4.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 107.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Alport, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Amherst, E.

Ennals, L.

Ardwick, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Aylestone, L.

Foot, L.

Barnett, L.

Gallacher, L.

Blease, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Grey, E.

Bottomley, L.

Grimond, L.

Brockway, L.

Hampton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jacques, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Diamond, L.

John-Mackie, L.

1045

Kagan, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Kennet, L.

Rochester, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Seear, B.

Listowel, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Serota, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Shackleton, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stedman, B.

McNair, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Mayhew, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Melchett, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mishcon, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Molloy, L.

Underhill, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Vernon, L.

Nicol, B.

Walston, L.

Oram, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Parry, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Phillips, B.

White, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Wilson of Langside, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Marley, L.

Annandale and Hartfell, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Belstead, L.

Merrivale, L.

Birdwood, L.

Mersey, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Moyne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Norfolk, D.

Butterworth, L.

Northesk, E.

Caithness, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Onslow, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Porritt, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Portland, D.

Cawley, L.

Radnor, E.

Coleraine, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Reigate, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Rodney, L.

Cowley, E.

Romney, E.

Cox, B.

Saint Brides, L.

Cromartie, E.

St. Davids, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Sandford, L.

Davidson, V.

Sandys, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Savile, L.

Derwent, L.

Selborne, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Selkirk, E.

Dundee, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Eccles, V.

Somers, L.

Elton, L.

Stamp, L.

Faithfull, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Fortescue, E.

Swansea, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Glanusk, L.

Terrington, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Teviot, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Gridley, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hemphill, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Holderness, L.

Truro, Bp.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hood, V.

Vickers, B.

Hooper, B.

Vivian, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Westbury, L.

Kimball, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Windlesham, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Wise, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wynford, L.

Layton, L.

Yarborough, E.

Long, V.

Young, B.

Lovat, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Ypres, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.12 p.m.
Clause 11 [Extension of power to make custodial orders in relation to civilians]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 2:
Leave out Clause 11.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that Clause 11 shall not stand part of the Bill. The rubric of Clause 11 reads:
"Extension of power to make custodial orders in relation to civilians".
The clause gives a court-martial or a Standing Civilian Court dealing with the children of service families abroad the power for the very first time to pass custodial sentences of up to 12 months on boys of 15 and 16, though not on girls.
I submit that this provision is both undesirable and unnecessary. It is undesirable because these custodial sentences will have all the disadvantages which attach to all custodial sentences for juveniles, plus a series of extra disadvantages arising from the fact that the young person will be sent to serve his sentence in a detention centre or youth custody centre in this country, thereby being sentenced to a form of transportation.
In my view, the clause is also unnecessary because for really serious offences—for example, homicide, grievous bodily harm, robbery, rape, or other serious sexual crimes—young offenders can be sent hack to this country and tried and sentenced by a Crown court here. No new powers therefore are needed for these offences. The new custodial sentences provided by Clause 11 would therefore be used for less serious offences. I submit on both of those grounds that the clause is neither desirable nor necessary.
At an earlier stage there was interest taken on all sides at an attempt to get the Minister to amend the clause to take account of genuine grievances. I am satisfied that the only way to remedy what I believe is a bad clause is to have it removed. I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, this was very fully discussed at the Report stage, and there was very widespread support for dropping this clause altogether. I see no reason to add to the arguments made then, and I warmly support the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Graham.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Mayhew, indicated, we discussed this matter at an earlier stage and I can do little more than repeat what I said on that occasion. The main point that I wish to stress is that Clause 11 goes no further than the equivalent provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 and it follows our general policy of bringing service law into line with the civilian criminal practice wherever possible. I could repeat at length the arguments that I offered at an earlier stage. I believe at this moment that would not be welcome to your Lordships; but I hope that in the light of the very full debate that we had earlier, the noble Lord will not wish to press the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am disappointed at the response of the Minister. I think he will appreciate that on many of these matters Members on this side of the Chamber are substantially guided not only by our own feel for the issue but also by advice that we receive from bodies outside. The very eminent and respected organisation, NACRO (the body devoted to the care of offenders and the prevention of crime), have drawn my attention since the last stages to their very firm conviction on this matter that the clause is not only unnecessary but is also undesirable. The Minister continues to rest his case on the fact that all he is doing is to make the people who are subject to the Armed Forces Bill on a par with those outside. I am very disappointed but in view of the response that the Minister has given, and the reality of parliamentary arithmetic, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Agriculture Bill
4.17 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): 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.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare) in the Chair.]
Clause 13 [Designation and management of environmentally sensitive areas]:
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 11, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) Any person having an interest in agricultural land within an area designated by order under subsection (1), and who wishes to make an application for capital grant, should notify the Minister in writing not less than four weeks before commencement of the eligible works, specifying the nature of the work, and the land on which it is proposed that the works be carried out; and not more than four weeks after receipt of such notification the Minister shall indicate to the applicant in writing whether capital grant shall be made available; and the Minister may reduce or withhold any capital grant if the execution of grant aidable works appears to the Minister to be likely to be contrary to the objectives of an ESA, as laid out in subsection(1) above.")
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendment No. 67 is to require prior notification for capital grants within environmentally sensitive areas. Capital grant aid for certain works will still be available to farmers within ESAs and some of the work which they might do could undermine the integrity of the new environmentally sensitive area criteria. The Minister has power to refuse grant on environmental grounds, but only after the damage has taken place, as I understand it.
If that is so—and perhaps the Minister will put me right on it—it seems to me that this amendment is essential because it would enable the Minister to assess the impact of proposed works and ensure that they are compatible with the spirit of the ESA before they actually take place. These new designations are of such national importance that I feel that the Minister would want to know about any works that are proposed that could affect the character of the area in which the work takes place. I beg to move.
Lord Sandford: Amendment No. 67, which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has just moved, relates to capital grants for farming in ESAs. Most experience in balancing the farming need for such grants with environmental considerations has been acquired so far under the special arrangements for prior notification relating to national parks under the AHGS scheme of 1st October 1980. There has been, as well as the experience, notable success in quickly negotiating in individual cases a balance between what the farmer wants and what the national park authority wants. My belief (and I think it is widely shared) is that that success is due in no small measure to the existence of national park plans; the official, agreed, authoritative background to all such negotiations. Clause 13 is quite different. It relates to grants for farm management agreements in ESAs, not national parks; and I am sure that we all wish them well. There is no experience as vet in negotiating such agreements in the context of an ESA.
For the setting up of ESAs, Clause 13 prescribes at subsection (3) that there should be certain mandatory consultations between MAFF, the Nature Conservation Council and the Countryside Commission, as appropriate. Later on, in subsection (5) it prescribes certain options which are open to MAFF about the prescription of certain practices which they will want to control and limit by way of these agreements. There is nothing yet in the Bill that I can see which anticipates or corresponds to Circular 65/74, which laid down in some detail the purposes with which national park plans were to deal and the procedures of local and national consultation much wider and much more local than those mentioned in the Bill so far, which have been an essential part of the establishment of these plans: consultation and public participation.
I should like to ask my noble friend a question. Perhaps he would find it more convenient if I were to raise it on the Motion that the clause stand part, as there may be some danger of swamping the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. However, this seems to me the moment for posing the question for the first time. The question is: if the ESAs are not all going to be in national parks—and I understand that is not the case—can we have an assurance that guidance of the same order of detail, thoroughness and precision, involving consultations and participation of roughly the same order, will follow this Bill?—because unless plans of that character are on the ground in the ESAs I think the negotiating of those agreements will not be anything like so successful as it has been in the case of capital grants under the AHGS of October 1980.

1049
That is the question which it seems to me is raised in connection with this amendment, but I shall be quite content if my noble friend feels that it would be better to answer it on the Motion that the clause stand part.
Lord John-Mackie: Surely if ESAs are to work properly this amendment of my noble friend should not be necessary. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us today how the ESAs are to be managed, and when we know that we shall be able to judge whether this amendment is required. That is the main point I should like to make. This is a perfectly good amendment and will do no harm, but if it is unnecessary and if the management is right there is no sense in cluttering up the Bill more than it is at the present moment.
Lord Belstead: I think this amendment raises an important issue and it is one to which we have given a great deal of thought. It is of course to be expected that some farmers within an environmentally sensitive area will wish to carry out improvements to their holdings. Perhaps I may say first of all that the amendment does not seek to prevent capital grants in order to try to make improvements. It tries to ensure that such improvements will be entirely within the spirit of the ESA and will pose no environmental problems.
I should like to make it clear that I entirely share the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in that respect; that grant-aided improvements should not be encouraged. Indeed, on any analysis I am very ready to say that it makes no sense at all for the Ministry to spend money on the one hand to protect an area while simultaneously undermining it with money from the other. I could not defend—nor shall I try—such a contradictory misuse of public funds. I would therefore like to give an assurance to the Committee that we shall do everything within our power to prevent such a conflict arising. On behalf of my right honourable friend, I certainly intend to make sure that those who are responsible for the management of the environmentally sensitive areas are alive to the dangers in this particular respect.
Having said that, with great respect I thought that the noble Baroness was under a misapprehension when she said it was her understanding that under the existing arrangements there was no way of preventing a damaging operation being undertaken before it was done and being able to claim grant. May I make it absolutely clear that under the agriculture improvement scheme almost all investments have to be approved by the Minister before work starts, if capital grant is to be claimed? In other words, the introduction of the AIS has brought us back to prior approval of a scheme. That goes for drainage, farm buildings, roads, fences and all the standard agricultural investments. The only work which does not require such approval is conservation work and some investments in energy-saving devices and horticulture, which are among the very few operations that are left in the national part of the AIS that was introduced at the end of last year.
Therefore in respect of all the investments which are likely to be of the greatest concern we already get prior notice of the work involved, and all the work done
1050
under an investment plan has to be approved in advance. We have specifically asked farmers to say on their approval form whether their work is likely to damage hedges, trees and water features. If we do not like what the farmer has in mind we have legal powers in the statutory instrument to refuse grants under the AIS, on environmental grounds. We shall use those powers wherever necessary in an environmentally sensitive area in order to avoid the misuse of funds to which I have referred.
I must also say that although I have a great deal of sympathy with this amendment, I think there are practical difficulties about operating it as it stands. Indeed, if I did not think that, I should not have spent the last few minutes saying what I have said. May I explain what I mean about difficulties? In some cases we would simply be unable to meet the proposed four-week deadline. That is not for bureaucratic reasons but for much more fundamental ones: that is, because it is often sensible, as we all know, to consider with the farmer concerned whether he can achieve similar results without in fact damaging the environment.
My noble friend Lord Sandford spoke about national park authorities. Of course those authorities already do this under Section 41 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act; but it is a process which can sometimes take time. In other respects, too, I think this amendment would lead to difficulties. Farmers already have to pre-notify us of planned investments and if they are in a national park they have to notify the park authority. The amendment does not make clear how such a farmer would fit his various obligations together if his farm were also within an environmentally sensitive area. In other words. I am saying that in a way we are putting another layer of safeguards on top of a layer which already exists if we are talking about farms which are partly in a national park; and I am advised that there would be some other legal difficulties.
Perhaps I may say just two more things, one to the noble Lord opposite, Lord John-Mackie, who said that it really is desirable to consider how environmentally sensitive areas are going to be managed if we are to consider this amendment. If I may say so, we come to that on the next but one amendment, Amendment No. 69, which I think the noble Baroness has agreed might be taken with Amendment No. 68, because in Amendment No. 69 the noble Baroness is providing as a statutory duty that there should be a nominated person to administer an environmentally sensitive area and that he should seek advice from the Secretary of State for the Environment and the NCC and the Countryside Commission.
If the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, will forgive me, I would rather debate that when we come to Amendment No. 69, so may I simply content myself at this moment with saying that so far as the detailed management prescriptions for environmentally sensitive areas are concerned, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the Countryside Commission and the NCC have put up detailed proposals to us, and we are continuing to have some discussion and thinking a great deal about those management prescriptions. We are not yet ready to say how we feel the environmentally sensitive areas ought to be managed in that kind of way. Indeed, I am not sure that we are going to

1051
be able to have a rule of thumb because the environmentally sensitive areas are going to be so different. That is half the point of designating different ones, which may be what the noble Lord is after: is the Ministry going to have one particular officer in charge who will be the lead officer? That is precisely the point which is being made in Amendment No. 69. May I reveal here and now, just before we get to the amendment, that for certain technical reasons we see some difficulty in that particular concept, although we need to have a good idea about exactly how we are going to monitor; but I think to have one particular officer is going to be difficult.
May I say to my noble friend Lord Sandford that he asked me a straight question and I will try, if I may, on the Question whether the clause should stand part, to give him a straight answer. As I understood it, what my noble friend was saying to me in essence was: are we going to provide for exactly the same consultation arrangements when a farmer in a national park wants to apply for a capital grant? Will we impose exactly the same consultation arrangements for the environmentally sensitive areas? As I understood it, that was my noble friend's question.
Lord Sandford: I wonder whether I may interrupt my noble friend, because I am sorry if I gave him that impression. The question I was asking was: can we have more information? Can we be told the processes by which the Ministry of Agriculture are going to achieve documents broadly equivalent to the national park plans which have contributed to the rapid and straightforward negotiation of agreements with farmers in national parks, which were set out in Circular No. 6574 and which have led to the production of those plans? That involved consultation between the national parks authority, the NFU, the CLA, district councils, etc., and a fairly extensive degree of public participation, resulting in a plan which is reviewed every five years. Something along those lines, mutatis mutandis, is going to be needed for each ESA if the same rapid success in negotiating agreements, balancing farming and environmental issues, is going to be achieved in the ESAs in respect of management agreements. That is the question, and I will put it again.
Lord Belstead: I have to admit to my noble friend that those who advise me are very much quicker on the uptake than I am, and I should like to try to reply to my noble friend in this way. I would agree with my noble friend that in judging the suitability of a grant proposal we shall need to have a proper strategy for each area. My noble friend referred, and has referred again, to national park plans. As to environmentally sensitive areas, the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council have already provided us with an analysis of each area. This analysis surveys the environmental value of each area—these are the areas which they recommended, of course—and the agricultural threat to each area. Each analysis from the NCC and the Countryside Commission runs to several pages and constitutes a proposed plan for the area. We intend to draw on these in managing the environmentally sensitive area in each case, and we shall be in
1052
constant touch with the statutory conservation advisers.
I should like to give an undertaking, which I had intended to give on the subsequent amendment, that on my right honourable friend's behalf I am going to make sure that from the Ministry point of view we stick to that particular assurance. I think, therefore, that the Ministry is going to have just the sort of plan available which my noble friend is requesting. As the environmentally sensitive areas progress we shall regularly consult local authorities and other bodies in the area. Indeed, we shall be in touch with these organisations before the environmentally sensitive areas come into force, as we draft the designation orders setting out the overall objectives and desired management prescriptions for each ESA.
I hope my noble friend may think that is very much the sort of procedure which he had in mind in asking his question. I am sorry that I made him ask it twice, and I trust that he will find that particular answer reassuring.
Lord John-Mackie: I have just a small point. Would it not be nicer to use the words "agricultural change" rather than "agricultural threat"?
Lord Belstead: May I just say, before the noble Baroness speaks, that I am grateful to the noble Lord for those words, because in my heart I feel very much as he does; but perhaps I ought to reveal that at least a year ago I remember talking to environmental organisations and one of the obvious questions which came up was, "How are you going to designate?" This was long before we had got down to the short list of 14 which had come from the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission. The NCC and the Countryside Commission were still considering matters and had, I know, a list which was very much longer than that. One of the things which I sought to say in reply when I was talking to the voluntary organisations was that I felt the jeopardy of an area was something which would count with us in deciding at the end of the day which areas ought to come up first for designation and which ought not. Having said that, I do not think I can quarrel too much with the word "threat". Nonetheless, I am glad the noble Lord raised the point, but I am glad that I have had an opportunity to explain also what was in the Government's mind so far as jeopardy is concerned.
Baroness Nicol: I am almost reassured, but I should like to clear up one or two points. Are there any circumstances in which a retrospective grant might be applied for? There might then be a danger of work being done which would not normally have been approved. Also, is it not so that there will be some ESAs that are outside national parks and areas with other protections? Would it not therefore be sensible to have this other layer of protection in those cases?
I understand the noble Minister's criticism of the wording of the amendment, and perhaps we could forget that for the moment, but if he accepts the principle would he not think it was a good idea to have this other layer of protection for areas outside the national parks?
Lord Belstead: If I may try to take the two questions which the noble Baroness has put to me, it is a fact that so far as national parks are concerned, as my noble friend Lord Sandford knows very well, you do get cases where there is a retrospective claim for a grant, and we have to look at them extremely carefully. I should like to think about that one, if I may, before the next stage of the Bill.
So far as the noble Baroness's second question is concerned, I think we come back to the heart of the matter. The noble Baroness is asking me: because some of the environmentally sensitive areas will have nothing to do with national parks—and indeed they will not, I am sure—and large areas of the environmentally sensitive areas will not be designated in any other way, would it not therefore be wise to have the protection of this amendment?
The answer which I have sought to give to the Committee this afternoon is that under the agriculture improvement scheme, the AIS, which was introduced at the very end of last year, we went back to prior approval because it was part of the system which we had to introduce under the regulation. Under the system which we have at the moment, before work starts there has to be approval by the Minister if capital grant is to be claimed.That means that for such things as drainage, farm buildings, roads and fences—all the standard agricultural investments—we have to say when we look at the plan that we are prepared on environmental grounds to give a grant before the work is started. So it is pre hoc, as it were, and not post hoc.
Let me come absolutely clean. There is nothing under the proposals which the Government are putting forward, and nothing in the concept of the environmentally sensitive areas as they have been put into the Bill at the moment, which could prevent somebody from doing something which would be against the objectives of an environmentally sensitive area if he did not claim grant. But the noble Baroness, very fairly, is not seeking to deal with that in her amendment.
Baroness Nicol: I accept the answer which the Minister has given. I look forward to reading his reply with care and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 11, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) In consultation with the persons referred to in subsection (3) above, the Minister shall—

(a) make the necessary provisions to monitor the effects of designation of an area under subsection (1), on the ecology, landscape and archaeological interests of all farms; and

(b) publish the results in an annual report to Parliament.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 68, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 69. May I say before I start that the Minister has developed a new and disarming technique of answering one's amendment before it has been moved, which makes it rather difficult when you come on to the moving of it. However, I shall try to take note of some of the things he said.
Amendment No. 68 is a probing amendment because, as has already been indicated by several things that have been said this afternoon and earlier,
1054
we are not at all clear about how these areas are to be monitored. But we feel that the monitoring will be necessary to determine whether the schemes are meeting the objectives and that we cannot wait until the end of the scheme, which I understand will be five years in the first instance, before we discover whether or not anything is going wrong. We do not want it to be simply a question of money being paid out at regular intervals without any feedback from what is happening in the area.
So we feel that data must be collected on the landscape, wildlife and archaeological interests in the area both before and during the scheme, and that it should be done for farms which are participating as well as for those that are not, so that comparisons can be made about whether or not a scheme is worth while. This amendment makes provision for that arrangement and for consultation with the NCC and the Countryside Commission.
On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley drew attention to the need for watching what is happening. In fact he asked for supervision, which was a stronger request than this amendment, which is more modestly simply asking for monitoring. He pointed out that there should be adequate supervision of the payments that were being made and asked for an assurance that supervisory staff would be funded for these areas. I feel it is essential that the progress of the scheme should be watched and that at the end of, say, a year there should be a report available for scrutiny, not just within the department but for those of us who are interested.
I should now like to come to Amendment No. 69. There is in fact an area of overlap, because Amendment No. 69 again is concerned with the progress of the ESA and how it shall be managed. This amendment would put an officer in the agriculture department in charge of each ESA to provide a focus of responsibility and guidance during the life of the designation. We feel that this would be of enormous help to farmers who would have a named individual to go to, who would be able to help them to benefit fully from the terms of the ESA. This officer, who should be at a responsible level, would be well placed to balance the objectives of the ESA and perhaps to foresee difficulties.
I have specified his duties in paragraphs (a) and (b). Paragraph (b) ensures that the statutory conservation agencies are involved in drawing up management schemes. We have already had an answer from the Minister twice on this and his answers in reply to Amendment No. 58, although we do not like them very much, are perfectly acceptable. But paragraph (b) is a much softer requirement than that of Amendment No. 58. It merely requires that the designated officer should consult with the NCC and with the Countryside Commission as the need arises.
I think he may well do this, even without having it on the face of the Bill. Nevertheless, I think it would be useful to make it a statutory requirement. It seems sensible, especially at the very beginning of this scheme, that the enormous expertise of the NCC and the Countryside Commission should be available to make sure that the scheme succeeds. The time may well come when that expertise is in the agriculture department, but that time is probably not yet and I

1055
think that this amendment would meet all those arguments. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I should like to support the noble Baroness's amendment, partly for the reasons she has already mentioned. But may I refer to the broad scheme that has been very successful for a lot of reasons; but possibly the greatest reason is that there was an extremely good person in the form of, I think, Keith Turner, who ran it and co-operated and made sure that all the farmers came in. I am most anxious to see these ESAs getting off the ground, and I go along with my noble friend on the Front Bench in that I would prefer to see fewer rather than more, in order that those we start are properly monitored and controlled. I do not want to see them exploited and I think that the noble Baroness's amendment would help in this way. I am not too worried about whether the detail is right. It is the philosophy behind it which is vitally important.
The Earl of Onslow: I too should like to support this amendment. If we do not have something like this amendment, then we shall be like somebody building an aeroplane, letting it fly and leaving out the pilot. I also have some slight hankerings after imperialism and on this occasion it seems that I am a Ministry of Agriculture imperialist. I want them to be the department that has most to do with looking after the countryside and having a countryside policy. If they can show that they can run ESAs well, and if some of their excellent staff can have their minds changed from maximising food production to looking after the countryside at the same time, they are the best people to do it. That is why I support the amendment.
The Earl of Radnor: I too should like to support this amendment. If we are going to have ESAs, then obviously it would be a tremendous "miss" not to monitor them, to learn from them and to make them work properly. I enter this debate only to remind my noble friend on the Front Bench of an amendment of mine on Monday, just before we all went home, which was to expand subsection (3). If we are going to have this Amendment No. 68, it becomes even more vital to expand subsection (3) to include either freeholders or landowners. All through this Bill, the farmer and the landowner seem to get pushed into the background and here they are completely left out. If it was discourteous not to have them in at the beginning of subsection (3) to start the ESAs, it must be stupid not to have them in to help tell how things are going.
Lord Walston: I cannot allow all the support for the amendment of the noble Baroness to come from the other side of the Committee, so, perhaps somewhat unaccustomedly, I shall join noble Lords opposite in urging the Government to accept both these amendments. They are good in themselves because it is important that the new provisions should be watched carefully to see how they in fact work out. But there is also an additional advantage in that ESAs will undoubtedly—we hope rapidly—be increased, and there will be larger areas. Valuable lessons can be
1056
learned from seeing how it works in the first place and how these various provisions will help the Ministry in that job. Even though it may put an additional burden on an already overstrained service—indeed, it will do so—I hope the Minister will agree that this is a well worth while burden which will have long-lasting effects and will help to promote the objectives of the Bill itself.
Lord Melchett: I should like to support both my noble friend's amendments. Amendment No. 68 is so uncontroversial and sensible that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will have no difficulty. I should therefore just like to say a word about Amendment No. 69. The noble Lord has already given us an indication that he is not very happy about the first part of Amendment No. 69—the nominated officer point. I do not know whether my noble friend will agree, but I think there is an important point there. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, said, there should be somebody of reasonable qualification and experience in charge in each ESA so that everyone knows—particularly the farmers and landowners in this case—who is in charge of the operation and who they can get on the phone and talk to if there is some problem.
Amendment No. 69 contains a very important second part—namely, that in managing the ESA those responsible should consult from time to time the advice of people mentioned in subsection (3), which includes the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has let us know that he is not too happy with the first part of Amendment No. 69, I should like to ask him to direct his attention to the second part because, among the various other things with which I strongly agree and which noble Lords on all sides of the Committee have supported in these two amendments, is that it is vital that there should be continuing involvement of the two statutory agencies in management and monitoring as the ESAs go along. We are bound to learn an awful lot as we go on with these. The idea that the Countryside Commission and the NCC should simply have a statutory remit for, as it were, drawing the lines on the map to begin with and then be forgotten about I am sure is not in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and I am sure would not work out, either.
Perhaps I could say one other thing to the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, about the involvement of farmers and landowners. As ESAs are voluntary and people come in only if they agree to it, it is physically impossible to do anything in an ESA from the point of view of managing the land without the farmer and landowner agreeing. So it is a little unnecessary to write them into the Bill. The whole thing happens only if they say it is going to happen and if they agree to it. But that is not of course true of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission when it comes to the management prescriptions. I hope that the second part of Amendment No. 69 will be acceptable.
The Earl of Radnor: The amendment does say "consultation". I was thinking of getting their views and making use of the landowners and farmers, and not just of the starkness of an agreement.
Lord Melchett: I merely make the point that I think it would be impossible for that not to happen. It is impossible to envisage circumstances where it could not happen. But there is a real worry about the involvement of the NCC and the Countryside Commission, with which Amendment No. 69 would deal.
Baroness White: If we are discussing the administration of environmentally sensitive areas, I wonder whether the Minister can enlighten me on subsection (4). Is there any danger under this type of management agreement of the kind of difficulties which have arisen over other management agreements, as now revealed in the Gould Report?
Lord John-Mackie: Perhaps I may—
Baroness White: May I have an answer to that question?
Lord Belstead: I must confess to the noble Baroness that I could not hear the question. Will she put it again?
Baroness White: I was, just inquiring whether, under the kind of management agreements and the payments made in relation to them under subsection (4), there could be any danger of the kind of difficulties which have arisen over other management agreement arrangements, as reported by Laurence Gould.
Lord John-Mackie: As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, we are delighted to have support for my noble friend's amendment from so many noble Lords on the other side of the Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said, there is' no sense in having something like this, which is a completely new concept in environmental issues, if we do not know how it is working. Amendment No. 68 is an essential part of it. We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about Amendment No. 69. As my noble friend said, he has half answered it already but we should like it expanded on a little more.
One point in these two amendments and in Amendment No. 69A rather intrigues me. Subsection (3) speaks about the guidance of persons. Is it not the guidance of bodies, and not persons? It is bodies that are mentioned, not people. I should have thought that "persons" should be "bodies", but I may be wrong.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may first take Amendment No. 68, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, the effect of which will be to monitor the effects of designation as environmentally sensitive areas and to make an annual report to Parliament. I have no trouble at all in giving the noble Baroness an assurance that this is going to happen because, first of all, the European Commission will require us to do so. I have no doubt from the debate we have had in the last 10 minutes or quarter of an hour that Parliament will question the Government regularly on how the matter is going. For our part, we have not entered lightly into the issues which environmentally sensitive areas raise. We are fully aware of the importance which Parliament attaches to this clause and to the principle of Ministers of Agriculture tackling these issues. The clause is
1058
widely seen as a new initiative and we know that our effectiveness in implementing it will be closely scrutinised. We intend to make sure that we pass that scrutiny.
I confess that I should very much like to put on the face of the Bill something to fulfil the proposal which the noble Baroness puts into Amendment No. 68 about monitoring. If when the moment comes the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw the amendment with an assurance that I shall use my best endeavours to come forward with something which will futil that assurance, I should be very ready to give it. I must confess that I am not quite so enthusiastic about the reports to Parliament, for a very simple reason. It has nothing to do with trying to prevent Parliament questioning and cross-questioning the particular government department on the issue because clearly Parliament is going to do that. But an annual paper exercise covering each of the designated ESAs is not necessarily the best way to achieve this, and we are going to end up with quite a fairly formal heavy report. Noble Lords have not mentioned this yet in our debates but if, as I know many people hope, it were possible to extend the number of ESAs in future, we should end up with a statutory provision which would lead to an absolutely massive document.
Before I answer the individual questions, perhaps I may go to Amendment No. 69, to which the noble Baroness was speaking as well.
The Earl of Onslow: Before my noble friend continues, perhaps I may take him up a little more on this reporting business? It is important that there should be some form of discussion document from the Ministry as to how it sees the ESAs continuing. Perhaps it does not have to be a detailed annual report every time, but there should be something. If my noble friend could see some way of producing some information for us I am sure that most of us would appreciate it.
5 p.m.
Lord Belstead: I will take that point away and think about it. I have gone quite a long way down the track on Amendment No. 68 by saying that I should like to put something on the face of the Bill to provide that there will be monitoring, so that one will be able to look at the Bill and say, "Yes, there will he monitoring".
The wording I used was that I would use my best endeavours. I do not know yet whether the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, will respond favourably. If the Government use their best endeavours and succeed, then that would take us past the position to which several noble Lords have drawn attention, including my noble friend Lord Craigton during a previous sitting of this Committee. On that occasion my noble friend said it seemed that designation was almost the end of the matter and that provisions were not being made after designation.
If I can fulfil an undertaking to the noble Baroness about monitoring, then the Committee will know that there is a genuine intention and indeed a statutory provision that there will be an ongoing look at how the environmentally sensitive areas are working. And let us face it: if there is monitoring then there are bound

1059
to be written reports produced from time to time, without perhaps the rather heavy statutory provision of an annual report to Parliament.
Amendment No. 69 is different, and it is one to which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has drawn particular attention. The effect of Amendment No. 69 would be to place a statutory duty on agricultural Ministers to nominate a particular person to administer each environmentally sensitive area who would seek advice from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Countryside Commission, and the Nature Conservancy Council.
I hope that there is the feeling that I divined once or twice before this Bill came to your Lordships' House—that it is not anybody's intention simply to draw up a set of rules and leave clerical staff to run the schemes. I give an assurance (and this arises particularly from what was said by my noble friend Lord Onslow in his first speech) that we will be actively involved in running the schemes from day to day. Staff from the Ministry will certainly devote very considerable energy to recruiting applicants and helping the farmers concerned to understand and operate the right management methods. We are enormously grateful to the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council for putting proposals to us on statutory prescriptions, about which we are still thinking and having informal discussions.
In general, it would also be our intention to identify a lead officer in the local advisory service to oversee each scheme and to make it work. My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley is absolutely right in saying that that arrangement worked excellently in the case of the Halvergate Marshes area, where the co-operation between the Countryside Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture worked exceedingly well, with a lead officer making it all the more successful.
At this early stage, however, I have to say that to put into the statute that we must have a lead officer when some of the proposed environmentally sensitive areas will possibly be very large, and may encompass very different types of agriculture, would be to try to assume that some of the ESAs will be similar to Halvergate when they are not. Halvergate is likely to be smaller in size by comparison; and there we were aiming to solve one particular problem, which was to see to it that the grazing marsh concept was continued and was not placed in jeopardy. For that reason, I am resistant to the idea of putting into the statute that there shall be a single lead officer.
However, I give the Committee an assurance today in response to this amendment that I shall ensure, on my right honourable friend's behalf, that the officers concerned with the management of environmentally sensitive areas will be in regular contact with the conservation agencies, both statutory and voluntary. Incidentally, if I may say so again rather gently, it would be unusual in primary legislation to specify the way that staff ought to be deployed. That is something that would surprise people in reading an Act, and we ought to think about that point before we press on with Amendment No. 69.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, asked me whether it would be that the payment of moneys under the ESA
1060
concept could run into problems, to which the noble Baroness understood the Laurence Gould Report had drawn attention, in so far as the financing of sites of special scientific interest are concerned. I am by no means sure that the newspaper accounts about the Gould Report are accurate. Indeed, I am fairly certain that they are not. But as a copy of the Gould Report has been placed, I understand, in the Library of both Houses of Parliament, then it will be for the Committee to decide whether or not I am accurate in my remarks. At any rate, we in the Government are still studying the Gould Report.
In essence, the answer to the question of the noble Baroness is that we need not have any fear that there will be problems of the kind that the Gould Report is alleged to have suggested but which I do not think it has—that there may be over-payments. Environmentally sensitive areas are not on the same basis as NCC agreements, to which the Gould Report refers. The ESA payments will be incentives rather than compensation for profits forgone. So the whole basis of the question of the noble Baroness relates to the payment of moneys made on two wholly different bases.
I will give just one example of a large ESA where it would be difficult to have a single lead officer. I will do so because the Committee might think that I was just trying to trot out an excuse. One could take the South Downs, which have been put forward—and I underline the fact that they have not, repeat not, been included in any kind of list that the Ministry may have drawn up, because we have not drawn up any list at the moment. We are still considering the very interesting lists that the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council have put to us.
If one takes the South Downs area, which appears in those lists, it is one that straddles three counties and more than one office of the Ministry of Agriculture. If one were to start talking about the appointment of just one lead officer in that particular area, he would have a very different job from that of the lead officer who had his hands absolutely full so far as the Halvergate Marshes were concerned. It is for that reason—and I wanted to give that example—that I find some difficulty with Amendment No. 69.
Baroness Nicol: Perhaps we may get Amendment No. 68 out of the way first and then return briefly to Amendment No. 69. I am more than happy to accept the Minister's assurance on Amendment No. 68, and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 12, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) The Minister shall nominate for each area designated by order under this section one member of his staff ("the nominated officer") who shall have special responsibilities for the administration of the provisions and requirements specified in the order, which shall in particular include—

(a) the administration of those provisions specified in the order which relate to the management of the area designated thereunder, as provided by agreements made under subsection (4) above; and

(b) the seeking of such advice and guidance from the persons mentioned in subsection (3) above as the nominated officer may think fit.")

The noble Baroness said: I shall move Amendment No. 69 because there are still a few points to be made about it. The Minister has an advantage because most of us have no idea which areas are to be designated, how large they will be, or anything else about them. I know that a list has been discussed and I have heard certain place names mentioned, but I personally have no idea of the size of areas that will be involved.
It still seems to me that even in a very large area it would be of benefit to have some point of focus for questions and inquiries of all kinds, as well as for the giving of advice. I see no reason why there should not be a head of a team who could provide an identity for the farmers in his area, and with whom they could get in touch. I will give way to any more experienced Member of the Committee who may wish to speak to this amendment, because there are others here who have much more knowledge than I of the practicalities. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: If I may say so to my noble friend Lady Nicol, the noble Lord the Minister is right to say that it would he unusual to put into the statute how staff at the Ministry should be deployed. There might come a stage where there was an ESA where it would be sensible to split it into two sub-divisions and to have different persons in charge of each part, particularly if the area straddled a county boundary, or something of that kind.
It would be helpful if the noble Lord could go slightly further than he has already and indicate the kind of staff level at the Ministry who will be responsible for managing the ESAs. As the noble Lord knows, there was some concern—and he repeated it earlier this afternoon—that it would simply be a question of leaving a couple of clerical officers (I have nothing against clerical officers) to look at the forms and put a stamp on them as they came in from farmers. I think that everyone agrees that much more sophisticated management of ESAs will be needed, with more skilled and experienced people involved in them.
On a second point, again I am grateful for the assurance given by the noble Lord—I think it is the first time such an assurance has been given on behalf of the Government—that the NCC and the Countryside Commission will be consulted on the continuing management of ESAs. I do not want to make a big issue on this, but will the Minister consider between now and Report whether it might be useful to have that narrow point—not the point about staff—about consultation with the NCC and the Countryside Commission on the face of the Bill?
Lord Belstead: As regards the second point, I shall think about that and perhaps the noble Lord would like to do so too. I gave an assurance though I did not say that I felt this ought to be written into the Bill. The noble Lord was good enough to say that he felt it was a valuable assurance. Perhaps I can think about the matter between now and Report and possibly the noble Lord and I can have a discussion.
The noble Lord asked what the level of management would be so far as the Ministry is concerned. Normally a senior surveyor or a divisional surveyor would be involved. That is at least the level we appointed for the
1062
Broads. May I say that I know, because I visited the area, that it was because of the co-operation between the surveying side in the Ministry and the lead side in the Countryside Commission that Halvergate has been the success that it has.
The Earl of Onslow: I support my friend—my political and real noble friend—on this matter. Once we have had the assertion from him that he will put on the face of the Bill that there is going to be proper supervision of these ESAs it follows, as night follows day, that there will be some human being, a Sir Humphrey or Humphreyette, in the Ministry of Agriculture responsible for them.
Baroness Nicol: I think we must all do more thinking before we come to the Report stage. I am reassured to a large extent by what the Minister said but I should like to consider more carefully the suggestions he made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No, 69A:
Page 12, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) Where an application for grant under a forestry grant scheme made under the Forestry Acts 1967–79 is made as respects expenditure to be incurred within an area designated by Order under subsection (1) above the appropriate Minister shall consult with the persons mentioned in subsection (3) as to the desirability of the forestry proposal and its compatibility with the maintenance and enhancement of the interest by reason of which the area was so designated.
( ) Where in the opinion of one or more of the persons mentioned in subsection (3) the forestry proposal will have an adverse effect on the interest by reason of which the area was so designated the Minister shall not make the grant.").
The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to try to ensure that any grant-aided forestry operations in environmentally sensitive areas do not conflict with the declared purposes of those areas. It seeks to make grant aid for forestry subject to consultation with, and the approval of, the persons listed in Clause 13(3)—that is, principally the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. It aims to ensure that any forestry carried out would not be damaging to the landscape or to nature conservation in an ESA and it provides that where the Government's own advisory bodies consider that any particular forestry proposals would be damaging the Minister should withhold grant.
Forestry is at present briefly mentioned in Clause 13(8). However, as I read it, this only deals with the dedication schemes which I believe were closed to new entrants in 1981. Since then I think only the forestry grant scheme has been available to new applicants, though existing dedication schemes can continue and can be renewed. Therefore Clause 13 does not at present cover new planting proposals. I think that it should.
Unless something on the lines of this amendment can be included we shall be leaving a serious loophole which might permit uncontrolled afforestation in some ESAs which could do serious damage to them and, indeed, to the whole concept. If, say, an area of

1063
open heather-covered moorland should be designated as an ESA I take it that farming in such an area would be managed in such a way as to avoid changing its character, damaging its scenery or its nature conservation importance. It seems to me important that there should be at least equal restraints on forestry operations.
Commercial forestry can and does change landscapes beyond recognition. It too involves ploughing and draining land and often converts semi-natural upland heather or grass moors into dense stands of alien conifers. The merlins, golden plover and ring ouzels all disappear. In some of the areas at present shortlisted for likely designations as ESAs, the most significant threat to wildlife and landscape may come from afforestation. For example, all the shortlisted areas in Wales could be affected by forestry. In the Cambrian mountains forestry grant applications have been coming forward at the rate of almost one a month. The benefits derived from farming practices encouraged by the Bill may, if we are not careful, be outweighed by large-scale forestry activities.
New developments since the debates in another place suggest that the assurances then given, that the Forestry Commission would treat ESAs in the same way as SSSIs or national parks, may not be quite enough. These assurances will not cover the actions of the private sector where forestry companies will have the option of avoiding any scrutiny by the Forestry Commission by planting without grant. This has happened already and could happen again.
The safeguards offered are the same procedures which have, I understand, allowed some 20 per cent. of the Northumberland National Park to be afforested. These procedures do not appear to be fully satisfactory. They are not, I suggest, good enough as a safeguard for the ESAs—hence my amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: I do not think it is possible to support this amendment more strongly. To think that there could be an environmentally sensitive area and then, without any by your leave or with your leave, you can plonk down barracks of grant-aided conifer trees which are only profitable because of the tax allowances seems to me to make it totally impossible to run an environmentally sensitive area unless forestry is included, and included right up to the hilt.
Last weekend I saw some really mind-blowingly beautiful forests: 10,000 hectares of old beech and oak forests in Normandy. If we were to have that I would say that it almost does not need any kind of control, but those are not the forests we get here. We have blocks of conifer timbers and all are planted with straight wire fences down them. If my noble friend visits the strath of Sutherland he will see some of the worst examples of this which have almost mutilated a beautiful strath. The whole Committee should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for tabling this amendment.
Lord John-Mackie: There are different views, as I think I said two or three days ago, about forestry. I should point out that the Forestry Commission has local regional advisory committees. These committees
1064
have been operating for a very long time and some figures were quoted at our previous Sitting—I do not want to repeat them—of how few of the decisions it took ever went to appeal. I think it was something like 1 per cent. of the 10,000 applications. There is no doubt that no one wants to see forestry spoiling an ESA but this would clash with RACs and some further arrangement would be needed.
The point made by the noble Lord about non-grant-aided forestry planting is one that we must carefully watch. I do not think that any of the grant-aided forestry, with the Forestry Commission's remit on amenities or planting, should now be considered. But I admit that any non-grant aided forestry is a danger. However, things have changed recently and the amount of non-grant aided forestry that has been planted is now minimal because the tax situation has altered.
I think that the noble Lord's criticism of forestry sometimes is not as accurate as it should be. There are 20 million acres of rough land in Britain and 30 million acres of arable land. The maximum that has been planned forward for forestry is somewhere around 8 million acres, leaving 12 million acres of open space, which I think should satisfy not only the environmentalists but all the birds, bees and butterflies as well.
I told the story yesterday—and the noble Lord need not sit there making faces but should rather face a few facts—of when I was in the commission and I was asked if it were true that planting in North Wales was doing away with the kites. I thought it was my duty to go there and try to find out the position. I found that the ranger had been there for a long time, and during the whole of the major planting, and he said to me, "Mr. Mackie, all I can say is that there are more kites now than there were when we started planting". There are a host of stories about the destruction of the ecological balance by forestry which sometimes do not bear close examination.
Although I appreciate the noble Lord's amendment, I think that the Committee should look at it very carefully and remember that the commission, through the RACs, has a duty to attend to what he wants done.
Lord Melchett: I might have misheard my noble friend but I think he suggested that non-grant aided forestry was on the decrease. In fact, as I understand it, the position is exactly the opposite, and until very recently there have not been any cases of non-grant aided afforestation taking place.
Recently—and my noble friend might remember this because it happened in the constituency of one of our honourable friends who represents a Scottish seat—two areas of farmland which were not cleared for forestry by the Department of Agriculture in Scotland were planted without grant. I think there is very widespread concern, not least in the Forestry Commission, that non-grant aided planting is likely to be on the increase, precisely because this is taxation forestry and not forestry for timber, as my noble friend knows. That is why our party supports the extension of the planning control system to cover forestry. We went into the last election with that as our pledge and no doubt we shall go into the next election with that as our policy, which I know that my noble friend on the

1065
Front Bench will warmly support. It might help him to support that policy if he were to get some further information about what has happened to the birds in Wales, because, as I understand it, while kites are certainly holding their own, they are doing so from a very low level—the population level that they were driven to through persecution by gamekeepers, and incidentally egg collectors—and not because of land changes.
The same is not true of much of the other wild life in Wales and in Scotland. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, mentioned that the spread of afforestation was having absolutely catastrophic consequences in Sutherland and Caithness. For example, dippers and peregrines are declining very rapidly in Wales, the decline in numbers being attributed to the effects of afforestation. As my noble friend will remember from debates that we had in this Chamber during the passage of the Salmon Bill, salmon are also declining in Wales and in other parts of the United Kingdom because of the increased acidification of fresh waters and the effect on the salmon's spawning grounds caused by increased afforestation in the hills and the disruption of the run off of water. So afforestation is causing quite appalling ecological damage to many of the upland areas and many of the other interests that have previously co-existed quite happily in upland areas, and I think it would be a great pity if we introduced a new designation into the countryside ESAs and left them vulnerable to exactly the same sort of disruption.
There is no doubt that planting without grant will become an increasing threat in the future. That is why I understand the Forestry Commission recently recommended to the Government that they should have complete control over planting through the power to grant planting licences. I understand that this was a proposal from the Forestry Commission which did not find favour with the Government. Nevertheless, I hope it will convince Members on all sides of the Committee that the forestry industry itself is worried by uncontrolled new afforestation, and I think that we should be worried about it in ESAs.
Lord Belstead: In this amendment the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is saying that forestry development within an environmentally sensitive area must be subject to consultation with the appropriate Minister and also with the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council, whether it is in England, Scotland or Wales; but the amendment also gives a right of veto to any one of the bodies consulted, including incidentally my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment as well as my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, if any of the bodies concerned consider that the proposal for forestry will adversely affect the objectives of the environmentally sensitive area. So this is quite a draconian amendment with a veto in it.
I must come to a point which none of the Members of the Committee have mentioned in this short debate: this clause is of course implementing Article 19 of the Community Regulation 797/85, under which we are able to introduce environmentally sensitive areas. That article specifically relates to agricultural production practices and as a result its
1066
coverage is limited by the common agricultural policy rules which define agriculture in relation to a list of products. That list, which is in Annex II of the Treaty, does not include forestry products, so we should be going outside the scope of the authorising Community regulation for environmentally sensitive areas if we included forestry on the face of the statute.
The Earl of Onslow: I am sorry to interrupt but am I following what the Minister is saying? Is he actually saying that it would be illegal under the Treaty of Rome for us to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, or something very like it? If that is the case, I am almost prepared to say. "To hell with the Treaty of Rome".
Lord Belstead: My answer to the first part of my noble friend's question is yes; my answer to the second part of his question is that I think that would be a great pity. My noble friend has highlighted the fact that there is a real difficulty with this amendment, quite apart from the merits—and there are different views about the merits. Indeed my advice is that it would put us in breach of the Treaty, if we were to accept this particular amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, may well ask, "What is being done about it? Is anything being done?" And the answer is that quite a lot is being done. Ever since this matter was focused on when the legislation was being prepared, the Forestry Commission's longstanding and well tried system of consultations over grant and felling licence applications were considered.
I think that nobody in this Chamber has more experience of the forestry industry and forestry generally than the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. It was interesting that the noble Lord sitting on the Front Bench opposite immediately referred to the important consultation procedures of the Forestry Conmmission, because under these procedures the appropriate statutory authorities are asked what they think. This ensures that the interests of the environment, especially in designated areas, are fully taken into account. When the noble Lord said that very few, or comparatively few, cases become disputed cases and eventually go to Ministers, he was absolutely right. So these are procedures which work pretty well.
But in the context of these consultation procedures, the Forestry Commission decided that it must take an initiative and it has indicated that it will be agreeing appropriate consultation arrangements with local authorities, the NCC and the two Countryside Commissions in respect of planting and felling proposals within ESAs, in order to ensure that only those planting or felling proposals are agreed which would be compatible with the special status of an environmentally sensitive area. My information is that the Forestry Commission has already reached agreement with the Countryside Commission concerning consultations over forestry proposals in ESAs in England and Wales. Where consultations with those bodies give rise to objections which cannot be resolved, the commission has also said that it will not accept the planting or felling proposals without the agreement of Ministers, including in England my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the

1067
Environment. There is already a ministerial direction to that effect.
That is going as far as anybody humanly could to meet a point which, because of the way in which the Treaty of Rome is drawn, cannot be put on the face of the Bill. That is an argument which ought to appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, with his diplomatic background.
Several noble Lords referred to the loophole of planting without grant. That is true. But, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, the two cases to which he referred, which I think were both in Scotland, were not necessarily endangering the environment. My advice has always been that in one case clearance for planting had been refused on the grounds of land quality, and that was not an environmental matter. In the other case, it was likely that part of the land would have been cleared for planting after consultation, but the scheme went forward without grant. We ought not to go away with the idea that in those two cases there were great environmental concerns.
I must meet this point straight on. It will be possible to plant without grant but it will also be possible to do other things without grant in an ESA. If we live in a free country and believe in the voluntary principle, we cannot tie everybody up in red tape all the time.
Before I sit down I ought to correct one matter. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, probably knows that I put a foot wrong. I ought not to have said that the amendment would break the treaty. I am advised that what we cannot do is to pay money for forestry under the ESA regulation because of the wording of the treaty. Forestry cannot be fully in ESAs and cannot therefore be part of the clause.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness White: Can we get it a little more straight? There is nothing to prevent the Government using their own money or the taxpayers' money; it is just that they cannot use Community money. Is that the point that the Minister is trying to make?
Lord Belstead: With great respect, that is not the case. We are using our money and only our money in order to set up the provisions under this clause. No Community money at the moment will flow into the provision in order to set up ESAs. But every time that we designate an ESA—and I hope that if Parliament agrees to the Bill that will be before not too many months have gone by—we shall have to show the Commission what we intend to designate so that it may be assured that we are not indulging in illegal state aid under the guise of an ESA. If we put forestry into the provisions of the clause, it is at that moment that the Commission would say to us, "Look at the Treaty and you will find that you are doing something which you ought not to do".
Baroness White: I believe that the sub-committee of our environmental scrutiny committee which reports to your Lordships' House is shortly to examine the question of forestry and its relation to the EC. If we are to wait for some time, we may be enlightened by the
1068
time that we are ready to do something about designating an ESA.
Lord Melchett: The future of forestry policy in the EC is interesting but I cannot see what on earth it has to do with the amendment. The amendment does not suggest making payments for planting trees or not planting trees in ESAs. It would simply give Ministers power to prevent a damaging operation going ahead in an ESA if that operation was afforestation. As the noble Lord clearly said for the second time round, that is not affected by the Treaty of Rome. Given that we should not be making any payments under the amendment, I cannot see what it would have to do with the European Commission. It is an entirely domestic matter. Several other European countries have strict controls over both new afforestation and the maintenance of existing woodlands within the Community and under the CAP. None of that is prevented. I cannot see what the noble Lord's argument has to do with the amendment.
Lord Belstead: Let me repeat what I said, because I think that it is important that I should. I have apologised to the Committee, and the amendment, as such, would not break the treaty. But we cannot pay money for forestry under the ESA regulation. That means that forestry cannot be fully in ESAs. The amendment brings forestry within ESAs. The effect would be that forestry developments within an ESA would be subject to consultation and ultimately to possible veto.
The Earl of Onslow: We have become slightly sidetracked by the European Community and I may be partly responsible. It seems to me totally impossible to have an ESA policy and yet somebody can plonk 600 or 1,000 acres of conifers in the middle of it, without ruining both the environment and its sensitivity. If that is the case, it is almost pointless having ESAs. I urge my noble friend to try to find a way round the dilemma. It strikes me as a major flaw in what is otherwise an excellent scheme.
Lord Annan: I did not quite follow what the noble Lord was saying about the cases that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned in Scotland being irrelevant. But, if so, I can give him another case in Scotland where such planting has done great damage. It is at the source of the river Annan, which, as the noble Lord will know, is contiguous to the source of the rivers Clyde and Tweed and is one of the most beautiful parts of southern Scotland. Extensive planting has taken place to the great detriment of the landscape.
Lord Moran: Let me refer first to the point about the European Community which the Minister mentioned on Second Reading and explained at greater length today. As I understand it, when the matter was discussed in another place the Government admitted that they were largely instrumental in ensuring that forestry did not fall within the EC definition of agriculture. I do not know whether that is right, but it seems to have been the British Government who brought that provision about. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, that is not relevant to my amendment,

1069
which is concerned with preventing an ESA from being radically changed and, in effect, destroyed by large-scale commercial afforestation, and is not concerned with financial grants to forestry.
I was encouraged by what the Minister said about the consultations that the Forestry Commission has been having with other bodies. I should like to study carefully in Hansard what he said. I am worried that the procedures, though excellent as far as they go, may not manage to prevent a cowboy commercial operator from planting without grant, as he can at the moment without consulting anyone. However elaborate the procedures worked out with the other bodies, they may not be enough to prevent the kind of forestry that would be damaging to an area which in the Government's own words is sensitive.
That is extremely important matter, and I should like to study it. I realise that the amendment is fairly tough. It is perhaps too tough, but I believe that, in some circumstances, it is necessary to be tough to prevent the destruction of what are, after all, going to be very special areas indeed. Subject to that, I may feel it necessary to raise the matter again at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 13, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Sandford: I should like to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend for responding, when we were discussing Amendment No. 67, to the questions that I asked him then. I did not speak at that point because I did not want to add to the number of topics that we were already discussing on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.
I wish to support my noble friend in resisting the suggestion that very much more should be put in primary legislation about the management regimes in ESAs and the process of setting them up. When the national parks were set up in their present form in 1974, there were only two short paragraphs in primary legislation. A circular of 10 pages and 40 paragraphs followed somewhat later. That is, I believe, the appropriate setting for them. To that extent, I agree with my noble friend. On the other hand, having heard what he had to say—I shall want to study his remarks more carefully—my first reaction is that what he has spelt out will not prove sufficiently comprehensive or thorough, first, for the management of the ESAs to work out correctly, or, secondly, to provide a sufficiently firm and agreed authoritative background under which to negotiate all the various management agreements.
I listened to the list of people he will consult. 1 did not think it sufficient. I listened to what my noble friend said about staffing. I do not think that the proposal goes far enough. It is most important that each ESA has a single authorised officer, although such provision is appropriate for a circular. I hope that, in setting up a new regime for managing land and countryside, the Ministry of Agriculture will draw on the extensive experience already available in the Department of the Environment and particularly in the national parks.
1070
I should like therefore to study what my noble friend has said, and I reserve the right to come hack to this point at Report stage either separately or in conjunction with amendments that other noble Lords have indicated they wish to move. The clause deals with management agreements. As the Gould Report has been mentioned, I take this opportunity of saying that I received yesterday the Answer to a Written Question that I had put down. This says, among other things, that the report would be published and copies laid in the Library of both Houses. I have checked and there is indeed a copy in the Library of our House. I thought that the Committee would like to know that.
Lord Oram: I am prompted to speak briefly on the basis of several of the remarks that the Minister has made in dealing with some of the amendments. I was delighted to hear the Minister, in dealing with Amendment No. 68, take, as an illustration, the South Downs as a possible designated area. My delight arises from the fact that I have the privilege of being the president of the Society of Sussex Downsmen. The fact that the South Downs came so readily to the Minister's mind encourages me to think that this area is possibly not only on the short list about which we know, but perhaps even on a shorter list. I hope that this is so.
I trust that this is the case because we missed out in 1947 when the national parks were set up. Although we were recommended by the Hobhouse Committee as a national park, it was said that so little open downland remained after the ploughing-up during the war that there was not sufficient area for it to be a recreational area. What was a disqualification then may well be considered to be a qualification in respect of an environmentally sensitive area. I am not expecting the Minister to respond positively to my hints; I am simply expressing a hope.
I was glad to hear the Minister, in his references to monitoring, say that he would bear in mind voluntary organisations as participants in monitoring. I hope that this will be so. I hope that consideration will be given to the kind of organisation of which I have the privilege to be president. I wonder, however, whether we have allowed to pass too easily consideration of how the Minister should reach conclusions about designation. I wonder whether the degree of consultation set out in the Bill is sufficient and whether there should not be provision for consultation with voluntary bodies beyond the consultation with statutory bodies indicated in the Bill as it stands. Those are thoughts that have occurred to me while listening to the debate, and I thought it worthwhile putting them on the record.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: It is, I believe, important for me to make clear that the short list has been in existence ever since my right honourable friend the Minister of State in the Ministry of Agriculture, in another place on 21st January, listed them (at column 187 of the proceedings in Standing Committee B). Of course, the South Downs was one of the areas on the list. I simply drew one out of the list to make my point. I mentioned the South Downs for that reason, and for that reason only.

1071
I should perhaps mention one other matter so that there is no misunderstanding. Indeed, should Hansard show that I am wrong, I apologise in advance. Looking at my notes, I believe that what I said was that I would make absolutely sure, on my right honourable friend's behalf, that the officers concerned in the management of each environmentally sensitive area would be in regular contact with the statutory conservation agencies. Indeed, we would be in touch with voluntary organisations as well. In giving my undertaking about looking as helpfully as I could, using my best endeavours, to meet that part of Amendment No. 68 of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that relates to monitoring, I do not think that I gave an undertaking that our monitoring would necessarily be attached to consultation. I simply said that I would do my best to meet that amendment so far as putting something on the face of the Bill was concerned to say that we will monitor. The Committee would then be assured of ongoing care of the environmentally sensitive area concept. I felt that I should say that in order that there should be no misunderstanding.
Lord Hardinge of Penshurst: In supporting the noble Lord, Lord Oram, may I express the hope that the quality of the South Downs will be held in the same regard as the quantity of them—a matter to which the Minister referred earlier—when it comes to choosing ESAs?
Lord John-Mackie: I should like to take the opportunity of correcting my noble friend who sits behind me on the issue of non-grant-aided forestry. I was talking about numbers while he was talking about acres. From my most recent discussions with my friends in the Forestry Commission, I understand the system is that the conservators' report relates to very small areas here and there that are planted. An estimate is made of how many cases there are. The acreage has been increased by the two cases in Scotland, consisting of over 100 hectars each, which makes my noble friend's point in acreage. But as to numbers, the Commission thinks that these are going down. However, because of these two cases, the acreages are going up.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 70:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
("Supplementary provisions regarding agreements in Scotland.
—(1) Where a person having an interest of a kind described in section 13(4) above in land in Scotland, being an interest which enables him to bind the land, enters into an agreement under that subsection—

(a) where the land is registered in the Land Register of Scotland, the agreement may be registered in that Register;

(b) in any other case the agreement may be recorded in the appropriate Division of the General Register of Sasines.

(2) An agreement registered or recorded under subsection (1) above shall be enforceable at the instance of the Secretary of State against pesons deriving title to the land (including any person acquiring right to a tenancy by assignation or succession) from the person who entered into the agreement; provided that such an agreement shall not be enforceable against a third party who shall have in good faith and for value acquired right (whether completed by infeftment or not) to the land prior to the agreement being registered or recorded as aforesaid, or against any person deriving title from such third party.
1072
(3) Notwithstanding the terms of any agreement registered or recorded under subsection (1) above, the parties to the agreement or any person deriving title from them may at any time agree to terminate it; and such an agreement to terminate it shall be registered or recorded in the same manner as was the original agreement.
(4) A grazings committee appointed under section 24 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955 may, with the consent of a majority of the crofters ordinarily resident in the township, enter into an agreement under section 13(4) above in relation to any part of the common grazings and may agree to the revocation or variation of any such agreement, and such agreement, revocation or variation shall be binding upon all their successors.
(5) In the case of an agreement of a kind referred to in subsection (4) above, the payments by the Secretary of State shall be made to the grazings committee and shall be applied by them either—

(a) by division among the crofters who share in the common grazings in proportion to their respective rights therein; or

(b) subject to subsection (6) below, in carrying out works for the improvement of the common grazings of the fixed equipment required in connection therewith.

(6) A grazings committee to whom such a payment as is referred to in subsection (5) above has been made and who are proposing to apply the payment in carrying out works in accordance with paragraph (b) of that subsection shall give notice in writing to each crofter sharing in the common grazings of their proposals: and any such crofter may within one month of that date of such notice make representations in respect of the proposals to the Crofters Commission who may approve them with or without modification or reject them.
(7) "Crofter" and other expressions used in any of subsections (4) to (6) above and in section 3 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955 have the same meaning in this section as they have in that section as read with section 15(6) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1961.".)
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 70, after Clause 13, to insert the new clause in accordance with the words on the Marshalled List. Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 75. This clause has two objectives. In the first place, our aim is that where an ESA agreement is made with the owner of any land, that agreement should continue to be binding on successive owners and occupiers for the duration of the agreement.
Clause 13(7) of the Bill provides for agreements to be binding on successors deriving title to the land. This would not achieve the desired results in Scotland since under Scots law it is possible to make agreements binding only by establishing a burden on the land. This in turn can be satisfactorily achieved only by ensuring that agreements are registered in the Land Register of Scotland or recorded in the General Register of Sasines, whichever is appropriate. Accordingly, subsection (1) of the clause requires for the registration or recording of agreements, and subsection (2) for the agreements to be enforceable against successive owners and their tenants by the Secretary of State.
Subsection (3) allows for the termination of agreements by mutual consent, this in turn to be registered or recorded. Subsections (4) to (6) deal with the second objective of the new clause: the application of agreements in the crofting areas of Scotland where there are common grazings. Subsection (4) allows for grazing committees to enter into agreements which would be binding on all the crofters who share in the common grazings and their successors. Subsection (5) specifies how ESA payments in these circumstances should be made and used. Subsection (6) provides a machinery for resolving any disputes.
These provisions, which are paralleled in other countryside legislation, will enable crofters, where appropriate, to participate in ESA agreements in full measure. This is essentially a technical clause and I commend it to the Committee.
I should like also briefly to refer to Amendment No. 75. This is a purely technical consequential amendment to Amendment No. 70. It disapplies Section 13(7) in Scotland as this is superseded by this new Scottish clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 71:
insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Land Drainage Act 1986
. After subsection (2) of section 17 of the Land Drainage Act 1976 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) Where any land has been notified under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to the drainage authority by reason of its special scientific interest, or where land has been designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Area under section 13 of the Agriculture Act 1986, a drainage authority shall not undertake any improvement or construction under paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (1) above unless it has been approved by the Minister.
In granting approval under this subsection the Minister may make it subject to such provisions as he thinks fit.".")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 71, which deals in a slightly different way with a very similar problem to that dealt with in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on forestry.
In this instance my concern is that there is a real danger of environmentally sensitive areas being damaged by drainage works. At the present, as noble Lords will know, drainage works are exempt from planning control, and this is a matter that we shall come on to in a later amendment. The only land drainage projects which receive external scrutiny—in other words, external to the organisation which will carry them out—are capital projects; those that are classified as new or improvement works as opposed to maintenance. In the case of the capital projects the drainage authority applies for grant to the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, and the Ministry assess the project according to economic, technical and environmental criteria and so on. That is a matter that we have debated at great length in this Chamber over the years. Many regional water authorities in the past have passed resolutions stating that they will not proceed with capital schemes unless they receive the Ministry grant aid, and therefore in effect have given the Ministry of Agriculture an effective veto over drainage schemes.
However, this situation is now changing. Even if we can argue about whether it is changing in the case of forestry I do not think that there is any argument when it comes to land drainage. With recent cuts in percentage levels of grant aid for arterial land drainage works—something which on the whole conservationists have welcomed, and which has been beneficial to wildlife as well as helping not to increase surplus agricultural production—the significance of grant aid has now been reduced. Some capital drainage schemes have been undertaken without grant aid from the Ministry. Indeed, now some water authorities are considering adopting a more general policy. My
1074
understanding is that very recently a number have done so. The general policy is not to apply for grant aid for schemes exceeding a certain capital cost. For example, the South-West Water Authority has decided to allocate money to schemes which may not attract grant aid. The Severn/Trent Water Authority has recently decided to spend up to a million pounds on capital land drainage schemes without applying for grant aid from the Ministry. I have no doubt that the Treasury will be pleased to hear that. I do not know about the Ministry's view, but I know that conservationists are very worried about it. I think that farmers and landowners in environmentally sensitive areas should also be worried.
The crucial point is this. Unless grant aid is applied for the land drainage scheme will receive no external scrutiny for its technical suitability, its economic viability and, most importantly in the context of ESAs, its environmental acceptability. Schemes are frequently subject to informal consultations between water authorities and conservation bodies, but conservation bodies, needless to say, unfortunately have no power to stop a water authority going ahead with a scheme. Neither do the statutory agencies—the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. Water authorities are obliged to consult the NCC only if a scheme is likely to affect a statutory nature reserve or a site of special scientific interest. The NCC has no power of veto, as the Ministry of Agriculture used to have when grant aid was regularly applied for.
This mechanism for filtering schemes, which the previous regular application for grant aid provided, has been accorded great importance and significance by the Government. In a speech last autumn to launch a wetlands conservation campaign the Secretary of State for the Environment, in claiming that no land drainage schemes which damaged conservation areas had been undertaken for two years, said:
"We shall continue to ensure that grant aid applications are examined rigorously with conservation considerations very much in mind".
That commitment is meaningless if water authorities do not apply for grant aid, as a number have now decided not to do.
This amendment would require drainage authorities to obtain approval from the Ministry of Agriculture before undertaking any capital projects. I believe that this would simply have the effect of maintaining the status quo which existed, certainly when the Secretary of State for the Environment made his speech last October, and until very recently indeed.
I hope, therefore, that it will be welcome to the Government and will help to ensure that environmentally sensitive areas which are environmentally sensitive because of their high water table or particular drainage pattern will continue to be so, and that no drainage scheme can be undertaken which would damage the areas and therefore reduce the income available to the farmers and landlowners in the ESA. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: I have considerable sympathy with the point that my noble friend is making about the reduction of water levels in areas which are environmentally sensitive. He has put forward the case

1075
for more control over that. If the Minister accepts this point some cover will need to be provided where a drainage river takes water further back on genuine arable land. Unless the level is kept below the drain mouth of these areas, the drainage is useless. That situation would need to be covered somehow, although I quite appreciate that there are areas where the water level might be brought down below the level that my noble friend would like. However, I do not think that we can endanger areas of genuine agricultural drainage further up the river.
6 p.m.
Lord Walston: At the risk of exhibiting my ignorance, I should like to ask two questions, First, what is the situation of a farmer in an ESA who wishes to undertake some personal drainage? I am not referring to a drainage authority. I am referring to a farmer who simply wishes to drain a damp corner of a field or even a meadow which has some significance or which may eventually be classified as having some significance. Is he at present free to drain land in an ESA if he so wishes?
My second question concerns the overall water table and water authorities. I live in an area where drainage is no problem at all. What we want to do is to retain water. In our area there are very big aquifers in the chalk which are understandably being exploited by the water authority for the water supply of London and other urban areas. It has the effect of lowering the water table by several feet throughout a very large area. That can and does have—and it will continue to do so unless remedial steps are taken—the effect of altering the flora in certain areas normally known as wetlands and of destroying a large part of the environment. The amendment quite clearly does not affect those operations at all.
From my experience, in general the water authorities are extremely public spirited about this situation and do their best to minimise any damage which might accrue from this abstraction. However, without trespassing on rather more delicate ground, in the future we may not find that form of co-operation quite so forthcoming. I do not know whether the noble Lord has any views on this matter or whether he thinks that it is already adequately taken care of at least in ESAs.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may begin by referring to the two questions which have been put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, one of which I can answer and the other of which I am afraid I cannot. The noble Lord's second question was about the situation of water authorities which take their water from deep in the ground, thus generally affecting the water table in the locality—which could be an environmentally sensitive area—and therefore affecting the area concerned. This is a matter to which I have not given the thought that I should have done. Moreover, I do not know what the water legislation says so far as this particular danger is concerned. I am sure that it is a matter which water authorities have very much in mind when they are making their plans. However, I shall have to look into it and write to the noble Lord.
1076
The noble Lord's first question concerned the position of a farmer who wished to put in some field drainage in an environmentally sensitive area. This is ground which we covered on the first amendment this afternoon. The answer is that, under the Agricultural Improvement Scheme which was introduced at the end of last year, he must, if he wishes to do it with grant, apply for prior approval, to the Ministry of Agriculture. We shall look at the particular operation that he wants to do—which includes field drainage—and if we believe that such action will be environmentally damaging we shall say that we shall not pay grant. Of course if the farmer wishes to drain without grant that is a different matter, because we cannot forbid all farmers in an area to drain their land. Again, that is ground which we covered earlier this afternoon.
If I may say so, this is an ingenious amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that grants for arterial drainage have been very much reduced, and that is true. Indeed, it is welcomed by those who are interested in environmental topics. However, the noble Lord went on to say that because grant aid had been cut, drainage authorities are resorting to drainage works without grant. The noble Lord therefore reached the conclusion, which he has put into his amendment, that in an environmentally sensitive area or, indeed, an SSSI, drainage operations will require ministerial approval of the proposals for improvement of existing or the construction of new drainage works, and therefore the Minister can have a veto.
I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on two grounds. First, the noble Lord is being a little dismissive of the effects of grant aid. There is still a very large sum of money flowing into drainage. Under Section 48 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 there is the duty placed on drainage authorities that they shall further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and features of special interest of the particular area.
As your Lordships may remember, the environment committee of another place examined how Section 48 was working early last year and came to the conclusion that it was generally satisfied with the drainage authorities' response although some internal drainage boards were criticised. My right honourable friend therefore undertook to strengthen the guidelines to internal drainage boards so far as their responsibilities under Section 48 are concerned.
The guidelines were issued jointly with the Department of the Environment three years ago. Their revision is now very well advanced and the revised version will advocate that all drainage authorities should consult annually with the Nature Conservancy Council on maintenance operations and more frequently on specific areas of importance to the council. The guidelines will also recommend that special consultation should be carried out at the earliest possible stage of planning the construction of new or improvement works and that environmentally sensitive areas should receive special consideration. There is of course already a statutory obligation to consult the NCC where drainage operations might affect SSSIs.
In considering applications for grant aid, my right honourable friend insists that those applications must

1077
provide evidence of the views of the NCC, or other appropriate organisations, on the scheme, unless there is no possible conservation interest.
In essence, what I am saying, with respect to the noble Lord, is that it is a little dismissive to say that nobody is applying for grant and therefore Section 48 does not come into it. I do not think that that is so. Leaving that matter aside, there is in addition a great deal going on of a voluntary nature. I have given one example; namely, that the guidelines issued under Section 48 by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment are being strengthened.
However, there is a better example. Quite independently of all that, the Association of Drainage Authorities has got together with the NCC to prepare joint guidelines on the upkeep and improvement of internal drainage board watercourses particularly in sensitive areas. I understand that this work is progressing well.
The association has also recently launched a scheme with the NCC to develop watercourses of minor importance to drainage and flood relief specifically for conservation and environmental purposes. I am told that this is attracting substantial interest. I think that that strengthens the view of the environment committee in another place that there has been a significant change in the attitude of drainage authorities towards the environment. The Government have encouraged this co-operation as we believe that it is the best means of ensuring the right balance between the different users of our countryside, and of encouraging all to understand each other's point of view and to work together. What we have been doing, I think successfully, is to provide the framework for such co-operation.
These are matters for local co-operation and not central direction by ministerial decision. It is true that at the end of the day if there is a disagreed grant-aided proposal on drainage under Section 48, then it comes to Ministers, and the decisions are always taken by joint agreement between my right honourable friend and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. There is central direction there. But I think that this is an amendment which disregards the good work now going on more locally, particularly between the Association of Drainage Authorities and the NCC; a co-operation which I welcome.
Lord Melchett: First, the noble Lord suggested that I had said that nobody was claiming grant-aid any more. That would be a strange thing to see and an even stranger thing to say, and I did not say it. I said that some water authorities—and I understand an increasing number recently—have decided for the first time to go ahead with quite major drainage programmes without seeking grant-aid. I have a cutting from the Water Bulletin of 17th January this year which, under a headline, "Land Drainage Funding Move", says this:
"For the first time South West Water's Regional Land Drainage Committee has agreed to allocate money to schemes that may not attract grant aid".
I understand that more recently the Severn Trent Water Authority has decided to spend up to £1 million on capital schemes without applying for grant-aid. My
1078
understanding is that a number of other water authorities have recently taken decisions of the same sort. I am not saying that nobody is applying for grant-aid, but that a lot of water authorities are no longer applying for grant-aid for some of the schemes they undertake; and over those the noble Lord has no control. The noble Lord mentioned the guidelines being prepared for internal drainage boards. I would say, "Not a moment too soon". But I would be doubtful whether they will affect some IDBs one jot.
The noble Lord said there was a lot going on of a voluntary nature, and I wonder whether he had in mind the activities of a particular internal drainage board on the Somerset Levels. This IDB decided to halt the flooding of Southlake Moor on the Somerset Levels. This is a wetland site, a site of special scientific interest of international importance because of wintering wildfowl, which include widgeon and Bewick swans, and it has a rich plant community including marsh marigold, water violet, flowering rush, and a particular dragonfly called the Hairy Dragonfly.
All this wildlife is dependent on an extensive ditch system being penned at a high level in summer, and unusually, and for a long period historically, the land has been flooded quite deliberately in winter. That system has carried on for centuries and has created an area rich in wildlife where farming and conservation go hand in hand. The IDB's idea of local co-operation, and of a lot going on of a voluntary nature, was to decide on its own account, without talking to anybody, to stop the traditional flooding in winter of this moor. It took that decision against the original recommendation of the catchment committee—the Southlake Catchment Committee—which advises the IDB on these matters.
To get around that and to avoid any question of there being local co-operation or not, the IDB simply changed the membership of the catchment committee. This was a criminal offence, as I understand it. It was a breach of the 1830 Act of Parliament by which the catchment committee is constituted. It was done at an unconstitutionally-held meeting. I hope that gives the noble Lord some idea of the sort of local co-operation that is going on in the case of the Somerset Moors and Levels and this particular internal drainage board.
The decision flew in the face of the new statutory duty on internal drainage boards to have regard to conservation. It is particularly ironic that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, mentioned the importance of consulting with the Nature Conservancy Council. In this area, where the IDB has decided to change the water regime and destroy the wildlife interests, the Nature Conservancy Council recently bought some land with public money to set up a national nature reserve. The cessation of flooding that the IDB has carried out will mean that the land loses its wildlife interests. The wintering birds will not come there, and the public money spent on buying the land will have been wasted.
That is what is happening in the Somerset Moors and Levels at the moment. As the noble Lord will know, the Somerset Moors and Levels is one of the areas proposed for an ESA designation. I should like to know what the noble Lord thinks it is possible to do to stop an IDB ignoring its statutory duties, ignoring local

1079
consultation, illegally changing the composition of the committee that is meant to give it advice, and whether he seriously thinks that the new guidance notes to IDBs are going to make the slightest difference. Would it not be much simpler for everybody, including particularly the farmers who are going to be receiving income in ESAs, which will rely in somewhere like the Somerset Levels on a high water level being maintained—for all those interests—to accept this amendment now?
6.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: The answer is, no; I do not think so. The particular case the noble Lord cited is a case in which the Minister of Agriculture does not have any statutory powers to intervene. The allegations that the noble Lord has made, and which I have read in the press, are being investigated, but the legal advice I have had so far is that we do not have any powers of direct intervention. The noble Lord says: in that case why not accept his amendment? My answer is that I genuinely believe that in this country you get the best out of people, particularly in the countryside, if you can try to get them to do things in a voluntary way.
We have come a long way in the past few years, and not least since the 1981 Act. When, as I went out of my way 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour ago to say, the Association of Drainage Authorities—which is the particular association to which this IDB will belong—has got together with the NCC to prepare joint guidelines, I should have thought that this is the road to go down rather than to try to hit people on the head by putting a central direction into an Act so far as countryside matters are concerned. I am sorry, but there is a basic and philosophical difference between the noble Lord and me. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and I agree on quite a lot of things, but there is a basic and philosophical difference of view on this point. I have to say it, and I stick by what I am saying.
Lord Melchett: I agree that there is a basic philosophical difference between those of us on this side of the Committee and those opposite. I hope we can explore that in a little more detail on the next amendment. The noble Lord says that we do not want to hit people on the head. The question is whether we should try to stop this IDB going around mugging the landowners and wildfowl of Somerset, because that is what they have been doing. They have destroyed an area that has been farmed in a particular way for centuries, where public money has been spent buying a national nature reserve, and is listed as a potential environmentally sensitive area. They are vandals on the loose, and the noble Lord is saying, "Jolly good; let them go on voluntarily doing what they want to do". He makes a particular point of not having any statutory controls over these rural vandals, and he is pleased about it. That is a scandal and it is deplorable.
If that is the noble Lord's attitude it is going to be difficult to make environmentally sensitive areas work to the benefit of the farming community, as all of us in this Committee want them to do. As the noble Lord said, we come to a philosophical divide on these
1080
matters, which I hope we can look at in more detail on the next amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [EEC farm grants relating to areas of special scientific interest or National Parks etc.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Moran: I should like to raise at this point a question of which I have given the Minister notice. It concerns conditions on tax relief for forestry. Reference has already been made to two recent cases in South-East Scotland where private forestry companies have undertaken upland afforestation projects despite these projects being refused grant-aid by the Forestry Commission and, as I understand it, against the wishes of the Department of Agriculture.
It is not illegal for landowners to carry out these activities. Approval from the Forestry Commission is only necessary where grant-aid is sought. Landowners, I suppose, proceed on occasion without Forestry Commission grant-aid because they know that they will still benefit substantially from tax reliefs made available for forestry establishments. These contribute up to 60 per cent. of the establishment costs, which may be £1,000 per hectare. No assessment, so far as I know, is made of whether tax relief granted in this way is in the public interest, either environmentally or economically. These actions have led to widespread criticism not only from conservationists and planners but from the Forestry Commission and timber growers in the UK.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady White, for drawing my attention to an article in the Economist on 10th May which I commend to the Committee and which sets out very clearly the essence of the argument. If I may, I shall read a short paragraph from that article. It reads:
"it might make sense to subsidise more tree-planting. So argue the Ministry of Agriculture, the Forestry Commission and the private forestry companies which now account for most new planting.
"Not so, say more and more conservationists. The main incentive for planting trees is simply to dodge tax. Britain is still cutting down fine old forests of deciduous trees. New planting is creating factory forests: 97 per cent. of new planting last year was of conifers, and 89 per cent. was of conifers planted in Scotland, mainly in dense-packed swathes across bare hillsides. Great tracts of ecologically important wild land are being damaged irreversibly, say conservationists—simply to provide wealthy individuals, who may never set eyes on their investment, with a way of reducing their tax liability."
Thus reads the Economist.
There is, I believe, widespread concern that the small amount of control which exists over afforestation is being circumvented. I had in mind therefore to propose an amendment in the form of a new clause designed to ensure that private investors should be eligible for tax reliefs if their forestry schemes met with the approval of the Forestry Commission and only if they did. This measure would not have affected any forestry operations which are currently being carried out with Forestry Commission approval, as the majority are, and would simply serve to bring back under the jurisdiction of the Forestry Commission those operations which currently choose

1081
to ignore the procedures generally accepted by forestry interests. I have not moved such an amendment lest it should be thought to be encroaching on tax matters which are the concern of another place. But I am raising the point now because I think it is important and I should very much like to know what is the Government's view on this question.
Lord Belstead: As the noble Lord says in speaking to Clause 14 stand part, tax matters are for Treasury Ministers. But the noble Lord, who was good enough to give me notice that he wished to raise this matter, is really concerned about uncontrolled planting and would like to get at it by the withholding of forestry tax benefits from owners who plant without having obtained clearance from the Forestry Commission.
I ought to say first that this would represent a major departure from established fiscal policy and precedent, especially as regards personal income tax allowances. But I am troubled by what the noble Lord is putting forward because I think it is very draconian and, with respect to the noble Lord, I think it would have very uneven effects. When I say it is "very draconian", what I have in mind is that I think we need to keep firmly in mind that the planting of trees without the benefit of Government grants is not an offence. I very much hope that it will not become an offence.
I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said earlier this afternoon about the few cases that there are of disputed grant cases coming to Ministers. That is so and it is also true that there have been very few cases as far as we know of planting going ahead without grant, although it is a loophole. It is a loophole in the careful procedures run by the Forestry Commission, I do not deny that.
But, as I say, the case being put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, would have uneven effects. It would be extremely difficult to ensure that the right weight of penalty was applied in each and every case. Presumably the tax benefits ought to be withheld only in relation to new unapproved planting (that is the thesis) whereas much of an owner's expenditure can be ascribed to the maintenance and protection of existing plantations which may not have offended in any way, bearing in mind that many operations such as fencing and draining can relate to both new and established planting. Where one would draw the line on this thesis is extremely difficult, but crucial, to decide.
Although the noble Lord quoted from an article which seemed to refer to all who have an interest in trees as being wealthy individuals, that is not the case, as all of us know. A significant amount of planting is carried out on behalf of pension funds, which cannot claim the same tax advantages as an individual who has a high rate of income. The disincentive of the noble Lord's idea would not therefore be of uniform application, nor would it bear uniformly on those cases where it applied.
Therefore for those reasons I must say that I find this case that the noble Lord is putting forward worrying. It worries me very much that we should say simply that if someone plants without grant he should have tax advantages removed from him completely. Speaking from this side of the Committee that is something that I do not like the idea of at all. But the
1082
argument that may appeal to the noble Lord, who is essentially fair-minded, is that it is also a thesis which would have very uneven effects in its application.
The Earl of Onslow: What is worrying large numbers of people on both sides of the Committee is this uneven effect, as my noble friend says, of the fairly large visual destruction. My noble friend Lord Caithness used a mellifluous phrase the other day about helicopters; large chunks of these forests are what are known as "visually intrusive". We are worried about these and something ought to be done about them. It has been pointed out from the jobs point of view that the planting of forest does not create a lot of jobs because the people who have to look after the trees then displace either grouse keepers or sheep keepers. It possibly can be argued that those activities in the countryside produce more long-term jobs, but not only that for people are then employed in the tourist industry. People do not want to go to look at a large chunk of dark green trees blotting out the whole of a strath. But they do want to see a varied and sensitive Highland landscape.
This is of concern to a large number of people. Whether the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, of removing tax advantages is right I do not know, but I have a terrible feeling that the Ministry of Agriculture, which has made so many major advances in conservation—that has a lot to do with my noble friend—seems to have felt that it has gone far enough and that it has to sit down for a breather before it goes on a little further. I believe it has to take more courage in its hands and understand that there are points which we all feel strongly about on this matter.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: Briefly, I should like to argue with my noble friend Lord Onslow about this viewpoint as regards trees. Everyone can have his own opinion about whether they are ugly in large blocks or whether they should be pine or another species. I believe that at one time Scotland was covered with pine trees and there was a fire and the whole lot was burnt down. That is what one speaks of a "forest" where no trees are.
However, I should like to do battle with the noble Lord on employment. We are thinking so much in this debate again and again about the environment—and fair enough. But we very often completely forget people. I believe it to be—I was always told so—that over a period trees employ as many people as what I call proper farming, rather than keeping grouse or keeping hill sheep. Perhaps we are not talking only of those areas. So as we leave this clause I would put in a plea that we should all keep in mind rural unemployment at a time when the business of the countryside is anticipated to go downhill and at a time when in point of fact commercial forestry (agroforestry, I believe they call it) is being produced as a very serious answer to that problem.
Lord John-Mackie: May I just make the point that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, was right to be worried that the tax situation in forestry, where you are making profits in another business and can invest them in forestry over a period, creates a very good tax situation for the individual concerned. I think he linked that

1083
with the fact that because of this they planted trees without grants, with the result that they do not have them under any control, even by the RACs or anyone else. I think that was the point he was making.
I would agree with him that, of course, as far as the Forestry Commission is concerned, with my fellow commissioners, at the time when this scheme was evolved, we all deprecated it considerably, as I think it has done quite a lot of harm to forestry. It is not a tax-evasion scheme but a tax-avoidance scheme which has created a lot of planting. But I would point out to the noble Lord that a great many acres are planted with the grants, not only without the grants, on the same scheme, so that doing anything about the grant situation would not necessarily stop the tax situation. I thought that I should point that out to the noble Lord.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, mentioned the remark of somebody (I forget who) that a forest was visually intrusive. I cannot imagine that a forest could be anything but visually intrusive. I would point out that there are about 20 to 24 million visits in a year to the Forestry Commission's forests, which, as he and everyone else has pointed out, are mainly conifers in this country. So somebody likes to go and see these dark green, intrusive forests about which he speaks.
Lord Moyne: It has been rather implied that the Forestry Commission would discourage the planting of conifers, whereas, after a good many years of observation, I have noticed that the Forestry Commission plant a great many conifers. That is why I would hate to put into their hands, with possibly changing fashions and views, the power to stop me planting trees—the oaks, the ashes and trees that grow naturally in the English countryside, which is often unsuitable for conifers.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: As regards employment by the Forestry Commission, I know that, for instance, in certain areas they are not even felling the first thinnings now. If they are felling the first thinnings, they are leaving them to rot because there is no pulp mill anywhere nearby. Of course, any thinnings they harvest are now going to Norway, where they are made into pulp and re-imported here, which seems an extraordinary way to make money.
However, the Forestry Commission have not always been the blue-eyed boys that some people seem to think. Certainly early on they planted these vast areas of sitka spruce in completely straight lines which, to a great extent, have rather spoilt certain aspects of the countryside. Regarding the planting of amenity timber to beautify the countryside, if he knows his job the private landowner does far better.
Lord Moran: May I say with reference to what the noble Lord the Minister said that I should like to emphasise that I was not in any sense arguing against tax relief for forestry generally, still less was I suggesting that it should be an offence to plant a tree because, heaven knows, I plant quite a number of trees myself. I stressed in my remarks that the great majority of planting takes place with the approval of the Forestry Commission, and I think that tax relief
1084
should certainly be available to those who plant under those arrangements. I was only suggesting that the very small number of people who go ahead against the wishes of the Forestry Commission and plant anyway should not then enjoy tax benefits.
I understand the point that the Minister made about the way this might operate unevenly, and I realise that that may be so. But I believe that there is a problem, and although at the moment it may be a small one I fear it may grow, and it is something the Government may need to think about in due course.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 72:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Agricultural development and development control.
. In paragraph (e) of subsection (2) of section 22 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, leave out ("agriculture or").".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment 72. This would have the effect of removing the general statutory exemption of the use of land for agricultural purposes from the definition of development under the Town and Country Planning Act. The removal would not of course be complete; minor and temporary operations, according to recent court decisions, would not count as development, and in any event the Town and Country Planning Act provides the Government with extensive powers: the use of the Use Classes Order and the General Development Order, for example, to ensure that planning permission would be required only—and this is my intention—for those uses which would have a significant and permanent environmental effect on the countryside.
In moving this amendment, I am conscious that, as with the amendment the other night about bulls in fields crossed by footpaths, we are returning to a matter covered at some length during debates on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, where I moved a similar amendment, and indeed pressed it to a division and lost. At that stage, we were having a debate, rather as we were on the amendment which I moved earlier this afternoon, between the Opposition and the Government, the noble Lords opposite, about the philosophy of who should take decisions on the future of our countryside. I think, to put it at its mildest, that it is a difference between those of us who believe that the people of this country, through democratically elected institutions, should have the right to take those decisions, and noble Lords opposite who believe that it should be a matter for those who own and control the land. That is the philosophical divide.
But in practice, things have not turned out to be quite that simple. I think, in the light of experience, it is worth looking at what has actually happened as a result of the legislation the Government put in the Wildlife and Countryside Act enshrining this voluntary principle. What is called politely "the voluntary principle" has, in my view, turned out to be a combination of bribery and fraud for those involved in trying to destroy the countryside. I appreciate that those are harsh words, but they are justified by the Laurence Gould report which has already been referred to in debates during the Committee stage.
I should like to make one point, first of all, about the Laurence Gould report, which the Government

1085
commissioned to look at the operation of the financial side of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The point I want to make is that the Government quite deliberately and determinedly decided to suppress this report. Any suggestion to the contrary is not borne out by parliamentary answers which have been provided by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in this House and by a junior Minister at the Department of the Environment in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will remember that as long ago as last summer, I think in July, I asked a Question for Written Answer in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord answered me on 31st July 1985 (at col. 330 of Hansard).
The noble Lord said then that the Laurence Gould final report, had not been received but that the Government would consider whether it would be appropriate to place a copy of the report in the Library of your Lordships' House when they had received it. The noble Lord and I corresponded about this in a fairly desultory fashion with letters from me to the noble Lord getting mislaid in the bowels of the Department of the Environment for several months.
In the meantime, my honourable friend Dr. David Clark asked a rather similar Question much more recently in another place. On the 24th March, in another place, Mrs. Angela Rumbold, Junior Minister at the Department of the Environment, said that the consultants' report on financial guidelines for management agreements was received in September 1985.
"It is currently being considered in detail and I shall be making an announcement and publishing the appropriate background information in due course."
In other words, the Government had decided not to publish the Laurence Gould Report but only appropriate background information. That is on record in Hansard of the other place. When one of the Government Ministers, appearing on television after the report has been leaked, suggested that it was the intention to publish it all along, that was misleading. It was not the case. The Government intended to suppress the consultants' report. Unfortunately for them, as noble Lords no doubt will be aware, the report was leaked and the contents are now available in your Lordships' Library. I do not know how many noble Lords have had a chance to study the report. It is a fairly voluminous document.
But it is clear that the Government decided to suppress this report because it was extremely embarrassing to them and undermined their policies for protecting the British countryside, and in particular they were determined that not even the relevant background material that they were going selectively to cull from this report should be made available to either House of Parliament while this particular Bill was going through; because if that material had been made available before the Bill started its progress in another place, and if it had been available to members of the other place and to Members of your Lordships' House in time for it to be carefully considered before the debates on this Bill had taken place, I have no doubt that there would have been massive pressure on the Government to make the provisions of this Bill much stronger than they are.
Governments can attempt to suppress undesirable information, but I do not think that it is the job of Parliament to help them in that. I want briefly therefore to quote some of the contents of this interesting report. The Committee will remember that the philosophical divide about which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has just reminded us between this side of the Chamber and noble Lords opposite in how we protect the countryside, rested on whether we should have democratically elected local authorities taking decisions (as this amendment suggests) or whether we should have a voluntary system backed up by payments to those who wanted to destroy something in the countryside in a site of special scientific interest. This was not a voluntary system. It was a voluntary system with bribes, as I have said; and the cost of those bribes is considerable.
The Laurence Gould Report says that it is expected to rise from £4.4 million in 1985–86 to about £18.4 million in 1989–90. It is interesting to note that the democratically elected local authorities will probably account for 1 per cent. of that expenditure. Organisations which are subject to the electorate apparently have little sympathy with the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act—and these financial arrangements in particular—because of their high and unjustified cost. The agency which will be bearing most of the cost will be the Nature Conservancy Council.
In making general points at the start of the report. the consultants go on to say—and I am quoting from paragraph 46—that they believe that,
"many of the improvements claimed in negotiation a management agreement would not have been undertaken but for the opportunity, to claim under the Guidelines".
To translate that into simple English, the consultants are saying that a number of the claims made under the procedures provided by the Wildlife and Countryside Act are not genuine claims at all. The consultants, also in their introductory remarks, say that to change the system which the Government have endorsed and which was put in the Wildlife and Countryside Bill with strong support from the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association will not be easy.
Paragraphs 48 and 49 of the report say:
"In retaining a system of annual payments based on net profits foregone, a much greater degree of substantiation and disclosure of supporting information should be required of the claimant … Refinement of the calulations of the net profit foregone approach will exacerbate the problems of complexity and increase the amount of professional time and expertise involved".
In other words, to try to make the system less subject to fraud and abuse will make it even more costly and bureaucratic to operate. The consultants also comment on the voluntary principle which the noble Lord mentioned in the previous amendment and laid some stress on. They say in paragraph 2.33:
"The powers for redress where either party fails to abide by the voluntary principle' are limited … Potentially, the 1981 Act [the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act] together with the Financial guidelines place a price on virtually all destructible features of scientific or landscape interest, which the owner or occupier may claim on threat of destroying it".
It is against that background that which the consultants look at the future costs in more detail. As I say, they expect the costs to rise to about £18.4

1087
million in 1989–90, but if the full public authority administration costs are included, that figure goes up to £19.2 million on 1989–90. The administrative costs are expected, incidentally, to treble in those few years from half a million pounds to £1½ million. The consultants say that the total could go up as high as £31 million annually in compensation payments plus £52 million in lump-sum payments. At an annual rate, that would be nearly £40 million at its highest.
Noble Lords with an interest in private forestry might be interested to know that that is over double the total public support for the private forestry industry in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is a very substantial sum of money, indeed—over 10 times and nearly 20 times the total costs in the present financial year.
This point was made to the Government at the time that we were debating the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, and, to be fair, it was made by a number of Members opposite as well as by all of us on this side. Indeed, it was made to the Government in a meeting I had with a National Farmers' Union representative with Mr. Michael Heseltine, who was then Secretary of State for the Environment, shortly after the Bill has passed. Mr. Heseltine said that owners and occupiers of sites of special scientific interest had been stewards of them for many years, and he did not believe that very many of them would claim compensation under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. He thought that that was a totally unreasonable view of landowners and farmers. They were stewards of the land. After all, the NFU a year or two before had actually brought out a document about how much farmers and landowners voluntarily cared for the countryside. Laurence Gould Consultants say in paragraph 306:
"The (re)notification process"—
that is the process of re-notifying SSSIs—
"required under the 1981 Act is acting as a trigger for the initiation of claims, with about one-third of (re)notifications currently prompting claims".
So we are a long way from the tiny minority that the then Secretary of State thought would want to claim under the Act. The consultants say that there is worse to come. They say in paragraph 3.09:
"With the completion of Heath and Moorland maps and increasing awareness of the opportunity to obtain payments, it is possible that a rapid expansion will occur in the number of claims".
The Committee may be upset to hear that that rapid expansion has not been taken into account by the consultants in arriving at the very high figures that I gave a few moments ago. We are spending a lot of public money. I suppose that the next question which the consultants had to consider, and which I suggest should consider in looking at my amendment to this Bill, is whether this public money is being spent to good cause. We may be spending too much; but is it working? The consultants say in paragraph 407:
"Management agreements rarely specifically require the claimant to play any role in monitoring and reporting changes on the site".
That is, the site which is meant to be protected. In paragraph 4.08 they say:
"Most management agreements prepared to date demand no positive contribution on the part of the claimant towards the management of the site".
1088
In paragraph 4.10 they say:
"The claimant has no responsibility for preserving the feature of conservation interest".
I pause there to remind the Committee that the whole point of this system is meant to be to ensure that features of conservation interest are preserved. That, apparently, is not an outcome. In paragraph 4.11, the consultants say:
"The restriction of activities on many sites results in changes to the ecology of the site and may possibly enhance, alter or even threaten the conservation interest".
We may end up paying over £50 million a year to landowners and farmers and some of the sites on which the money has been paid will actually be damaged as a result, and not benefit at all, because of the particular nature of these payments and the way that they are agreed with farmers and landowners. The consultants sum this up by saying:
"On more vulnerable sites the use of management agreements may prove inadequate to protect the conservation interest".
They add later in the report that the periods for which management agreements are being entered into are too short.
That is the effect on conservation interests; but the consultants were looking in particular at the financial arrangements of these guidelines and they comment quite extensively on that subject. It might be thought that with all this money being spent and the conservation benefit suspect, at least the financial side would be working OK, but apparently it is not. In paragraph 6.18 the consultants say:
"The proposal for indexation in the Guidelines, without the subsequent production of indices"—
these were indices that the Ministry of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was supposed to prepare and apparently has not—
"has led to the parties to some management agreements devising their own indices based on existing published information".
They then say:
"there are a small number of notable exceptions where wholly inappropriate indices have been used. Examples would be the indexation of large annual payments for net profit forgone to agricultural wages or to the Retail Price Index".
Any landowner or farmer who had his management agreement index-linked to agricultural wages last year certainly got a bonanza. I do not suppose they did quite so well this year, although they are still beating the rate of inflation and certainly beating the rate of any increase in agricultural profits by a factor of several hundred, I would guess.
The report goes on to look at abuses; and this was the area where the Government were particularly told in your Lordships' Chamber in 1981 that the system stank: it was wide open to abuse and would be abused. The Government Minister then said firmly, clearly and repeatedly that that was nonsense: farmers and landowners were responsible people and honourable people who cared for the countryside and there would not be any abuse.
Under the heading "Test of genuine intent" in paragraph 6.22, the consultants say:
"There is a reliance on the claimant to be honest in submitting proposals for reclamation works and to only put forward plans for work which he genuinely would have undertaken. A major weakness is that it is impossible to test the genuineness of an individual's intention without putting the site at risk".

1089
The consultants' assessment, having looked at claims made since the 1981 Act was passed, is this:
"The circumstances of some individual claims strongly suggest that but for the 1981 Act and the Guidelines the improvement schemes they now propose would never have seriously been contemplated".
In other words, the system is being fraudulently abused, as noble Lords in this Chamber said it would be when the Government insisted on putting these provisions into the Act at that time.
The consultants go on to give some examples of how this actually happens, and they put some flesh on the bones. In paragraph 6.26 they say:
"Some claimants have during the process of negotiation modified their plans for improving land subject to conservation restrictions. On occasions this has involved changes to cropping and farming systems which are alien to the background and experience of the claimant and his staff".
I interject here because I think this is known among Ministry of Agriculture officials as "the field of celery syndrome". If something is not looking potentially profitable enough you bung a field of celery into your cost-benefit anaylsis. That increases the profits enormously and, under this system, increases the compensation the taxpayers have to pay you enormously. The consultants continue in the same paragraph:
"In a minority of cases the timing of such changes of plan has given rise to suspicion that they are solely motivated by the claimant's desire to increase payments and do not reflect any real intent to adopt the proposals put forward."
This might not be of any great concern if we were talking only of small sums of money, but the consultants provide some interesting figures which show that a small number of individuals are receiving very high payments per annum indeed as a result of this system that they say is so riddled with fraud and abuse. Between £100 and £1,000 per annum for the 100-plus claims so far completed are going to about 56 people—a relatively small amount, but certain individuals have got between £5,000 and £20,000-plus per annum as a result of this appalling system.
The consultants then go on to say what the public are actually buying for their money and they end up by telling us what we are not buying. They say in paragraph 7.07, for example, that annual payments which are made under this procedure allow a payment for time and effort which is not incurred. In other words, the taxpayers are paying farmers or landowners for things they have not done.
In paragraph 7.08 the consultants continue:
"in accepting annual payments under the Guidelines the farmer is in principle accepting compensation for the full potential loss without incurring the initial detriment to his cash flow."
In other words, a major advantage to the cash flow of the farmer is being provided by the taxpayer. In paragraph 7.13 they say:
"The net profit forgone basis of calculation established in the Guidelines imposes no obligation on the claimant to make any long-term effort to mitigate his loss by making adjustments to his business as opportunities arise."
In the next paragraph they say:
"In principle it could be argued that when a loss arises the claimant should make a payment to the public conservation authority."
The consultants pause there for a moment, because that really seems a radical suggestion—that the
1090
claimants should start paying the conservation body because they were not making the loss which they would have made had they gone along with the development. The consultants say—I think probably reasonably when you look at the sort of rip-off this system represents—that this would not be a realistic proposition. On woodlands and forestry, to which these arrangements were voluntarily extended by the Nature Conservancy Council and the Government, they say in paragraph 7.20:
"in many cases it is probable that the claimant is receiving a cash benefit which would otherwise have been left for future generations to realise."
Your Lordships will appreciate that this is a lengthy report and I have been able to quote only parts of it, and I have only been able to read it once since it was made available. I am sorry that other noble Lords have not had longer to study it, because I think it might have made a considerable difference to the debates we have had on this Bill. I have no doubt that is why the Government decided to try to suppress it. I appreciate that time is getting on, and I come to a conclusion from this report—the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, is laughing about this: I am glad he thinks it is funny that the taxpayer is being ripped off. If I may finish the point I will then gladly give way to the noble Lord. I am glad he thinks it is so funny that the taxpayers are being ripped off to this extent.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I wonder whether the noble Lord would give way. I deeply regret that he should burden the Committee with now 21 minutes of a report which 90 per cent. of your Lordships have not seen. Certainly I will look at it, but for the noble Lord to read out only parts of it when the majority of noble Lords have not seen it is, I think, totally irresponsible, if I may say so.
Lord Melchett: I strongly agree with the noble Lord. It is totally irresponsible; but it is not my report. It is the Government's report. They have had it since June in draft and since September in final form. Who is being irresponsible, I ask the noble Lord, in not releasing this report to this Chamber and to another place? If the noble Lord wants to intervene again, I will gladly give way but, if not, I will come to a conclusion.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Since the noble Lord asks me, yes, I will intervene. I think the noble Lord opposite is being irresponsible. No doubt the Government will publish this report in due course and we shall he able to have a debate on it in due course when we can all give our views. This is the Committee stage, believe it or not, of the Agriculture Bill, and I think we should try to address ourselves to that.
Lord Melchett: I am addressing myself to my amendment. As the noble Lord said, no doubt the Government will now publish the report—indeed, they have done so, and in considerable confusion and disarray a few days ago after it had been leaked. The noble Lord may decide that the timing was determined by the Government in the light of all the considerations but I have to say to him that I have been waiting for a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, about this report from 17th March. It was with some considerable surprise that I received a

1091
reply from the noble Lord last Saturday morning. My surprise was somewhat relieved when I opened the Observer on the following Sunday morning and found that the report had been leaked to the press and that was why I had had a reply so suddenly and unexpectedly from the noble Lord after such a long wait. If the Government had released this report after they had had a reasonable time to study it, every one of your Lordships could have read it and I would not then have felt it was my duty to read out parts of it so that your Lordships could be at least informed of those parts of it before coming to a decision on my amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said there is a philosophical divide between that side of the Committee and this side of the Committee on an earlier amendment, and I want to end by saying, in the words of the consultants, what the philosophy of noble Lords opposite in managing and protecting our countryside since 1981 has led to. In paragraph 7.38 of the report the consultants say:
"Many of the claims submitted"—
that is, the claims submitted under the 1981 Act—
"exaggerate the extent of the losses".
In paragraph 7.39 they say:
"Exaggeration takes a number of forms including: Lack of Genuine Intent and Failure to Mitigate…A lack of genuine intent is impossible to prove in very many cases".
They go on with another heading of exaggeration:
"Phasing. The rate at which improvements will be introduced on to a farm, and the rate of increase in yields and profits following an improvement to land can be difficult to predict, and this allows scope for adjustment in the claimant's favour which can be difficult to dispute."
Under "Marginality of Fixed Costs" the consultants say:
"Verifiable information is rarely available and allows scope for exaggerating the claim."
Under "Crops Yields and Other Physical Performance Factors"—and here the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and I think any farmer in the Committee may hear something they would be familiar with—they say:
"Farmers' perceptions of their crop yields tend to be coloured by the results of better fields and better seasons … on many farms even the farmers own assessment of them, without reference to accurate records, can be grossly misleading."
On minor variation in claims, the consultants say in the same paragraph:
"With little difficulty it is possible to adjust these figures by small amounts (say 10 per cent.) in favour of the claimant. Individually the differences are small but when accumulated they amount to substantial exaggeration which is difficult to refute."
That is what has happened as a result of the voluntary principle favoured by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and the Government.
The consultants sum it up by saying:
"Because of the … scope for exaggeration, and the difficulties in countering it, exaggerated claims are resulting in exaggerated settlements."
If we had adopted the proposals put forward by this side of the Committee in the 1981 Act, and which are repeated in the amendment I have tabled today, we should not be facing this massive misuse of public money, these exaggerated claims and exaggerated settlements. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Moyne: Might I make the briefest of comments on this Amendment No. 72, and also on No. 49? While not discussing the merits of what the noble Lord has so painstakingly said in his exposition, it seems to me that it is a wrong way to legislate to refer to a word or two in another Act which is not before us. Admittedly, it can be looked up, but it is very hard on the public to have this legislation by reference to other Acts. It seems to me that the right way would be to amend the Town and Country Planning Act and the Highways Act.
The Earl of Onslow: As one of the people who, with ineffable smugness, forecast this was going to happen, I rise to oppose Lord Melchett's amendment, though not because I do not think that he was right to quote some of the Gould Report which most of the others of us have not seen. I think, with respect to him, he did go on for a little too long, but it was an absolutely foreseeable game that was going to be played. My only regret is—I say this in all honesty—that I have not got an SSSI, because if I had I would be ripping them off with the best, without any shadow of doubt at all. As Clive said when accused of bribery, "Gentlemen, I stand astonished at my own moderation!". I really think that the landowning community can be congratulated on being astonished at its own moderation.
The abuse that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has pointed out has to be seriously addressed. My noble friend Lord Stanley is right. It would have been much better if we could have read the report. It is a great pity that it had to be prised out of my noble friend's department, because it was going to come out in the end; so why not let it come out, and face up to the music?
I still think that to put blanket planning permission on to the land is not the right way to do it. If I had any position of authority or power I would suggest to this Chamber that the way to do it would be by tree preservation order method; in other words, to preserve a thing and say that you cannot do something to it. But to produce what they did in the Wildlife and Countryside Act and then be surprised if people are given a trough that they do not put their snouts in it, is a very odd way to behave. I still think it is wrong to put blanket planning consents on the whole countryside.
Lord John-Mackie: Although I also, privately at least, felt that this would be abused, or at least that it was not a good way of doing it, unlike the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I have never thought about how one could do it and how one could defeat the authorities. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for reading out how it could be done. He could have done this in a little less time, although I agree with what he was saying. It is rather disappointing that we did not have this report. I gather that it was only put in the Library a few days ago, and it would have been better if we had had it.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I do not think that blanket planning on agriculture and forestry would solve the problem. We need to leave it to the Government to see that this sort of thing does not go on, and we are obliged to my noble friend, in spite of

1093
the length of his speech and his amendment, for bringing it up so forcibly. I am sure the Government will have to look at it very closely indeed.
Lord Walston: In spite of the comments that have been made about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, which I share to some extent, he has made out his case. He has brought to our attention abuses of which we have heard rumours both by word of mouth and in the newspapers, which have now been substantiated. These are abuses on a very substantial scale. I do not think anybody who has listened to him or who has read the report (which I have not), can have any doubt that this has gone too far. If one were charitable, one could say it was a valiant attempt that has failed.
Where I found Lord Melchett's speech disappointing was that having made out his case that something should be done about it, he did not make any case for suggesting that his amendment was the only way, the right way, or the best way, of doing something about it. From the arguments that I have heard so far, I am certainly not convinced that this amendment will put right the abuse which undoubtedly exists. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will be able to come up with some suggestions. I hope that he will admit that the experiment, not of his department, but of the Department of the Environment, has failed and has been a costly failure and should be brought to an end as quickly as is practicable. I hope that he will give us some indication as to how the Government, whether it is his department or the Department of the Environment. will deal with it.
Lord Belstead: Lord Melchett's rhetoric conceals the fact that we cannot discuss the merits of this particular amendment because it has no merit. It is an amendment which seeks to bring agricultural land in its use within the scope of planning control. I should have thought that that was something which would dismay not just the farming community but anyone who has lived in and loved the countryside over the years. I leave aside the really extraordinary complexities and anomalies which that would raise. I simply content myself this evening with saying that I would have thought on all sides of the Committee we have reached a position now in public life where we all agree that in our small island there are cases where it is right to protect the land from some farming operations because they may damage its special character or scientific value.
That is the reason why, on top of the voluntary principle of the 1981 Act, where a site is particularly sensitive it can be protected by SSSI designation; where the landscape is of national importance it can have the status of national park designation. Now in this Bill we are wishing to add environmentally sensitive area designation, in order to protect areas by encouraging the use of environmentally sympathetic farming practice. But that is light years away from the effects of this amendment.
The noble Lord calls in aid of his case for the amendment the fact that there has been the Laurence Gould report and has charged the Government with suppressing the report. As right honourable and honourable friends of mine in the Government have
1094
made clear, it has always been the Government's intention to publish the report prepared by Laurence Gould, consultants, commissioned, of course, by the Government into the review of financial guidelines for management agreements. We felt that it would be necessary to postpone publication until we had our own reaction ready, which it is not. But in the light of misconceived press comment, we have decided to place copies of the report in the Libraries of both houses; and there it is—and it is a very large volume indeed, in both cases.
I am not going to follow the noble Lord through the labyrinth of the paragraphs from which he quoted. but I must confess my surprise that, among the innuendo, the charges, the suggestions and the downright open allegations that the noble Lord made, there was no mention of the true costs of management agreements. If the Committee is interested, in the current financial year the Nature Conservancy Council expects to spend some £8.6 million on payments under management agreements and that would involve an average payment of some £33 per hectare. I do not think that is a basis for corruption and deliberate mismanagement.
I was surprised that, from somebody with the experience of the noble Lord, there was not one word about the need for positive management in the concept of management agreements; the need for the individual farmer or landowner in many cases to see that he manages the land in a sensitive way, in order that the objectives of a site of special scientific interest can really be attained. The noble Lord has been good enough to nod, because he knows that that is true.
In the noble Lord's speech there was no mention of why the Laurence Gould report was commissioned. It was commissioned to see whether there was any way of running the present management agreements at a better cost and, if one looks at the report, one sees that the answer to that, broadly speaking, is that there is not an easy way to find.
There was no mention in the speech as to whether the report feels that any changes to the guidelines might yield savings. If we look at the report, we find that any proposed amendments would in fact result initially in increases in the costs of operating the guidelines. There are of course many interesting aspects of the report and we shall certainly be giving our reactions to it, from the Government's point of view, when we have had time finally to finish our study of it.
But the noble Lord moved from that superficial run-over of the report to the conclusion that there should be blanket planning controls placed on agriculture. That will dismay the vast majority of people who will have the benefit of seeing reports of the noble Lord's speech in the Committee this afternoon. It dismays me and it dismays the Government and we have no intention of accepting this amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: The noble Lord, in describing as superficial the account of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, could have taken the opportunity—as I assume that he has read the report—of showing us how that was a superficial view.

1095
He chose not to do so, and I assume that that was because the clock is not with us. But the clock could have been with us if the Government had let us have the report earlier, because they knew that this Bill was coming up.
This is not just a matter of listening to farmers and people interested in the land and finding excuses for not doing something in this Bill. The fundamental philosophical divide between that movement and these Benches is a very important one. We are not really talking about the motives of people who, to quote the Minister, wish to manage in the best interests of the land. I wish I could believe that every farmer in this country was concerned only with managing in the best interests of the land and of the community. Is that true? I do not believe it is.
Most farmers in this country are in the business of farming to make money and, as the noble Lord opposite pointed out, the Government were advised well in advance that the farmers would do just that—make money. So the political divide is a very real one. It is not just a question of whether or not we apply planning permission to the whole of agriculture. The fundamental divide is about whether people who control the destiny of our land are locally or nationally elected, or whether they are in the private sector. That has been pointed out already. If this were left to the private sector, those people would go to the deepest pocket.
I half suspected that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would be advised to withdraw the amendment. I hope that he does not, because it is time that everybody stood up to be counted. We are either voting for public control of the land, which is the one asset that cannot be changed, or we are voting for private control with a regard only for making money out of it, as has been so amply demonstrated in the report referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to point out to the noble Lord who has just spoken that in countries where land has been nationalised the returns from it have been, on the whole, extremely poor, but where land has been in private hands the productivity has been far greater. I know of several instances in this country where a socialist government nationalised the land. The excuse was that it was for research stations, but they often never issued reports and eventually they ran up huge debts. They certainly employed quite a lot of people. But they made very great losses and by so doing impoverished the economy of the country.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for demonstrating quite clearly his acknowledgment that it is a question of how much money you can get out of it.
Baroness White: I have no doubt that, after this brief discussion, we wholeheartedly support the amendment which is before the Committee. On the other hand, it is extremely disturbing that we have had no adequate explanation from the Government of how the comments in this report could affect the matters before us. I raised this point originally on the environmentally
1096
sensitive areas, and I was given an assurance by the Minister a couple of hours ago that I need have no concern about the environmentally sensitive areas, because the arrangements for management agreements coming under those provisions did not include calculations of net profit forgone, which is one of the matters that is particularly scathingly described in this report, which points out that the scope for error and manipulation in the calculation of net profit forgone is excessive and should not be regarded as acceptable to public authorities.
Obviously I take the word of the Minister that this matter does not arise over the arrangements proposed for environmentally sensitive areas, though some of the other decisions in the report might well be applicable. But could he tell us on Clause 14, which refers to EC farm grants relating to areas of special scientific interest or national parks, whether there will be no element of net profit forgone in these situations? If so, that may be reassuring. But as the matter had already been raised the Minister must have known that many people in the Chamber would be concerned, even if we have not had time to read it. I looked at the report in the Library yesterday. I cannot pretend that I have taken both volumes in, but there has been serious criticism, and the Minister should at least have shown sufficient respect for the feelings of the Committee—or of those who are concerned about this—to have reassured us (if reassurance is applicable to, for example, Clause 14) about any part of the Bill to which the serious criticism in the report might properly apply.
Lord Belstead: If I may say so, I think I replied to the noble Baroness, Lady White, about a couple of hours ago. I have given a pretty full reply to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and we have disposed of Clause 14.
Baroness White: But on Clause 14 I should think that the Minister might have thought it proper. I did not know that my noble friend was going to raise this matter; otherwise, I think I might have raised it myself when we were discussing Clause 14. But as it has now been raised, at least we should be told. I should have thought that the Minister would have been politically well advised to have taken the initiative in giving us reassurance on Clause 14 if that reassurance could properly be given.
Lord Belstead: If anybody needs to be politically well advised on this amendment, the Labour Party needs to remember that it is being told from its Back-Benches that blanket planning controls should be imposed for the first time ever upon the whole of the agricultural community. Let that go out from this Committee stage. This is a most ill-advised amendment.
Baroness White: The Minister is simply dodging the question that I put to him.
Lord Belstead: I am not dodging the question at all. The noble Baroness is seeking to go back to a clause of which we have disposed.
Baroness White: That is dodging it all the same.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It must be more than six months since this problem was raised from the Liberal Benches. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, getting up to support the point and demanding that action should be taken. There was a further strength from the Conservative Benches. On that occasion the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, made one of his typical, rumbustious speeches and said that something ought to be done about it. Every part of the Chamber was concerned about the scandal of the rip off. It is not good enough for the Minister to come along and say, "We don't like this amendment". What is he going to do about the problem?
We do not have an Agriculture Bill every day. We created this problem by unwise statutory action about six years ago. Yet the Minister is prepared to dodge the question and use parliamentary procedures, saying, "The Labour Party …", and so on. One puts down an amendment to draw attention to a problem and to try to get the Government's ideas on what they are going to do about the problem. As I see it, the Minister is not going to do anything about it. To anyone who suggests that we should wait and have another amendment and another debate I say, "When will we have another Agriculture Bill?"
This is happening in Scotland as well. Anyone who has had contact with nature conservancy over the years will know this. It had difficulty spending money, but my goodness, how it is getting the money now to spend on different purposes. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is quite right: it is a rip off for people not doing something which they had no intention of doing anyway. From that point of view it is most unsatisfactory that the Government have not given us an indication of how they are going to deal with it.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The noble Lord referred to me, or looked at me. As I understand it, ESAs are going to be funded in a way totally different from sites of special scientific interest, which my noble friend mentioned when he replied earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady White. Therefore, this report as such does not bear on this amendment. What we are discussing is whether this amendment is the right way forward. When we come to that report at another time, no doubt we can deal with it. But here we are dealing with blanket planning in the countryside, which I, with my noble friend, oppose totally because we run a rather successful business. If anybody who has been in the countryside this weekend says that we are ruining the country, he must be out of his mind.
The Earl of Onslow: It seems to me that the most sensible thing is, first, completely to oppose what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is doing, and, secondly, to suggest to my noble friend that it would be much more appropriate for somebody to ask an Unstarred Question on the whole subject of the Gould Report. Then we can talk about it. It is not going to go away; we must talk about it. It is better to face up to things. It seems to me that it is being used much too narrowly on this amendment, and is therefore not completely appropriate.
Lord Melchett: The reason why the report, which I gave the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, notice I was going to raise, is relevant to this amendment is because, as
1098
the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, himself said, there is a philosophical divide between the two sides of the Committee. There are two approaches to protecting the British countryside. One is reported on in the Laurence Gould Report and was the one adopted by the Government, largely at the insistence of the Ministry of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union when we were debating the Wildlife and Countryside Bill: the other was embodied in the amendment which I moved from the Labour Front Bench to the Wildlife and Countryside Bill in 1981. It was moved by the Labour Front Bench in another place as well. It advocated exactly the same proposal as I am now making in this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead—and, if I may say so, just occasionally my noble friend on the Front Bench—seemed to think there was something new in this Labour Party policy, but it has been Labour Party policy for at least five or six years. We debated the reason why it was a sensible and effective policy very fully in 1981. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, suggested that I should have gone on for another 20 minutes explaining it all again, but I think that would have tried the Committee's patience, and so I do not intend to do so.
I should like to pick up four points made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. First, as he knows, this blanket planning control is a nonsense, and I said so in moving the amendment. The intention is, and Labour Party policy has for many years been, to control significant developments in the countryside. I used the phrase,
"that would cause permanent damage to conservation of landscape interests".
We are not talking about blanket planning controls, and nobody ever has.
The noble Lord said that there has been misconceived press comment on this report. I think that is right: the press comment was misconceived. The misconception was that the report was a good deal milder than it actually is. I do not think any of the press reports have done the Laurence Gould Report justice. I do not think any of them have picked up the full scale and scope of the criticism of the Government's current policy in their reports. I hope this debate will help to put that right.
The noble Lord said that I did not mention positive management in my initial speech. I appreciate it was a long one, and I explained the reason for that—the Government supressed the report, and that is their fault. But I did mention positive management because Laurence Gould mentioned it a number of times in the report. The report says that the current Government policy and the management agreements which are being entered into under it encourage only negative management and do not encourage the positive management on which, I am delighted to hear, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and I, and the Labour Party, are so keen. Now that he knows that his policy is not doing that, I hope he will change his mind and support the amendment.
The noble Lord also said that I did not talk about the changes that Laurence Gould recommended. I really felt that that would be adding insult to sufficient injury. The report makes a number of recommendations for changes. As the noble Lord, Lord Belstead,

1099
said, all of them would add to the cost of the present system. That does not seem to me to be a recipe for success and harmony in the future.
It would be sensible to press this amendment to a Division for this reason. As I said before, the report describes the current Government policy for protecting the British countryside as being subject to the following problem:
"Because of the … scope for exaggeration and the difficulties in countering it, exaggerated claims are resulting in exaggerated settlements".
It was put more succinctly and a good deal more colourfully by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, sitting behind the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. The noble Earl called it:
"Troughs for people to put their snouts in".
A vote against this amendment is a vote for troughs to put the snouts of some very rich and well off people in. I ask your Lordships to support it.
7.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 72) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 87.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Barnett, L.

Melchett, L. [Teller.]

Blease, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brockway, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Phillips, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Denington, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Donegall, M.

Ailesbury, M.

Dormer, L.

Airedale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Elton, L.

Annandale and Hartfell, E.

Faithfull, B.

Auckland, L.

Falkland, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Belstead, L.

Feversham, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gray, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Greenway, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Grey, E.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Hampton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Caithness, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Harvington, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Henley, L.

Carnock, L.

Hives, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hood, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hooper, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Hylton, L.

Cross, V.

Killearn, L.

Davidson, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Denham, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Denning, L.

Layton, L.

1100

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Radnor, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Reigate, L.

Lyell, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

McNair, L.

Sandford, L.

Margadale, L.

Savile, L.

Marley, L.

Seear, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Merrivale, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Molson, L.

Teviot, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Moyne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Munster, E.

Walston, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wise, L.

Onslow, E.

Wynford, L.

Orkney, E.

Young, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 72A:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Forestry.
In section 22(2)(e) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and in section 19(2)(e) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, after the words "forestry (including afforestation)" there shall be inserted—
"other than forestry of a type specified by the Secretary of State by Order".).
The noble Lord said: After that spirited exchange I feel rather abashed to be bringing in another amendment dealing with planning procedures. I listened very carefully to the Minister's very eloquent defence of the voluntary approach. I myself expressed some doubts about it when we debated the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill. But I hope that we may now put behind us the philosophical arguments that we have just been discussing and that we can consider my amendment on its merits as a practical step.
I must make it clear at the start that I am not proposing that all forestry should be subjected to planning control. The amendment—and I am afraid that in it I have put in error "the Secretary of State"; perhaps I have promoted the Minister's right honourable friend and, if so, that shows my high regard for him—should have spoken of "the appropriate Minister". At any rate, the amendment proposes to give the appropriate Minister power and full discretion to specify what types of forestry should be made subject to planning. My amendment, by allowing certain forestry operations to be brought within the Town and Country Planning Act's definition of "development", would bring these operations within the scope of planning controls.
Forestry, including afforestation, is at present, as the Committee will know, specifically exempted from the Town and Country Planning Act's definition of "development". The wording of the amendment,
"other than forestry of a type specified",
by the Minister by order, ensures that only specific forestry activities, to be later specified by the Minister, are brought under planning controls.
I believe that there is increasing support for a measure of this sort. It ought in my view to be applied to two types of forestry activity—major new

1101
afforestation and the destruction of ancient woodlands. To deal first with the planting of open country with new afforestation, it has been calculated by the NCC that one-third of this country's open moorland has been destroyed since 1947, much of it lost to intensive commercial forestry. The current rate of loss to both forestry operations and intensive agriculture in England and Wales has been estimated by Dr. Parry of Birmingham University at 12,000 acres a year, the rate being much higher in Scotland.
The planting up with alien species of conifers on open upland country brings about, as we all know, major landscape change. It makes access difficult and transforms the wildlife characteristics of an area. Afforestation can also have damaging effects on water quality, stream life and fisheries. That is giving concern to a number of water authorities. I live in Wales and I know that it is an anxiety on the upper Irfon where run-off from conifer forests has destroyed the invertebrate and fish life. Bird life has now been adversely affected. I understand that the Government's own countryside agency, the Countryside Commission, now advocates the extension of planning controls over new afforestation. It did so in its uplands report of 1983.
On the question of damage to ancient woodlands, one-half of Britain's ancient and semi-natural woodlands—a total of 300,000 hectares—has been destroyed since 1947—more than in the previous four centuries. It has been estimated that 70 per cent. of this destruction has been caused by forestry operations, including replanting with conifers.
The Forestry Commission's new broadleaf woodland policy is something that we can all welcome, but in its present form it cannot prevent the destruction of ancient woodlands, whether it be by their conversion to conifers, by excessive grazing or by the conversion of coppice woodland to agriculture. However, afforestation may change the face of large parts of the countryside for generations. Planning procedures are open and fair and give the public, local authorities and interested organisations an opportunity to know precisely what is proposed and to make their views known.
At present, if an owner-occupier decides to go ahead and plant without grant, he can successfully avoid consulting anyone. It seems inherently unreasonable that we should apply planning controls to minute items, such as a small extension to a house or a new private garage but have no control over plantings which make vast changes to the landscape. I am sure it is right that the Minister should have the power to make planning procedures cover major forestry operations. I beg to move.
Baroness White: May I, briefly, support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord,Lord Moran? I do so as president of the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales. Everything that the noble Lord said about our anxieties is well-founded. Therefore, I support the proposed amendment and the arguments adduced by the noble Lord.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Melchett: I, too, support the amendment, as will have been obvious from my moving of the
1102
previous amendment. I simply want to emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that the Government's own statutory advisers, the Countryside Commission, support the extension of development control to major new conifer afforestation schemes. Not only has this been Labour Party policy for many years, it is now supported by at least one of the Government's statutory advisers. Indeed, it is a body with which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has been particularly keen to align himself during our debates on this Bill. I hope he will stay in that position on this amendment.
Lord Belstead: That may well be, but we did not accept the Countryside Commission's recommendation for extending planning control to the uplands, as the noble Lord knows very well. It was a good report, A Better Future for the Uplands, but that was one of the aspects we did not think was right. Therefore, I have to say that I start off with a predilection against this amendment, as I believe the Government revealed in their response to that report.
May I briefly say that I am somewhat mystified as to why the felling permissions do not meet the case which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. We have, of course, consultation procedures for forestry grants and felling permissions and the reason I have put the emphasis on the felling permissions is that this afternoon we have already spoken a great deal about planting. The point has been made—and I shall not go over it again—that you do not always have to plant with grant; but so far as felling is concerned, there has to be a felling licence. I understand that over the past decade some 9,000 forestry planting proposals have been made and some 18,000 felling licence applications. By and large, they have been dealt with successfully and there has rarely been the need to go further and obtain ministerial approval.
I am sorry to tell the noble Lord that I do not see that the case has been made out for going beyond that system and bringing in planning permission. It is on those grounds that I resist this amendment.
Lord John-Mackie: The noble Lord, Lord Moran, my noble friend Lady White and my noble friend Lord Melchett seem to me as if they do not want an afforestation policy in this country. If that is the case, they should say so. The areas that they are speaking about will only grow coniferous trees—or at least most of them, because there are some small areas in the hills that may grow scrub oak, and so on; but on the whole it has to be conifers.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, mentioned alien trees. I do not know whether or not a Scots pine is an alien tree but I can say that most of our deciduous trees are alien and for the noble Lord to use that expression is quite wrong.
Do we want an afforestation programme? Most of us know that we are importing £4.5 billion-worth of wood and wood products and that trees of the world are being cut down at the rate of 50 acres a minute. We must therefore look to the future. As I said earlier, the programme up to about 2020 is to seek to get afforestation up to 8 million or 8.5 million acres in this country. That also includes low ground woodlands. I feel that the balance should be sufficient to satisfy

1103
those people who want open spaces in this country, which cover about 12 million acres. I should like to know whether or not those people want an afforestation programme.
The Earl of Radnor: I follow the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, by asking whether or not they want rural unemployment.
Lord Melchett: I think that is a question that should not be left unanswered as it was directed specifically at my noble friend Lady White and myself. There is ample evidence to show—and I should have thought farmers would be the first to recognise it—that the spread of conifer afforestation in the uplands has led to a decrease in jobs and not an increase. What few jobs have been provided have been provided at centres a long way from where afforestation takes place. For example, there is ample evidence to show that as the acreage of conifer planting owned by the Forestry Commission goes up, the number of jobs actually goes down. The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, gave one of the reasons for that situation. Modern techniques of planting allow for self-thinning, so that no labour is required on the newly-afforested area if it is done with alien conifers, as it is now to the extent of over 90 per cent. or more of new planting, for the first 20 years or more of the new plantation's life.
These are extremely capital intensive operations which involve virtually no labour—certainly no local labour, and certainly there are no local permanently employed people. Nearly all the planting is done with sitka spruce and lodgepole pine and by the private sector of forestry in Scotland. My noble friend asked, "What sort of forestry policy do we want in the Labour Party?" I am happy to tell him. We want to increase the amount of planting that is undertaken. He is quite right to say that there is a deficit in our timber production; but he will also know that the main deficit in years ahead will be in hardwood timber and not softwood.
The prospects for softwood timber production in North America and Scandinavia for the foreseeable future are relatively good. The long-term outlook for hardwood timber production world-wide is very bad and it is getting worse all the time because tropical rain forests are disappearing. We want to see a considerable increase in hardwood planting; a far greater planting programme than has ever been contemplated before in the country would in my view be justified, particularly on better quality ground because surplus agricultural production means that it is not needed for agriculture at the moment.
If we used native hardwood trees it would create far more jobs than would conifer planting; it would be of far greater long-term economic benefit to this country, both in terms of the resources available and the jobs provided; and of course it would create no arguments with those interested in the landscape, in access or in wildlife conservation. That is the planting and forestry that we want to see. But we want it to be subject to local democratic control, because the Labour Party believes in decisions being taken in that way rather than decisions being taken by people who are trying to
1104
avoid tax or who happen to own large chunks of our countryside.
Baroness White: As my name has been mentioned again, I should like to say that I have lived for 16 years in the Dovey Forest in mid-Wales and I know a little about the kind and quantity of labour that in fact is used locally. Certainly there is a certain amount of contract labour but forestry has become a highly mechanised industry. I do not say that it makes no contribution to local employment; of course it makes some contribution, but it is marginal, as my noble friend recognises. I do not go all the way along with him as regards some of his philosophy but to suggest that we are not interested in having tree planting is quite incorrect. Indeed, we are; but we want the right trees in the right place.
Lord John-Mackie: I should reply to some of the statements that have been made. All the figures that I have (and unfortunately I do not have them at my fingertips) show that forestry compared with hill farming employs people in the ratio of three-to-one. That is for the whole process of forestry. My noble friend Lord Melchett said that at the moment private forestry was in the ascendant. I know that private forestry goes in for a lot of gang labour brought in from outside the area; and certainly that does not help rural employment, though it is employment as such. I am prepared to look up the figures and provide them to my noble friend.
As regards the question of the kind of trees to be planted, again it is not easy to always have the figures in one's head but I think that roughly half the 4½ billion that comes in is in wood pulp for paper and so on, and that is all from softwood. Admittedly hardwood is scarce because we have not been planting in the past the trees which our forefathers planted 10 years ago.
The noble Lord is using the argument that a lot of land has to be taken from agriculture. It has been worked out—I have worked it out—how much arable lowland we can afford to take out to deal with the surplus. It is a minuscule amount and will not make much difference to the hardwood planting. I emphasise again that hardwood can only be planted in these areas and not in the hill areas.
Lord Moran: Perhaps I may just answer two questions which were put to me. The first one was put to me by the Minister on the question of felling licences. I accept that this is a valid point but there are exceptions. For example, there is the case of coppiced woodland. A farmer can quite legitimately cut coppice in the normal way and he is then left with the coppice stools which only stand about knee high, and as the felling licence mechanism is only triggered at 1.3 metres above ground, the coppice stools can then quite legitimately be grubbed up with impunity. I understand that there have been cases of this in East Sussex, and that is one loophole in the felling licence mechanism.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked whether I was against afforestation altogether. Of course I am not. In this amendment I am concerned to allow the Minister to exercise some control. I think that very often it is a matter of where forests are to be planted.

1105
It may be a case of not planting trees right on top of a heather moorland but on the side somewhere. Very often it is a situation in which the word "sensitivity" applies; trees may perfectly well be planted in one place without doing very much damage while in another place they would do an enormous amount of damage. I think that if the Minister had this power, he could do a great deal of good for the countryside.
If I may, I should like to ask him whether, if he does not like this particular procedure, he thinks that anything else would help. He has turned down the taxation proposal. I am asking whether he thinks there is a problem and whether it is a matter to which the Government should address themselves.
Lord Belstead: No, quite frankly I do not think there is a problem. I was interested in the first example that was given by the noble Lord. I am speaking from memory and without advice, and if I am wrong I shall write to the noble Lord and put the matter right; but if my memory serves me correctly, about a year ago—or perhaps a little more—we made sure that with Government money no longer could there be the breaking up of the ground following the cutting down of trees—and the noble Lord gave the example of coppicing—so that the land could be returned to agriculture.
I am saying that if you take into account the fact that one would have to find out of one's own pocket entirely the costs of returning into arable land the land which has been put into trees and also take into account the falling price of cereals at the moment, I do not think that the example which the noble Lord attributed to East Sussex is one such as would be happening now. I say that quite seriously. I do not think that there is a problem of that kind there for the reason that I have given.
That is only a partial answer, but I hope I have made it clear that from the Government side we do not think that there is the problem which the noble Lord puts forward, at least not to the extent that it would allow for the imposition of planning controls, which, about a year ago, the Government made clear that they did not like so far as the uplands were concerned.
Lord Moran: I find that reply disappointing because I myself think that there is a problem and a growing problem and that sooner or later it will have to be addressed. However, it cannot be addressed tonight, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 49:
After Clause 14 insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of section 134 of Highways Act 1980.
. In subsection (6) of section 134 of the Highways Act 1980 (ploughing of footpaths and bridleways) the words after the words "highway authority", where they appear for the second time, shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment will remove the restrictions on prosecuting farmers who plough public rights of way when they have no right to do so—in other words, when they break the law—or when they fail to restore the surface of a path which has been legally ploughed but then illegally leave it ploughed
1106
and do not restore it. The restrictions that currently apply allow for prosecutions to be undertaken only by a local authority, which of course includes a parish council or a community council.
The problems associated with illegally ploughing rights of way have been very well documented in a recent study undertaken by a team from the Royal Agricultural College at Cirencester and the Joint Centre for Land Development Studies at the University of Reading. There was a steering committee for this study which included the National Farmers' Union, representatives of local authorities, the Countryside Commission and the Ramblers Association. They looked at six specimen areas of the countryside and their results make fairly depressing reading.
The study found that for paths that went across arable fields 91 per cent. of the fields were categorised in the report as not having a path; in other words, the line of the path was not discernible at all. In only 8.8 per cent. of the cases was the path all right when it was inspected. That does not mean that in 91 per cent. of the cases the law was necessarily being broken. In a few cases the path might have been restored subsequently and within the time limits provided by the Wildlife and Countryside Act, but it is still an extraordinarily and appallingly high percentage of paths across fields.
The study also looked at headland paths where there is no legal right to plough the footpath. It found that 32.6 per cent. of those paths were either ploughed or obstructed and 63.7 per cent. were all right. There was a high percentage of illegal ploughing or obstruction of headland paths where there is no legal right to plough or to obstruct the path at all. It is against the criminal law. And there was an extraordinarily high percentage for the paths going across fields.
The problem is being addressed by the Government, or at least by the Ministry of Agriculture and other interests, by providing a code of practice for farmers to encourage them to obey the law. That is welcome. I understand that the code of practice is to be launched shortly, I think at the Royal Agricultural Show.
Nevertheless, I still think, and I am sure that Members of the Committee would agree, that the criminal law as passed by Parliament should be enforced and that lawbreaking on that scale should not be condoned. We all believe in law and order. The problem is that there is nobody to enforce that law, because county, metropolitan district and London borough councils, as highway authorities which have the duty to enforce the law, do not do so.
The only remedy that a member of the public is left with is the expensive one of an application to the High Court for judicial review. That is available. In Scotland, a member of the public who was inconvenienced by that criminal activity would have a right to bring a prosecution. Just as if he was mugged and the police failed to bring a prosecution. the individual attacked can bring a prosecution in Scotland if he is inconvenienced by an illegally ploughed or obstructed footpath. That applies in England and Wales so far as other obstructions are concerned but not so far as ploughing is concerned.
My amendment would bring the law in England and Wales into line with that of Scotland and I think

1107
provide a useful back-up to ensure that the law is obeyed, with the important launching of this new code of practice which is about to take place. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: For once I can agree with the noble Lord to start with. Those who break the law and obstruct footpaths should be brought to court and the situation should be put right. The trouble is how to do it. That is where we disagree entirely. I remind the Committee that rights of way are in the same category as highways; they are highways.
It is surely the duty of the local authority to keep those rights of way in order and not that of every Tom, Dick and Harry who goes down them. Anyone who is aggrieved can go to the local authority and report that the path has been obstructed. The local authority is in the best position either to restore the path, which is the object of the exercise at the end of the day, by charging the farmer for doing so, or, if it feels so inclined, it can take the farmer to court. In most cases the local authority is able to persuade the farmer without taking him to court. That is the way forward and not the way that the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Belstead: I am inclined to agree with my noble friend. The power that the noble Lord is seeking to take in the amendment could lead to time-consuming and unproductive litigation. Individual walkers may disagree with the restoration work, even where the local authority is content that the law has been met. It is worth recalling that under the law as it stands local authorities can restore the surface of a path or way and subsequently recover the cost from the responsible farmer.
I agree also with my noble friend that when I take that view I do not in any way seek to defend those who flout the law. On the contrary, I am concerned that occupiers of land crossed by public rights of way should be made fully aware of their responsibilities. To that end I was grateful to the noble Lord for mentioning that the agricultural departments in England and Wales and the Countryside Commission are issuing a code of guidance on the restoration of rights of way after ploughing.
I have it in my hand. It has a triangular sign on the front, with feet walking across the ground and a horseshoe, which presumably is something that a walker will carry in his or her hand in case one of the bulls which the noble Lord is so worried about should happen to come along. It is a guide designed to leave farmers in no doubt as to the present position under the law. I hope that we can at least all agree that it will be a valuable publication.
Lord Melchett: I was interested to see that the noble Lord has a copy of the final guide, which I had not seen. No doubt a copy will be put in the Library as soon as Friends of the Earth have got hold of it and leaked it to the Observer. I am grateful to both noble Lords for their condemnation of those farmers and landowners who break the law. I hope that they will agree that the statistics that that independent and carefully carried out survey collected are depressing.
I have to differ over the fact that there may be a danger of vexatious or time-wasting prosecutions. I do
1108
not know whether either of them has ever been involved in bringing a prosecution for obstruction, as I have as a member of the executive committee of the Ramblers Association. There is power at the moment to bring private prosecutions for obstruction when the path is obstructed with a crop, fence, padlocked gate or a whole host of other things. It is only where the path is ploughed that that right does not exist.
It is an expensive business as a private individual or a voluntary organisation to finance an individual to bring a prosecution. The potential liability if a case goes on appeal to the High Court and costs are awarded against you can run into thousands and thousands of pounds. It is not something which an ordinary walker would undertake on his own and it is not something that anybody with any sense would undertake without being as certain as it is possible to be that he will win the case. I do not think that that is a serious danger, unless there are a lot of much richer walkers tramping the countryside than I have come across. It is something that will be undertaken only if the person has thought carefully about it and thinks that he will win.
The problem at the moment is that, while local authorities have the duty, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said, they simply are not exercising it. There have been no prosecutions, yet in the study area 90 per cent. of paths across fields are illegally ploughed, or potentially illegally ploughed. The scale of lawbreaking is massive and yet there is no enforcement whatsoever. I hope that the code will improve the situation, but I am sure that it will be necessary for some farmers to be taken to court either by local authorities, or, if the law were changed in the way that I want, by private individuals, before we get the standard of law and order which I know Members of the Committee opposite would want to see. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 50:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of section 135 of Highways Act 1980.
. In subsection (1) of section 135 of the Highways Act 1980 (temporary diversion of path or way ploughed up under section 134) for the words "3 weeks", in each place where they appear, there shall be substituted the words "2 weeks".").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment and my brief from the Ramblers Association says, "I defy the Government to come up with a reason for not accepting it". It would remedy an oversight in the law on ploughing contained in Sections 134 and 135 of the Highways Act 1980 which was amended by Section 61 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The amendment made by the 1981 Act was not complete. I hope that, as this is the last of my amendments, the noble Lord may at least be able to accept this one. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: In the context of that act of defiance from the noble Lord, I have this to say. I am grateful to him for drawing the point to our attention. Her Majesty's Government are very pleased to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 72B:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Landscape Conservation Order.
.—(1) Where the local planning authority is of the opinion that any part of their area is of special interest by reason of its landscape the character, existence or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance, they may for that purpose make a Landscape Conservation Order.
(2) Provision may be made by any such order—

(a) for prohibiting (subject to any exemptions for which provision may he made by the Order) any operations appearing to the local planning authority to be likely to damage the character, existence or appearance of the landscape of the area specified in the Order, except with the consent of the local planning authority, and for enabling that authority to give their consent subject to conditions;

(b) for applying, in relation to the consent under the Order and to applications for such consent, any of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 referred to in Subsection (2) of section 60 of that Act.

(3) A Landscape Conservation Order shall take effect immediately and shall be confirmed by the local planning authority within six weeks and the local planning authority may confirm any such Order either without modification or subject to such modifications as they consider expedient.
(4) Provision may be made by regulations under this Act with respect to the form of Landscape Conservation Orders, and the procedure to be followed in connection with the submission, confirmation, variation, and cancellation, of such orders; and regulations may (without prejudice to the generality of this subsection) make provision as follows—

(a) that before a Landscape Conservation Order is confirmed by the local planning authority notice of the making of the Order shall be given to the owners and occupiers of land affected by the Order and to such other person, if any, as may be specified in the regulations;

(b) that objections and representations with respect to the Order, if duly made in accordance with the regulations, shall be considered before the Order is confirmed by the local planning authority; and

(c) that copies of the Order, when confirmed by the authority, shall be served on such persons as may be specified in the regulations.

(5) While a Landscape Conservation Order remains in force, a person served with a copy of the Order who carries out or causes or permits to be carried out any operation in contravention of a Landscape Conservation Order shall be subject to the following subsection, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.
(6) It shall be a defence to a person charged with an offence under this section to prove—

(a) that the operation specified in the charge was done in an emergency and that as soon as reasonably practicable after it was done particulars of the operation were furnished to the local planning authority in whose area the operation was done; or

(b) the operation was authorised by a planning permission granted on an application under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971; or

(c) the operation was authorised by some other statutory authorisation of a type specified by regulations made under this Act.

(7) The functions of a local planning authority under this section shall be exercisable—

(a) in a London borough by the council of that borough,

(b) in a metropolitan district or borough outside a National Park by the council of that district or borough,

(c) in any part of a National Park by the National Park Authority or Planning Board,

(d) elsewhere by a county council.").

The noble Earl said: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Buxton. I shall do so as quickly as possible. Had it been earlier, I would have taken a greater amount of time. I saw, however, from the face of my noble friend Lord Denham when he came into the Chamber that he is extremely worried
1110
about the time—it is rather a long time—that we have spent on this Bill. The amendment is designed to extract from the Government their thoughts on landscape conservation orders. The new clause is modelled on the tree preservation order principle. All of us know—I do not have to go into too great a detail—of the pressures on the countryside. With falling cereal prices, there will be pressure to extract the maximum production, which will make surpluses worse. Alternatively, in the less favoured areas land can be allowed to go back to scrub that is of no benefit visually or in terms of wildlife. One has only to look at the land around London airport to see an example of this at its absolute worst.
We have had what could be classed as a spirited debate on the Gould Report. That generated a certain amount of heat but very little knowledge of what the report says. There was, however, general enjoyment all round, I suspect. The tree preservation order, which is the model for the landscape conservation order, allows one to preserve trees but not, for some extraordinary reason, hedges. After all, hedges are only mini-trees laid down and half cut. The landscape is, to a large extent, modelled on hedges, stone walls and copses, certainly in lowland farming parts of the world. It is important that these should be conserved and looked after. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give the Committee some insight into the Government's view of landscape conservation orders. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: We have SSSIs and now ESAs. We should wait a little while, I believe, before having anything like LCOs. Much as I appreciate the noble Earl's wish to protect the landscape, we should see how we get on with ESAs before going any further.
Baroness White: That is all very well, but there has recently been a statement by the junior Minister in the Department of the Environment that the Government are seriously proposing to study this matter further. My noble friend on the Front Bench was probably not aware of that statement. My understanding is that the Government are persuaded that there is possibly great benefit in certain circumstances from having the type of order to which the amendment refers.
I should like to say that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is not able to be present. As the Committee knows, he is an authority on, in particular, the national parks. I am a vice-president of the council of national parks. The noble Lord has asked me if I would be good enough to say that had he been here he would have supported the proposed amendment. This leads me to a question that I should like to put to the Minister. The amendment is drafted without particular reference to national parks. Most of us who support it hope that the Government will take the view that landscape conservation orders could be of great value in certain areas that are not necessarily designated. After all, national parks have a certain protection of their own by their very nature and constitution. But there are landscape areas, not only other designated areas, such as areas of outstanding natural beauty and, in the future, a small number of environmentally sensitive areas, where such orders might be extremely valuable.
I mentioned in the environment debate yesterday the concern that is felt about the press statement issued

1111
on behalf of Mrs. Angela Rumbold which indicated that the department was thinking possibly of confining its investigation into such orders to national parks. That was the only reference in her press statement. It implied that the Government were to investigate and consult only about landscape conservation orders in national parks. I hope very much that this is not so. The park officers have advised me that it would help them if such orders could be made in national parks, but I hope that the Government's intentions are not exclusively confined to those areas.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: In view of the late hour, I should like to make two quick points. The Minister referred earlier to the damage that could not be controlled if a grant was not applied for. There is no way of stopping this at the moment. I understand that a landscape order such as we are discussing would control it, and for that reason I support the amendment.
The lack of this kind of control also means that a higher price can be extracted on management agreements than is justified. I do not want to re-open the debate that has just taken place, except to say that, in his long speech, my noble friend Lord Melchett referred to 30 per cent. possible abuse. This means I would point out, that 70 per cent. is not abused. I should like to try to rebuild the fragile bridges that have been constructed between the farming community and the conservation community. I hope that these bridges will be sustained and that tonight's debate has not damaged them. I believe, like Mr. William Waldegrave, that the only way forward for conservationists and farmers is together.
Lord Moran: I support the amendment. I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, one question. He mentioned tree preservation orders. There was a report in the Daily Telegraph of 7th June concerning a preservation order made by Canterbury City Council to prevent someone grubbing up 39 acres of woodland. As a result, the Lands Tribunal announced that the farmer is to have £46,000 compensation not only in respect of the money that he might have gained by converting the woodlands to arable but also in respect of depreciation of a bulldozer and Common Market grants that he might have received. I hope that some way can be found, if landscape conservation orders are introduced, of avoiding similar claims being made under them.
The Earl of Radnor: As my noble friend has said that this is only a probing amendment, one should not perhaps take it too seriously. If, however, it is a serious piece of drafting, I have to admit that I find it, in a way, quite repugnant. There are two reasons. The first is that a person who is subject to a conservation order is allowed to object only, and there seems to be no right of appeal. The objection has to be lodged with the very people who have ordered how he should conduct himself. Secondly, there seems to be power, on the face of it, to disrupt a person's business for which that person would get no compensation.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, knows that I am on the opposite side of the divide which he keeps talking
1112
about and sees so clearly but which, unfortunately, I do not see nearly so clearly. I do not see life in those terms. However, for the two reasons that I have mentioned, as well as others, the proposal is wrong in every way. I assume, however, that it is a probing amendment and that my noble friend rushed it out, so to speak.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to answer those two points straightaway. I am advised that there is buried somewhere in the new clause a right of appeal. Secondly, I have always found rather hollow the argument in favour of compensation for not ruining something. If one has a Grade I listed building one cannot pull it down and put up a chocolate factory. One cannot then apply for planning permission to pull down one's Grade I listed building and put up a chocolate factory and when one is refused permission say, "Can I please have some money for not making money out of chocolate?" That was tried under the 1949 planning Act. I think I am right in saying that Boodles applied to pull down their club and put up a new building and got £60,000 for it in compensation under the Silkin Act. White's were to slow and did not get it.
We have had this principle argued out before. I think that it is a thoroughly unsound principle to say, "I can do something which the community says that you should not do, so please can I have compensation for not doing it?" I find that a very unhealthy argument.
Lord Walston: Fortunately people are getting more and more concerned with the appearance of the countryside as a whole. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has pointed out that we became concerned about houses and have the various schedulings of houses. It is very valuable and important that we should have those. We are now getting increasingly concerned, not simply about SSSIs and the preservation of habitat, flora and fauna, but the appearance of the countryside. I think that in general, while the countryside is well maintained and very often improved by those who are responsible for it, there are occasions when it is not. There are acts of vandalism which take place from time to time. I think that this amendment makes provision—without being unduly bureaucratic or unduly inhibiting—to stop this kind of thing happening. I therefore support it in principle. So far as I can see it is good, though it may be that there are ways in which it can be improved.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for her last remark—that the way forward is co-operation. I could not agree more. There is one point which I would query with my noble friend on the Front Bench over these landscape conservation orders. There is a danger, if they are used in conjunction with ESAs, of taking away the voluntary side of it. The whole principle of ESAs is voluntary co-operation. If there is a threat of a landscape conservation order coming in behind it may well destroy this voluntary approach. I would regret that very much.
Lord Melchett: I should also like very briefly to support this amendment. If the Government and the

1113
Committee are not prepared to accept the amendment I moved on planning controls, this might well provide a middle course on which a number of people could agree that it would provide a step forward.
While I accept the point of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, about the fear that this might interfere with what is seen as a voluntary approach of the ESAs—it will be voluntarily accepting some additional money, of course—I think we must accept that there is an equal and opposite danger that the whole concept of ESAs will be discredited if some of the areas are damaged while public money is being paid to other farmers and landowners to maintain them. I see that as a greater risk, as a farmer, because I see ESAs providing a new source of public support for agriculture and the countryside. I want to see that new source of finance being successful. I think that this power would help secure that despite the danger that the noble Lord sees in it.
Lord Belstead: The noble Baroness, Lady White, was indeed correct that on 5th June the Government announced that we would issue a consultation paper later this year to seek public views on a possible order-making scheme for landscape conservation orders. It would clearly be wrong to pre-empt the results of that consultation exercise by introducing in this Bill a provision such as the one proposed in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Onslow.
The powers to make orders which could significantly affect the rights and obligations of landowners and occupiers must be subject to widespread consultation. Therefore it will not surprise the Committee when I say that I feel that the consultation has started by having the opportunity to listen to all noble Lords who have been taking part in this afternoon's proceedings on what is really the last of the substantive amendments with which we shall be dealing.
My noble friend made clear that it was a probing amendment. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, thought that postponement should be the order of the day. The noble Baronesses, Lady White and Lady Nicol, embraced the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, was interested about compensation, and he also liked the amendment. My noble friend Lord Radnor found it repugnant. The noble Lords, Lord Walston and Lord Melchett, both supported it. My noble friend Lord Stanley said that it seemed all right but not in ESAs..
If I may pick up that last point, indeed it is a fact—the noble Baroness, Lady White, asked me about this matter—that the Government statement made it clear that our intention is to look at this from the point of view of national park authorities and not outside the national park areas, and therefore not the environmentally sensitive areas as such, though of course an environmentally sensitive area may include a part of a national park.
I hope that noble Lords will not think that I am being evasive if I say that I do not think I should say any more. I have listened carefully to what has been said. As I say, this is for me the beginning of the consultation. I shall answer one question. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, put a direct question to me about a difficult case in the county of Kent. The answer is
1114
that the Department of the Environment is considering it, but it does not yet have the text of the legal decision.
The Earl of Onslow: I am pleased that the idea is being pursued in national parks. I am sad that it is not being pursued outside national parks. I have a feeling that eventually we shall have some provision like this because it would take away the element of the trough about which we have talked before. It is something which would imply positive land management rather than negative encouragement with big bribes.
My noble friend has known my views on the system of compensation under the Wildlife and Countryside Act for a long time. I am quite enormously enjoying saying, "I told you so" because it is one of the most fun things to say but one of the most irritating things to have said to one. However, having expressed my sadness that this matter will not be considered other than in the national parks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Short title, commencement, consequential amendments, repeals and extent]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment Nos. 73 and 74:
Page 14, line 28, leave out "and 11' and insert "11 and [Scotland: Compensation to outgoing tenants for milk quota] above".
Page 14, line 29, after ("10") insert ("above").
The noble Lord said: Amendment Nos. 73 and 74 were dealt with by my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin when he spoke to Amendments Nos. 39 and 40. I beg to more.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 15, line 4, leave out ("and 11") and insert (", 11 and 13(7)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 70 moved by my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 39:
Before Schedule 2, insert the following new schedule:

SCOTLAND: TENANTS' COMPENSATION FOR MILK QUOTA
Interpretation
1.(1) In this Schedule, except where the context otherwise requires or provision is made to the contrary—
"allocated quota" has the meaning given in pargraph 2(1) below;
"holding" has the same meaning as in the 1986 Regulations;
"landlord" means—

(a) in the case of an agricultural holding to which the 1949 Act applies,the landlord within the meaning of section 93(1) of that Act;

(b) in the case of a croft within the meaning of the 1955 Act, the landlord within the meaning of section 37(1) of that Act;

1115

(c) in the case of a holding within the meaning of the 1911 Act to which the 1949 Act does not apply, the same as it means in the 1911 Act;

"milk quota" means—

(a) in the case of a tenant registered in the direct sales register maintained under the 1986 Regulations, a direct sales quota within the meaning of those Regulations; and

(b) in the case of a tenant registered in the wholesale register maintained under those Regulations, a wholesale quota within the meaning of those Regulations;

"registered", in relation to milk quota, means—

(a) in the case of direct sales quota within the meaning of the 1986 Regulations, registered in the direct sales register maintained under those Regulations; and

(b) in the case of a wholesale quota within the meaning of those Regulations, registered in a wholesale register maintained under those Regulations;

"relevant quota" has the meaning given in paragraph 2(2) below;
"standard quota" means standard quota as calculated under paragraph 6 below;
"tenancy" means, as the case may be—

(a) the agricultural holding, within the meaning of section 1 of the 1949 Act;

(b) the croft within the meaning of section 3(1) of the 1955 Act;

(c) the holding within the meaning of section 2 of the 1911 Act;

(d) the holding of a statutory small tenant under section 32 of the 1911 Act;

(e) any part of a tenancy which is treated as a separate entity for purposes of succession, assignation or sub-letting;

"tenant" means—

(a) in the case of an agricultural holding to which the 1949 Act applies, the tenant within the meaning of section 93(1) of that Act;

(b) in the case of a croft within the meaning of the 1955 Act, the crofter within the meaning of section 3(2) of that Act;

(c) in the case of a holding within the meaning of the 1911 Act to which the 1949 Act does not apply, the landholder within the meaning of section 2(2) of the 1911 Act;

"tenant's fraction" has the meaning given in paragraph 7 below;
"termination" means the resumption of possession of the whole or part of the tenancy by the landlord by virtue of any enactment, rule or law or term of the lease which makes provision for removal of or renunciation by a tenant, or resumption of possession by a landlord, and in particular includes resumption of possession following—

(a) vacancy arising under 11(5) of the 1955 Act;

(b) termination of a lease in pursuance of section 16(3) of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964;

"transferred quota" has the meaning given in paragraph 2(2) below;
"the 1886 Act" means the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886;
"the 1911 Act" means the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911;
"the 1949 Act" means the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949;
"the 1955 Act" means the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955;
"the 1986 Regulations" means the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1986.
(2) For the purposes of this Schedule, the designations of landlord and tenant shall continue to apply to the parties to any proceedings taken under or in pursuance of it until the conclusion of those proceedings.
Tenant's right to compensation
2.—(l) Subject to this Schedule, where, on the termination of the lease, the tenant has milk quota registered as his in relation to a holding consisting of or including the tenancy, he shall be entitled, on quitting the tenancy, to obtain from his landlord a payment—

(a) if the tenant had milk quota allocated to him in relation to a holding consisting of or including the tenancy ("allocated
1116
quota"), in respect of so much of the relevant quota as consists of allocated quota; and

(b) if the tenant had quota allocated to him as aforesaid or was in occupation of the tenancy as a tenant on 2nd April 1984 (whether or not under the lease which is terminating), in respect of so much of the relevant quota as consists of transferred quota by virtue of a transaction the cost of which was borne wholly or partly by him.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above—
"the relevant quota" means—

(a) where the holding consists only of the tenancy, the milk quota registered in relation to the holding; and

(b) otherwise, such part of that milk quota as falls to be apportioned to the tenancy on the termination of the lease;

"transferred quota" means milk quota transferred to the tenant by virtue of the transfer to him of the whole or part of a holding.
(3) A tenant shall not be entitled to more than one payment under this paragraph in respect of the same tenancy.
(4) Nothing in this paragraph shall prejudice the right of a tenant to claim any compensation to which he may be entitled under an agreement in writing, in lieu of any payment provided by this paragraph.
Succession to lease of tenancy
3.—(1) This paragraph applies where a person (the successor) has acquired right to the lease of the tenancy after 2nd April 1984—

(a) under section 16 of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964;

(b) as a legatee, under section 20 of the 1949 Act or under section 16 of the 1886 Act;

(c) under a bequest of a croft under section 10 of the 1955 Act, or following nomination under section 11 of that Act;

(d) under a lawful assignation of the lease,

and the person whom he succeeded or, as the case may be, who assigned the lease to him is described in this paragraph as his "predecessor".
(2) Where this paragraph applies—

(a) any milk quota allocated or transferred to the predecessor (or treated as having been allocated or transferred to him) in respect of the tenancy shall be treated as if it had been allocated or transferred to his successor;

(b) where, under (a) above, milk quota is treated as having been transferred to the successor, he shall be treated as if he had paid so much of the cost of the transaction by virtue of which the milk quota was transferred as his predecessor bore (or is treated as having borne).

Sub-tenants
4. In the case of a tenancy which is sub-let, if the sub-tenant quits the tenancy—

(a) paragraph 2 above shall apply so as to entitle the subtenant to obtain payment from the head tenant, and for that purpose, references to the landlord and the tenant in this Schedule shall be respectively construed as references to the head tenant and the sub-tenant; and

(b) for the purposes of the application of paragraph 2 above as between the original landlord and the head tenant—

(i) the head tenant shall be deemed to have had the relevant quota allocated to him, and to have been in occupation of the tenancy as a tenant on 2nd April 1984; and

(ii) if the head tenant does not take up occupation of the tenancy when the sub-tenant quits, the head tenant shall be treated as if he had quitted the tenancy when the subtenant quitted it.

Calculation of payment
5.—(1) The amount of the payment to which a tenant is entitled under paragraph 2 above on the termination of the lease shall be determined in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) The amount of the payment in respect of allocated quota shall be equal to the value of—

(a) where the allocated quota exceeds the standard quota for the tenancy—

(i) the tenant's fraction of so much of the allocated quota as does not exceed the standard quota; together with

(ii) the amount of the excess;

(b) where the allocated quota is equal to the standard quota, the tenant's fraction of the allocated quota;

1117

(c) where the allocated quota is less than the standard quota, such proportion of the tenant's fraction of the allocated quota as the allocated quota bears to the standard quota.

(3) The amount of the payment in respect of transferred quota shall be equal to the value of—

(a) where the tenant bore the whole of the cost of the transaction by virtue of which the transferred quota was transferred to him, the transferred quota; and

(b) where the tenant bore only part of that cost, the corresponding part of the transferred quota.

Standard quota
6.—(1) Subject to this paragraph, the "standard quota" for any tenancy for the purposes of this Schedule shall be calculated by multiplying the relevant number of hectares by the standard yield per hectare.
(2) Where by virtue of the quality of the land in question or of climatic conditions in the area the amount of milk which could reasonably be expected to have been produced from one hectare of the tenancy during the relevant period ("the reasonable amount") is greater or less than the average yield per hectare then sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply and the standard quota shall be calculated by multiplying the relevant number of hectares by such proportion of the standard yield per hectare as the reasonable amount hears to the average yield per hectare; and the Minister shall by order prescribe the amount of milk to be taken as the average yield per hectare for the purposes of this sub-paragraph.
(3) Where the relevant quota includes milk quota allocated in pursuance of an award of quota made by the Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal for Scotland which has not been allocated in full, the standard quota shall be reduced by the amount by which the milk quota allocated in pursuance of the award falls short of the amount awarded (or, in the case where only part of the milk quota allocated in pursuance of the award is included in the relevant quota, by the corresponding proportion of that shortfall).
(4) In sub-paragraph (3) above the references to milk quota allocated in pursuance of an award of quota include references to quota allocated by virtue of the amount awarded not originally having been allocated in full.
(5) For the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) "the relevant number of hectares" means the average number of hectares of the tenancy used during the relevant period for the feeding of dairy cows kept on the tenancy or, if different, the average number of hectares of the tenancy which could reasonably be expected to have been so used (having regard to the number of grazing animals other than dairy cows kept on the tenancy during that period; and

(b) "the standard yield per hectare" means such number of litres as the Minister may from time to time by order prescribe for the purposes of this sub-paragraph.

(6) In this and in paragraph (7) below—

(a) references to the area of a tenancy used for the feeding of dairy cows kept on the tenancy do not include references to land used for growing cereal crops for feeding to dairy cows in the form of loose grain; and

(b) "dairy cows" means milking cows and calved heifers.

(7) An order under this paragraph may make different provision for different cases.
(8) The powers to make an order under this paragraph shall be exerciseable by statutory instrument and any statutory instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
Tenant's fraction
7.—(l) For the purposes of this Schedule "the tenant's fraction" means the fraction of which—

(a) the numerator is the annual rental value at the end of the relevant period of the tenant's dairy improvements and fixed equipment; and

(b) the denominator is the sum of that value and such part of the rent payable by the tenant in respect of the relevant period as is attributable to the land used in that period for the feeding, accommodation of milking of dairy cows kept on the tenancy.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a) above, in the case of an agricultural holding within the meaning of the 1949 Act, the annual rental value of the tenant's dairy improvements and fixed equipment shall be taken to be the amount which would be disregarded, on a reference to arbitration made in respect of the tenancy under section 7 of the 1949 Act (variation of rent), as being—

(a) an increase in annual rental value due to dairy improvements at the tenant's expense (in terms of subsection (2)(a) of that section); or

(b) the value of tenant's fixed equipment and therefore not relevant to the fixing of rent under that section,

so far as that amount is attributable to tenant's dairy improvements and fixed equipment which are relevant to the keeping of dairy cows on the tenancy.
(3) Where—

(a) the relevant period is less than or greater than 12 months; or

(b) rent was payable by the tenant in respect of only part of the relevant period,

the average rent payable in respect of one month in the relevant period or, as the case may be, in that part shall be determined and the rent referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b) above shall be taken to be the corresponding annual amount.
(4) For the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) "dairy improvement"—

(i) in the case of an agricultural holding or a statutory small tenancy, means a "new improvement" or an "old improvement" within the meaning of section 93 of the 1949 Act;

(ii) in the case of a croft, means a "permanent improvement" within the meaning of section 37 of the 1955 Act;

(iii) in the case of a holding under the 1911 Act to which the 1949 Act does not apply, means a "permanent improvement" within the meaning of section 34 of the 1886 Act,

so far as relevant to the keeping of dairy cows on the tenancy;

(b) "fixed equipment" means fixed equipment, within the meaning of section 93 of the 1949 Act, so far as relevant to the keeping of dairy cows on the tenancy;

(c) all dairy improvements and fixed equipment provided by the tenant shall be taken into account for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a) above, except for such improvements and fixed equipment in respect of which he has, before the end of the relevant period, received full compensation directly related to their value.

(5) For the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) any allowance made or benefit given by the landlord after the end of the relevant period in consideration of the execution of dairy improvements or fixed equipment wholly or partly at the expense of the tenant shall be disregarded;

(b) any compensation received by the tenant after the end of the relevant period in respect of any dairy improvement of fixed equipment shall be disregarded; and

(c) where paragraph 3 above applies, dairy improvements or fixed equipment which would be regarded as tenant's dairy improvements or fixed equipment on the termination of a former tenant's lease (if he were entitled to a payment under this Schedule in respect of the land) shall be regarded as the new tenant's dairy improvements or fixed equipment.

Relevant period
8. In this Schedule "the relevant period" means—

(a) the period in relation to which the allocated quota was determined; or

(b) where it was determined in relation to more than one period, the period in relation to which the majority was determined or, if equal amounts were determined in relation to different periods, the later of those periods.

Valuation of milk quota
9. The value of milk quota to be taken into account for the purposes of paragraph 5 above is the value of the milk quota at the time of the termination of the lease and in determining that value

1119
there shall be taken into account such evidence as is available, including evidence as to the sums being paid in the open market for interests in land—

(a) in cases where milk quota is registered in relation to land; and

(b) in cases where no milk quota is so registered.

Determination of standard quota and tenant's fraction before end of lease
10.—(1) Where it appears that on the termination of a lease, the tenant may be entitled to a payment under paragraph 2 above, the landlard or tenant may at any time before the termination of the lease by notice in writing served on the other demand that the determination of the standard quota for the land or the tenant's fraction shall be referred—

(a) in the case of an agricultural holding within the meaning of the 1949 Act to arbitration under that Act or, under section 78 of that Act, to the Scottish Land Court;

(b) in any other case, to the Scottish Land Court, for determination by that court,

and where (a) above applies, section 75 (or, where the circumstances require, section 87) of the 1949 Act shall apply, as if the matters mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above were required by that Act to be determined by arbitration.
(2) On a reference under this paragraph the arbiter or, as the case may be, the Scottish Land Court shall determine the standard quota for the land or, as the case may be, the tenant's fraction (as nearly as is practicable at the end of the relevant period).
Settlement of tenant's claim on termination of lease
11.—(1) Subject to this paragaph, any claim arising under paragaph 2 above shall be determined—

(a) in the case of an agricultural holding within the meaning of the 1949 Act by arbitration under that Act or, under section 78 of that Act, by the Scottish Land Court;

(b) in any other case, by the Scottish Land Court,

and no such claim shall be enforceable unless before the expiry of the period of 2 months from the termination of the lease the tenant has served notice in writing on the landlord of his intention to make a claim, specifying the nature of the claim.
(2) The landlord and tenant may within the period of 8 months from the termination of the lease by agreement in writing settle the claim but where the claim has not been settled during that period it shall be determined as provided in sub-paragraph (1) above.
(3) Where a tenant lawfully remains in occupation of part of the tenancy after the termination of the lease, the references in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above to the termination of the lease shall, be construed as references to the termination of the occupation.
(4) In the case of an arbitration under this paragraph, section 75 (or, where the circumstances require, section 87) of the 1949 Act (Arbitrations) shall apply as if the requirements of this paragraph were requirements of that Act, but paragragh 13 of the Sixth Schedule to that Act (arbitration awards to fix day for payment not later than one month after award) shall have effect for the purposes of this paragraph with the substitution for the words "one month" of the words "three months".
(5) Where—

(a) before the termination of the lease of any land the landlord and tenant have agreed in writing the amount of the standard quota for the land or the tenant's fraction or the value of milk quota which is to be used for the purpose of calculating the payment to which the tenant will be entitled under this Schedule on the termination of the lease; or

(b) the standard quota or the tenant's fraction has been determined by arbitration in pursuance of paragraph 10 above,

the arbiter or, as the case may be, the Scottish Land Court in determining the claim under this paragraph shall, subject to sub-paragraph (6) below, award payment in accordance with that agreement or determination.
(6) Where it appears to the arbiter or, as the case may be, the Scottish Land Court that any circumstances relevant to the agreement or determination mentioned in sub-paragraph (5) above were materially different at the time of the termination of the lease from those at the time the agreement or determination
1120
was made, he shall disregard so much of the agreement or determination as appears to him to be affected by the change in circumstances.
Enforcement
12. Section 69 of the 1949 Act (enforcement) and section 70 of that Act (power of tenant to obtain charge on holding) shall apply to any sum which becomes due to a tenant by virtue of this Schedule as they apply to the sums mentioned in those sections.
Powers of limited owners
13. Whatever his interest in the tenancy the landlord may, for the purposes of this Schedule, do or have done to him anything which might be so done if he were absolute owner of the tenancy.
Notices
14.—(1) Any notice or other document required or authorised by this Schedule to be served on any person shall be duly served if it is delivered to him, or left at his proper address, or sent to him by post in a recorded letter or a registered letter.
(2) In the case of an incorporated company or body, any such document shall be duly served if served on the secretary or clerk of the company or body.
(3) Any such document to be served by or on a landlord or tenant shall be duly served if served by or on any agent of the landlord or tenant.
(4) For the purposes of this paragraph and of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, the proper address of a person is—

(a) in the case of a secretary or clerk to a company or body, that of the registered or principal office of the company or body;

(b) in any other case, the person's last known address.

(5) Unless and until the tenant receives notice of a change of landlord, any document served by him on the person previously known to him as landlord shall be deemed to be duly served on the landlord under the tenancy.
Crown land
15.—(1) This Schedule shall apply to and belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed; and for the purposes of this Schedule the Crown Estates Commissioners or other proper officer or body having charge of the land for the time being or, if there is no such officer or body, such person as Her Majesty may appoint in writing under the Royal Sign Manual, shall represent Her Majesty and shall be deemed to be the landlord.
(2) Without prejudice to sub-paragraph (1) above, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed, section [Scotland: Compensation to outgoing tenants for milk quota] of this Act and this Schedule shall apply to land where the interest of the landlord or of the tenant belongs to a government department or is held on behalf of Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department.".).
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 40 by my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Consequential amendments]:
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 26, line 5, at end insert—
("In section 2(15) of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 for the words "or revoked" there shall be substituted the words "revoked or consolidated".").
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 24 which was agreed to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment Nos. 78 and 79:
Page 27, line 55, column 3, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("in subsection (4)").
Page 27, line 57, at end insert ("and in subsection (6) the words "all or a specified part of.".").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 are consequential upon Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Northern Ireland Assembly (Dissolution) Order 1986
8.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved. [26th Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Dissolution) Order 1986 be approved, and I should also like to speak to the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1986. The orders were laid before your Lordships on 12th and 4th June respectively this year. I shall speak to both orders together; but naturally I shall move the second order formally later.
I should like to deal first with the Northern Ireland Assembly (Dissolution) Order. As your Lordships will be aware, under the Northern Ireland Act 1982 the Assembly is charged with monitoring the work of the Northern Ireland departments. Its principal task is to propose arrangements for new devolved government. It is carrying out neither function. In those circumstances, the Government seek approval for the renewal of direct rule for a further year.
Regarding the dissolution order, two conditions must be met before the Assembly can be dissolved under Section 5(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1982. It must appear unlikely, taking account of the Assembly's proceedings, that widely acceptable devolution proposals will be put forward: and that it must be in the public interest to dissolve it.
The Assembly set up a Devolution Report Committee in 1984 which produced three main reports. They contained some constructive elements, but also ideas which in the past had failed to win parliamentary approval. Admittedly the absence of the SDLP made the Assembly's job more difficult. The committee's record shows that the Assembly tried, but it could perhaps have been more positive. The parties might have tried to agree a scheme among themselves which they could have put to the SDLP. However, flexibility was lacking and no proposals were put forward which seemed likely to command widespread acceptance. The Assembly wound up the committee on 13th March this year as part of the protest by the unionist parties against the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
As part of its duties, the Assembly's scrutiny role was a success. I should like to pay my personal tribute to its success in that role. The committees which monitored the work of the Northern Ireland
1122
departments considered a wide variety of matters. In my own area of responsibility, agriculture, they submitted very illuminating and most interesting reports which were laid before the House. My Ministerial colleagues—my right honourable and honourable friends—were similarly impressed. I have to say to your Lordships that we accepted 75 per cent. of their recommendations on no fewer than 32 proposals for draft Orders in Council. I take this opportunity to stress the Government's tribute to Assembly members for their diligent and useful work.
Elected representatives with their roots in Northern Ireland were thus able to show how they could make the most of the opportunity to influence its administration. The Unionist parties decided to suspend the scrutiny function on 5th December last year. The Alliance Party, always a moderate influence, withdrew. The suspension was confirmed on 13th March this year. We regret that the Unionist parties have closed down a channel of proven value to the Government and to Parliament. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State warned in another place that questions would arise about the future of the Assembly. The public interest cannot be served by the expenditure of public funds on a body which has chosen not to discharge the functions which were envisaged by your Lordships and by another place.
I should also add that the manner in which the Unionist parties are now using the Assembly contributes to our belief that the public interest is best served by dissolution. Weekly debates on aspects of the Anglo-Irish Agreement have increased intercommunal tension. The Royal Ulster Constabulary as a force, and the Chief Constable, are repeatedly attacked. Democratic processes have been scorned; street action and physical confrontation have been commended.
I invite noble Lords to glance through some of the records of the proceedings of the Assembly in the past three or four months. I am not often given to flights of fancy, but I think your Lordships will find that some of the proceedings in the Assembly certainly have been lively, but more than irresponsible. It is for that and for various other reasons that I therefore seek approval for the order before us this evening to dissolve the present Assembly.
The order will not abolish the legal basis for a Northern Ireland Assembly. We are considering the position of the Clerk and staff against that particular background. I hope that that message will go tonight to the Clerk and the staff in the Assembly. A date for an election to a new Assembly can be fixed by an Order in Council at any time. We shall try to create the conditions for a new election. We shall introduce an order in the next Session to enable what we call "I" voters to vote in the Assembly elections. Those persons are electors who are resident in Northern Ireland, and many of them are Irish citizens—that is, citizens of the Republic—who cannot vote in local or Assembly elections, but who may vote in parliamentary and, your Lordships will be pleased to know, European elections.
Our objective is the establishment of a widely acceptable devolved government. We still face difficulty in reaching it. Unless and until the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland are ready

1123
not merely to discuss the possibility of devolution in principle, but to do so with a real openness to the views and sensitivities of the others, it will not be reached. I believe that those parties ought to come together as soon as possible.
Perhaps I may in passing ask your Lordships to consider the cards which the Government have laid on the table for both Unionists and Nationalists in order to help them to work together. Let us take the Unionists first. There is the Prime Minister's offer to discuss four matters which they believe to be important. Those are devolution and the possibility of a round table conference; secondly, the future of the Assembly; thirdly, arrangements for handling Northern Ireland business at Westminster (that is, in this House and in the other place); and, fourthly, new means of consultation between the Government and Unionist leaders. In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that his door is open for talks without preconditions—and I stress those two words—on any issue of concern to them.
Let us glance at the situation of the Nationalists. The Anglo-Irish Agreement provides a structure within which their concerns are being reflected and discussed. The latest meeting of the conference on 17th June this year recorded some significant advances. Of greatest importance for the whole community is the agreement between the RUC and the Garda on a number of specific measures of co-operation in the fight against terrorism. The Anglo-Irish relationship is working particularly well in this vital area. But we are also moving on subjects of particular interest to the minority community.
At the last meeting we stated our intention of taking practical steps on two of these—first, the question of the "I" voters, to which I referred a moment ago; and, secondly, the position of the Irish language. The conference has regularly discussed relations between the security forces and the minority community, and questions about the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. Those of course are two areas where the Nationalists have long had strong feelings.
We therefore believe that the necessary elements are on the table for all sides of the community. There is no need for what we might term a new pack of cards. We do not believe that integration of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, which is being discussed forcefully in some quarters, would bring about either greater peace or political stability.
This would provoke a sharp political reaction. The Ulster Unionist Parties would be divided, and, as your Lordships will be aware, many of them are suspicious of integration. The Democratic Unionist Party would be strongly opposed on the grounds that the British cannot be trusted with permanent control of the fortunes of Ulster. The Alliance Party—at least we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, if I am wrong—argue strongly against it, but I ask the noble Lord to reserve his powder and he will be able to have a go at me in a minute.
We understand that the SDLP would be hostile because they would perceive this as thwarting their aspiration to Irish unity. They would also regard it as
1124
inconsistent with the Anglo-Irish Agreement which reaffirms that the Government want responsibility to be devolved within Northern Ireland on a widely acceptable basis: and the SDLP would be hostile as they would perceive it to be a return to local councils run on majority rule lines, which before 1973 were responsible for some of the worst discrimination. The Irish Government and Opposition in the Republic would, we believe, share the hostility of the SDLP. As for Sinn Fein, they would exploit the inter-communal tension and the blow which integration would represent to the SDLP.
The administrative consequences of integration would be great. To change local government structures, as is sometimes suggested, would mean a substantial reorganisation of the Northern Ireland departments. They look after most GB local—as well as some central—government functions. We are of the opinion that this would be disruptive and costly. Even if some additional powers were given to local authorities, the Secretary of State, without any local political base, would be permanently in charge of a wide range of policy matters affecting the people of Northern Ireland.
If, as the integrationists want, all Northern Ireland primary legislation were to be enacted in your Lordships' House and the other place by Bill, this would place a huge new burden on Parliament. As your Lordships will be aware, there is a 65-year legacy of separate Northern Ireland law. We believe that there would be less scope for legislative provision for Northern Ireland which differed from that for Great Britain. There is a demand for this. For example, there were 13 Orders in Council in 1983 containing separate provisions; 11 in 1984; 9 in 1985; and four to date in 1986, and we are not even half way through the year.
Therefore, it seems to the Government that integration would cause dissatisfaction in both parts of the community, and we believe that this would lead to greater instability and could easily lead to greater violence. Also, integration does not take account of the reality that Northern Ireland is different. To recognise this does not mean any lack of support for the Union. But special constitutional arrangements are needed to accommodate these differences.
May I conclude by hoping that the constitutional parties will now concentrate on the future? We shall set the framework and create the right conditions for movement, but we cannot conjure goodwill out of the air. The parties themselves are responsible to their electors to construct a strategy for the future. We are convinced that a widely acceptable devolved government would have much to offer all the people of Northern Ireland. We look for constructive dialogue with all the constitutional parties about how to establish it. With that, I beg to move the Northern Ireland Assembly (Dissolution) Order 1986.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved. [26th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Lyell).
8.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the Minister and the Government have invited the House to approve the order dissolving the 1982 Assembly. The Minister has

1125
given a fair and comprehensive review of the role of the Assembly, acknowledging its successes and also underlining its failures. He has also paid a well-earned tribute to the staff of the Assembly.
The Northern Ireland Assembly offered in 1982 a chance of a new beginning. It had been the hope at that time that it would produce its own do-it-yourself devolution which would have cross-community support. But we know that devolution never rolled forth, and in the event the Assembly has become the exclusive territory of the Unionist parties.
Although the order before the House cancels the October elections, it leaves open the possibility of a new election for a new Assembly. I believe that it is implied in a part of the Minister's speech that that election will be held if, and as soon as, the Government are satisfied that there is a will among the constitutional parties to work together.
But theoretically after this order is signed, the way forward will be either by election to a devolved administration, as envisaged by the Hillsborough Agreement—and, as I said, the possibility of holding a new election is left open by this order—or integration with Britain. There are those who would hail a move towards integration, but I believe that most people accept that this prescription is not the answer to the complex problems of Northern Ireland. For most of us this is not on, not merely because of the powerful technical arguments advanced by the Minister but also because it ignores history. It ignores the aspirations of the Catholic and nationalist minority. Therefore, this policy prescription, in our view, is simply out.
We believe that sooner or later—and hopefully it will be sooner rather than later—Northern Ireland will come to a form of devolution. That is why we are glad that the Government are standing by their policy of devolution, and continue to stand by the Hillsborough Accord. Whatever lies ahead, there should be no loss of nerve by the Government, and there should be no loss of nerve on the part of the Opposition parties, either.
We urge the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, as the Minister and the Government have urged them, to work together within a framework which recognises the coexistence of the two communities. The Minister has reminded the House that the Government have renewed their invitation to the constitutional parties to adopt a more positive and constructive role. We are just wondering, are the Government appealing in vain to the leaders of the constitutional parties?
Are the Unionists asserting that they will never agree to work together with their neighbours, the constitutional nationalists? If that is their position, then we say that they are shortsighted. If that is their position, we say that they are clinging blindly to the past. That would be a tragedy for all concerned.
What then of the SDLP? Again, the Minister has indicated their response. The 1982 Assembly, as we all know, was inevitably frustrated from its beginning because it was boycotted by the leaders of the SDLP, although not all their supporters went along with this decision.
Now that the Hillsborough Agreement provides the Irish dimension which was lacking in 1982, the SDLP
1126
leaders state that they are prepared to enter into discussions with the leaders of the constitutional parties without preconditions on any subject that may contribute to peace and stability. This is an immense step forward. We would hope that the Unionists would grasp this opportunity of opening discussions with the SDLP to see whether they can establish the basis of a partnership for the benefit of both communities. Those discussions should be opened now without preconditions. We on these Benches do not consider that the Government should be expected to suspend the Hillsborough Agreement as a condition precedent for talks. Indeed, suspension of the agreement would be seen by the outside world as an award for aggression or the threat of aggression. Of course we appreciate that there is much talk by the Unionists of the dangers of sacrificing principle. But what is often forgotten is the sacrifice of the objectives of peace and justice and the sacrifice of human life.
The essential message that we on these Benches would address to all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland is that they should forget their rhetorical phrases and take part in discussions. They should give and take; but again what is worrying is that it is very difficult, even after 17 years of strife, to get this message across.
Like other Members of your Lordships' House with an interest in Northern Ireland affairs I read the newspapers circulating in Northern Ireland, and in some of the letters which they publish from ordinary folk I see now and again a glimmer of light. The letters remind us that the people of Northern Ireland are people after all: people who weigh in the same balance as most of us the needs of decency, of peace and of justice. I note that the churches, with a few exceptions, are powerful lighthouses in the Province. Indeed, within the last fortnght the new Presbyterian Moderator warned of misery unless political leaders start talking without preconditions. The new President of the Methodist Church in Ireland called for a new positive approach from all politicians. The Catholic Bishop warned that the majority in each community is sick and weary of violence, and that all fervently longed for peace.
If the leaders of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland continue to turn a deaf ear to the message of the Church leaders—the message I have just referred to—and if they persist in addressing themselves to their own militants, they will surely be accused by future generations of having mishandled the opportunity that came their way in 1986. It would be better if the politicians in Northern Ireland who shout about the hour of politics being past were to consider to what extent they have failed politics, and it would be better (if that be their message) if they withdrew from the scene.
I just want to make one or two quick references to the other order which is coming before the House unless the Minister proposes to address himself to the second order.
Lord Lyell: Please continue.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I shall be brief. The first is that we obviously give our support to the second order. Indeed, it follows inevitably from the first order,

1127
but we give it support with two reservations. The first is that ways must surely be found of mitigating some of the difficulties of direct rule and of legislating for Northern Ireland by Orders in Council. Those deficiencies have often been criticised in this House. They are unamendable, with no adequate parliamentary time for consideration of the orders. They are insufficiently exposed to questioning based on local opinion or involvement in local experience. Will the Government give an indication to the House how they propose to overcome these very real difficulties?
My second point is that since the last renewal of the order the Hillsborough Agreement has been signed, sealed and delivered. That agreement remains intact. Are the Government considering how the intergovernmental conference can be made more directly answerable to Parliament, or is this not a basic consideration for the Government? With those two questions I am pleased on behalf of these Benches to give our support to both orders.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for introducing these two orders. First I deal with the Northern Ireland Assembly (Dissolution) Order. Sadly the word that must occur to us all here is that in present circumstances dissolution is now inevitable. As we have been reminded, under the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1982 the Assembly was given two functions: first, to consider and report on how a devolved Northern Ireland Administration should be formed; and, secondly, to monitor and report on the policies and activities of the Northern Ireland Department. Both seemed such eminently sensible and constructive aims that we must deeply regret that the present Assembly has lately been discharging neither function; but it is important to remember that this order brings about dissolution rather than abolition. We must sincerely hope that a reconstituted Assembly will before too long be able and willing to discharge its duties to the full.
I do not think much is to be gained by a lengthy study of the activities or otherwise of the Assembly in the past. I think we probably all here today believe that the refusal of the SDLP to make up its seats and participate in business prevented constructive proposals on devolution from being debated and the Assembly from properly working. I think that this was a tragic mistake, but the SDLP appears to be entirely unrepentant, and its spokesman in the other place, Mr. Seamus Mallon, referred the other day to the Assembly as a white elephant that had turned into a rogue elephant. The task of representing the Nationalist minority was left entirely to that part of the Alliance Party that comes from the Catholic side of the divide.
A week or so ago I watched on television the film "To Kill the Cabinet"—the story of how the Brighton bombers largely failed and how they were caught. We were reminded how bitter and how ruthless the IRA is and how sophisticated and deadly their weapons. Tragically, I think it is remarkable in these circumstances how much goodwill the so-called Unionists have lost on the mainland by actions that seem to many to have been irresponsible. We believe
1128
it is tragic that the party has used the Assembly as a base from which violently to attack the Anglo-Irish Agreement rather than to get on with the duties with which it was entrusted.
It became inevitable, I suggest, that the Alliance Party would withdraw and then that the Assembly should be dissolved. I shall be interested to hear any comments that the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, may choose to make. The lack of accord in the Province is clearly a tragedy. From this side of the water it seems so obvious that it would be better that Stormont should take as many decisions as possible, rather than Westminster. People with first hand experience of problems should deal with them rather than those who have to rely for the most part on what they are told. We wholeheartedly support the Government in their declared desire for devolved government, along with their maintained commitment to the Anglo-Irish agreement. Discussion must be the basis for finding a happier way forward and we sincerely hope that the Unionists will take up the offer of meeting the Prime Minister and will return to the other place to argue their case there as of course they are fully entitled to do.
I turn now for a moment to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order designed to continue direct rule. It is sad to look back at the debate in your Lordships' House last year and realise how little progress has been made. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, commented last July that the Assembly's detailed scrutiny of proposed legislation and other policy matters had been valuable. He re-emphasised this tonight. Alas! that of course for the time being has ceased.
He also commented then that formidable difficulties stood in the way of agreement, and unfortunately that is still very true today. I think, however, we should pause for a moment to pay tribute to all who have striven so hard in the search for reconciliation and the search must go on. We do not believe direct rule is the answer in any but a temporary sense, but for the time being it provides a fair framework for the the administration of Northern Ireland. It would be more satisfactory, however, if the Unionist Members in the other place would take advantage once more of their opportunities at Westminster.
I understand that this extension order is before the House today for the 13th time and this must give pause for thought. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will allow me to quote what he said last year. He said then (at col. 67 of Hansard for 8th July):
"The Government proclaim to the world that they want to return as much responsibility as they can to Northern Ireland as soon as possible, but, as this has not after 12 years proved to be feasible, we are entitled to ask: when is it likely to be feasible? We are entitled to ask this question as the need for progress becomes daily more urgent".
The answer, sadly I believe, is that progress is as hard today as it was then. It is difficult to make different comments now from what was said last July, so I will be brief. Then I asked two questions which perhaps I may now be allowed to repeat. First, I said that this House agreed 12 months ago, without challenge, that it was necessary for the eleventh time to renew this order. Had anything happened since then to make us change our minds? I said then, and unfortunately I

1129
repeat now. "Quite simply I think, and sadly, the answer is no." Secondly, I asked whether there was any question that the British seek to maintain colonial rights over the Province and enjoy at Westminster the power they hold. I answered then, as now, certainly not.
The need for reconciliation between the two communities in Northern Ireland remains paramount, the difficulties formidable. That is the stark truth, even if all too obvious. We accept that the Northern Ireland Act 1974 must continue to be operated and that this
1130
order must be passed. How you get harmony between the Unionists and the Nationalists I do not know, but it is our task to find a way. Discussion and debate must take the place of obstruction and discord. The people of the Province sometimes seem to want to make difficulties for themselves and recently several people have asked me in despair, "Just what do they want?" The answer should surely be: a society free from fear and want where all can live and work happily side by side. But their actions seem often to belie what should be their aim. Somewhat sadly, but without hesitation, we on these Benches support both these orders.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I rise in your Lordships' House this evening to apologise, to say that I am sorry that the Northern Ireland Assembly has not worked. The noble Lord's right honourable friend in another place, Mr. James Prior, has been accorded some acclaim and some disapproval for having introduced the Northern Ireland Assembly in 1982. I feel perhaps I should confess that it was on 1st November 1979 that I ventured to suggest to your Lordships' House that there should be an assembly of that sort set up. Indeed, I was reading the speech which I made on that occasion again this morning and it was interesting to see how very close the provisions of the 1982 Assembly came to what was suggested in that debate.
I honestly thought that it was going to work and I have no doubt that if the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, had been leading the SDLP at the time, with his colleague who left at about the same period, Mr. Patrick Devlin, a good friend and adversary of mine—if they had both been in the leadership of the SDLP then the Assembly would have worked. It is most regrettable that the SDLP did not take their seats. It is most regrettable that, having scored what is undoubtedly a major political triumph in having pulled off the New Ireland Forum to start with, and now the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Mr. John Hume, instead of being generous enough to take any sort of reciprocal action in giving and being accommodating, I am sorry to say took the attitude of, "Let's face down the Unionists. Let's stick their faces in the mud." This, my Lords, is most regrettable and is not an environment in which progress can be made politically or in any other way.
Having said that, the Unionists are by no means free of blame. They had the ball at their toe at one stage and if they had been generous enough genuinely to welcome the SDLP into the Assembly, there could have been a very different course of events. The Unionists—both parties of Unionists—were at no time wholehearted in acceptance of the SDLP into any power sharing situation. My party, the Alliance Party, was sneered at as being the party that supported power sharing.
It is hardly surprising, in the light of that environment as well, that the objective of a devolution which would be acceptable to all sections of the community in Northern Ireland was not achieved. Another way in which the Assembly could have worked perfectly successfully would have been if the electorate had thought fit to vote for enough members of the Alliance Party (which represent both sides of the community) to form a majority. But, regrettably, that was not the case.
We are faced now with the situation that inevitably the Assembly has got to be wound up. It is a sad day and it is a sad thing to have to admit; but I think that there is no alternative and, as the noble Lord on the Front Bench has said, the Assembly has not been doing its proper work since the beginning of December. I can see no alternative to it. Therefore, having been in favour in 1979 and in 1982 of a political initiative in order to try to break the log jam, in order to try to defuse the political vacuum, now, quite honestly, I think that any further initiative for the time being would be counterproductive. I think
1132
that we have probably simply got to face up to having direct rule for the foreseeable future and try to let things settle down; because I cannot envisage any initiative which would be productive rather than counterproductive at this time.
Meanwhile, the Anglo-Irish Agreement remains. The noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench spoke about the opportunity for discussions between the political parties without preconditions. Unfortunately, it is the fact that the Unionists regard the existence of the Anglo-Irish Agreement as being a precondition. That is why they will not enter into discussions. But that is as it may be. We await results from the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
A right honourable Member of the other place visited Northern Ireland the other day and commented that, as far as the economy is concerned, as far as employment is concerned, we could not see any results having arisen from the agreement so far. On security, we cannot say that we have seen any results so far, although we have been told that there has been a tremedous advance in the co-operation and mutual working between the police north and south of the Border. Yet the IRA were able to set off a 500-lb van bomb outside Cloughmills police station the night before last. Murders and similar acts of terrorism continue.
I think that the Unionists would be much more impressed if they saw positive results coming out of the agreement rather than talks. Furthermore, we should all be more impressed if there were more openness about the inter-governmental conference. A press statement, a communiqué afterwards, says what it wants to say. In fact, most of us know that not a great deal is done in the inter-governmental conference whether it be at Maryfield or elsewhere. Most of the business is delegated to sub-committees and those subcommittees could get on with their work in the way that communication has gone on between North and South for years and years. But that is as it may be. The inter-governmental conference, I suggested, should have been suspended to give the Unionists the opportunity to come in and talk. But Her Majesty's Government did not think fit so to do. The way things are, I have reason to suspect that the Anglo-Irish Agreement will be for the chop anyway shortly after the next election in the Republic of Ireland.
That is something that we have to ride out. I am afraid that it will be looked back on as being a well-intentioned but unfortunate concept. It has alienated the Protestants; it has caused differences between people who were previously in accord; it has caused tensions and it has imposed tremendous strains upon the police, as well. We shall just have to ride that out. Meanwhile, I repeat that I am sorry that the Northern Ireland Assembly did not work. I thought sincerely that it was going to work. We shall just have to bide our time and see what happens.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I want to speak to the Interim Period Extension Order and to raise very

1133
briefly three matters which clearly fall within the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Office. These concern the Social Security Bill now before your Lordships, integrated schools and long-term prisons. It is well known that Northern Ireland is the poorest region in the United Kingdom. It is geographically remote and it has suffered very considerable violence over the years. There is high unemployment which is, alas, still rising and there is heavy long-term unemployment. If that were not bad enough, there are many people on low incomes; and fuel costs are higher than in the rest of the country. These are special factors affecting the Province and I submit that they deserve special consideration.
What can the Government do about the Social Security Bill? I suggest that they could make arrangements for paying family credit direct to wives; they could continue single payments to claimants instead of loans which, in my view, are certain to lead to greater debt and greater impoverishment in Northern Ireland in the long run. The Government could avoid cutting housing benefit and they could continue the right of appeal to tribunals which claimants now enjoy.
There is also the question of the loss of jobs in Northern Ireland within the DHSS. These will arise, I understand, largely as a result of computerisation. It has been suggested, though I have not checked these figures, that the losses could amount to as many as 1,000 or 2,000 jobs. Perhaps the Minister can give us the exact figures when he replies. I should like to ask: what retraining have the Government in mind for these people whose livelihood is at risk? Can those who become redundant be redeployed into other needed posts in health and social services?
I now turn to integrated schools. I think it is perhaps important to define what an integrated school is. It is a school that is opened because the parents want it for their children in a particular place. The schools which have opened so far on this basis have been balanced and shared interdenominational Christian schools. They cherish all children, whether they are of the Christian faith, of other faiths or of no faith. The aim is to have a 50–50 balance between Protestant and Roman Catholic children. Where they cannot achieve that precise equality, they wish to keep the ratio within the 60–40 band.
There are already four schools open and I understand there is a new one which is planned to open next September at Newcastle, County Down. Well over 600 children are already studying in these schools and they have considerable waiting lists. Therefore the demand from parents for schooling of this type, to my mind, has been clearly demonstratred at least in so far as the Greater Belfast area is concerned. What conclusion should we draw from this? I should like to suggest that parents whose children qualify should be entitled as of right to free school meals, uniform grants and free transport during (and this is the important point) the probationary period before these new schools achieve controlled status within state education.
I should like to go on to ask that these schools should be entitled to 100 per cent. state aid for their running
1134
costs from the day they open. This would put them in a position of exact parity with the new Roman Catholic controlled schools, which get government help from the planning stage onwards, as I understand it.
I now turn to the review procedure for life and indeterminate sentences. Before I finish, I should like also to mention the discharge arrangements for long-term prisoners generally. Your Lordships may be aware that there is in existence a review board for these indeterminate sentences. Reports are submitted to the board in writing and they are of the utmost importance, because if the facts are not correctly fed into the board the end result cannot possibly be correct. Therefore I submit that it is of the greatest importance that the prison staff who have to submit these reports should be fully trained in character observation and report writing. If possible, I should also like to see the comments given by prison chaplains, probation officers and prison social workers made admissible, as well as reports from prison officers and prison governors. I think also there should be an opportunity for the individual prisoner to challenge reports with which he disagrees.
If the board does not set a provisional release date, the prisoner should be informed of the reasons, provided that those reasons are ones over which the prisoner has some personal control.
On the other hand, where the board does not set a release date I should like to see a speeding up of the ratification which is now required first of all by the judge who passed the sentence and secondly by the Northern Ireland Office. At the present time, this process can take anything up to nine months, which seems to be an excessively long period.
I come now, finally, to the pre-release procedures for long-term prisoners. I should like to suggest that those prisoners who both succeed in getting pre-release work and who have a family home to live in should be released on licence to their home. Where this does not apply, hostels should be provided instead of the present arrangement, which allows total freedom by day to the prisoner while obliging him to return to a top security prison for the night. After all, if he is going to escape he will escape during the day, not during the night.
Finally, where a prisoner is on pre-release work experience and is doing unpaid work there should be financial assistance provided to him so that he does not become a burden on his family.
Those are three areas, where direct rule applies, where the Government can make improvements in a situation which is not entirely desirable at the present moment. I hope the noble Lord will be able to throw some light on these problems tonight. If he cannot, I shall be perfectly happy for him to reply to me by letter.
Lord Fitt: In advance of the debate this evening I took the opportunity today to sit in the Gallery of the House of Commons. I listened to the speech of the Secretary of State and that of the spokesman for the Opposition, Mr. Archer. They were reasonably

1135
hopeful speeches. I think they were calculated to bring about the best set of political circumstances in Northern Ireland. Then I listened to two other speeches from those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies—the right honourable gentleman the Member for South Down, Enoch Powell, and Seamus Mallon of the SDLP, who represents Newry and Armagh.
Your Lordships will be able to read those speeches in the Official Report tomorrow morning, and I am sure that, as I was, your Lordships will be filled with a sense of despair that there was not one centimetre of movement in the political attitudes that have existed for so long. As I sat and listened to Enoch Powell I found myself, as I always have done, in total disagreement with the argument and thesis that he continually puts forward in relation to calling for total integration. That is something which very few people in Northern Ireland want, and certainly no one in the political spectrum on this side of the water.
As I listened to Seamus Mallon, I felt more than ever justified that I had given up the leadership and resigned from the SDLP, because that party is as fully and totally committed to its pursuit of Irish nationalism, come hell or high water, no matter how long the political debate may be kept up in Northern Ireland. Its aim is to assert its Irish nationalism in total opposition to the point of view put forward by Enoch Powell—his assertion of Ulster unionism, or Ulster nationalism as some people would say.
It was with a particular sense of poignancy that I listened to those attitudes today, because I was the one Northern Ireland elected representative in 1982 in another place who supported the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Prior, in his promulgation of the Northern Ireland Assembly Act. All the Unionist Members who were there and the various strands of unionism opposed that Act.
In the House of Commons there are, maybe 10 people who are interested in Northern Ireland, and there are one or two fewer in your Lordships' House. They are the people who take part in the debates. They are the people who are interested, who visit Northern Ireland and try to get a feel for what happens. But in another place, and indeed on occasions in this House, when the Division bells ring the Government can always secure their majority. We know the overwhelming majority that the Government had in another place in support of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I suggest that two-thirds of the people who voted for that did not have a clue as to what it was all about; and there are a lot of people in this House who voted for it and welcomed it with open arms who were not very aware of the impact that it was liable to have in Northern Ireland.
I remember, the day after the agreement was signed, reading all the press reports of it. We had press reports coming in from Sweden, from Germany, from France, from Tanzania, from the Congo, from everywhere you could think of, obviously orchestrated by the Foreign Office and by the Irish Embassies and Consulates throughout the world. They all said, in their various unpronounceable languages which would not be understood in Ireland, how wonderful this agreement
1136
was. It was the greatest thing since the £5 note. It was a wonderful agreement that had been arrived at by the two governments.
But the most significant newspaper of them all was the Belfast Telegraph in Northern Ireland—not in Sweden, Turkey or China. It said, "It will not work." That was written by Northern Ireland people and it was read by Northern Ireland people. It is an opinion-former in Northern Ireland, as is its sister Unionist newspaper, the Belfast News Letter, and I have had continuous disagreements with them throughout the years. But they are the papers that form opinions in Northern Ireland. People in the Shankill Road, in Sandy Row, or in any of the Unionist areas are not very concerned about what some newspaper in Stockholm, or anywhere else, says. They live in Northern Ireland and it was there that the decisions had to be taken.
I find myself in total agreement with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, who continues to live in Northern Ireland, and with what I am quite certain will be said by my noble friend Lord Blease, who continues to live in Northern Ireland, with his family and his grandchildren. I do not live in Northern Ireland at the moment, but I am completely in touch with it and my ageing mother and all my relations still live there. So while I do not live there, I am still very much concerned with what happens in Northern Ireland.
When the Bill on the Assembly was going through another place, I had high hopes that it may succeed where other political initiatives had failed. I was all too well aware that it may be boycotted. I am sure your Lordships know that it was the Irish who made the word "boycott" what it is today. Prior to Irish involvement with Captain Boycott, it was just another surname. I do not know whether he was a relation of Geoffrey. But the word "boycott" became in the English language associated with abstention, sending to Coventry, etc. That has happened throughout Irish political life. I was the leader of the SDLP, and we boycotted Stormont from 1971 until its abolition in 1972 because we did not like some of the decisions that were being taken there. The Unionists up to the present moment have been boycotting the Assembly because they did not like the decisions that were being taken by the British Government. So everyone is in the boycott game and the abstention game.
As I sit and watch it from the rarefied atmosphere of the House of Lords I can see that there are two parties to this conflict. It would be totally and absolutely unfair continuously to point the finger at one of them. There are two parties to this conflict. I should like to believe that people will stop saying—I heard Seamus Mallon at it today in another place; I hear John Hume at it as well—"We are willing to enter into talks without preconditions". That is totally and absolutely untrue because they have in their hands in the form of the Anglo-Irish Agreement the biggest political precondition they have ever had. That is the biggest political precondition they have had. Read the speeches in tomorrow morning's Hansard.
The Unionists are saying, "Our precondition is: get rid of the Anglo-Irish Agreement". The Nationalists are saying, "Our precondition is: keep it". That is

1137
exactly what it means. One side has not been more intransigent than the other. There is total intransigence on both sides. Each of the political parties in Northern Ireland is out to achieve total victory over the other. I have said before in this House and I repeat: there is no compromise in Irish politics. People do not know what that word means. They do not know how to spell it because they have never had to use it. In Northern Ireland there are victories and defeats. The Nationalist population is now seeking total victory over the Unionist population. The Unionist population is seeking victory over the Nationalist population. It has ever been so in relation to Irish politics.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, said he supposed that if I had still been in the leadership of the SDLP in 1982, in company with Paddy Devlin, a former socialist colleague of mine in that party, we would have been able to bring the SDLP into the Assembly. I am sorry to have to tell the noble Lord that it would not have been possible, because that was why Paddy Devlin and I left the SDLP. Had we been there in 1982 and suggested bringing the SDLP into the Assembly, both of us would have been expelled. The SDLP is essentially a Nationalist Party; that is its whole raison d'être. It is a Nationalist Party as opposed to a Unionist Party. Paddy Devlin and I comprised a very small socialist element within that party. Unfortunately we were not able to bring the party along the road that we had charted out for it, and we left it.
So we now find ourselves with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Irish political parties make mistakes too. They boxed themselves into a corner. They have done it repeatedly throughout the centuries, Unionists and Nationalists alike. But this Government have also done exactly the same thing. This Government have boxed themselves in with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. First of all, they totally excluded the Unionists from any part of the discussions in the run-up to the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. In 1973, when I was Leader of the SDLP, the then Secretary of State, who is now Leader of your Lordships' House, called a conference in Darlington in a rather peremptory way. I did not like the attitude that he then had. We told him in quite specific Northern Ireland terms that we were not going, and we did not go. That is the attitude.
The Unionists were told—in fact, they were not told; they read it in editorials in some of the Irish newspapers—what was happening during the discussions which led to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. They read in editorials in the Fianna Fáil newspaper, the Irish Press, what was likely to be contained in that agreement. There could be nothing more calculated to drive the Unionists into the Sea of Tranquillity than to read in an Irish nationalist and, by their standards, republican newspaper what was happening in relation to how they were to be governed in the future. Those leaks were very accurate.
This Government then said, "That is the agreement. You either take it or you lump it. Look what the people of Stockholm said about it, or the people in Peking. They are in agreement with it". The Unionists said, "We are not in agreement, and it is an agreement that will affect us". So one had the almost total opposition of the Unionist Party and of the Protestant
1138
people of Northern Ireland. As I have said before and now repeat, they are people who are not loud-mouthed bigots. They are people who do not have any great esteem for the gospel as preached by Ian Paisley. They are the moderate people of Northern Ireland who feel that in some way or other their birthright has been placed under attack by an agreement in which they had absolutely no part to play.
As I said, the Government have boxed themselves in. They have said, "The agreement is there and it is going to stay there, come hell or high water". I want your Lordships to think for a few moments about what that phrase means: "Come hell or high water". It means very severe community disruption in Northern Ireland. We may sit here, and others may sit in the House of Commons, and tut-tut about the terrible consequences of that agreement and about what is taking place. But the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, and my noble friend Lord Blease have to live there and will see the consequences at very close hand.
The two most important items of legislation relating to Northern Ireland now are contained in the two orders that we are discussing at this moment. One concerns the dissolving of the Assembly. The other relates to the extension of the 1974 Act that makes for a continuance of direct rule. Each is contingent upon the other. If the Assembly had been a success, then we might have had rolling devolution and there would have been no need to discuss a renewal of the 1974 Act. So the two orders are before your Lordships because of the inability of the political leaders in Northern Ireland to get together and decide how to bring about a system of government under which both communities can live.
I agree fully with what has been said by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies about the unsuitability of total integration. The Unionists should be told that total integration is a non-runner and that it is not acceptable to any section of the British Parliament. We have heard none other than our present Prime Minister saying that Northern Ireland is as British as Finchley. I do not know what the Prime Minister had been doing before she made that comment, but certainly none of us thinks that Northern Ireland is as British as Finchley.
The very name of the state of Northern Ireland indicates how different it is from England, Scotland or Wales. When one talks about those three countries, one is talking about three entities; England, Scotland and Wales. But in the case of Northern Ireland, one is talking about the northern part of another island and another political entity. Its very name is an indication that it is totally different from the other three countries contained in the land mass that is the island of Great Britain. So some means must be found to find a system of political structures that will enable progress to take place in Northern Ireland.
I repeat, I listened today with a great sense of despair to what was said by the representatives from Northern Ireland. I looked at the parliamentary Order Paper for another place. It said that if the two orders are not completed by eight o'clock the Speaker will then impose a rule and call an end to the debate. Two of the most important orders that affect the future and the continuing future of everyone in Northern Ireland and

1139
the Speaker says that if they are not finished after a four-hour debate—it started at 10 minutes past four—he will close the debate anyway. That is an indication—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and long-standing friend Lord Fitt for giving way. Is he being fair when only one Member of the Ulster Unionist party was in attendance at that debate? As a former MP I represented a constituency in England. I would have loved a four-hour debate on the area I represented. It is a fact that Northern Ireland, for its population, gets the most beneficial treatment of any region or area in the United Kingdom—far more than anywhere else. Therefore, I do not accept the premise that my old friend and noble colleague has put forward.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the debates which my noble friend Lord Dean would like to see and to have more time allotted to are debates about the everyday lives of people in relation to housing, employment, and so on. However, the debates in relation to Northern Ireland are about the constitutional position in Northern Ireland.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, but there was no one there!
Lord Fitt: My Lords, there was no one there, but what would have happened if all the Unionist Members had been there this afternoon and all wanted to make speeches? Would the Speaker still have insisted on saying, "You can have four hours for the debate and after that all the English Members will want to go home because it is a Thursday night and we cannot allow you interlopers to come over here and take up all the time of the House"? Let us be honest. Given the fact that Northern Ireland had a Parliament from 1920 to 1972, then an Assembly, a Convention, and then another Assembly, it quite understandably divorces and isolates Northern Ireland matters from the minds of Members who represent constituencies on the mainland and Members of your Lordships' House. That is why I say that I do not think we can go back again to the position when the Act of Union came about, before Stormont, the Irish Free State or the Parliament in Dublin came into being. Those days are gone, and gone for ever. I listened to the Secretary of State say today that there may be two other options—that there may be an independent Northern Ireland. I do not think that is a runner either because an independent Northern Ireland calls for majority rule and we have seen what majority rule was like under a Unionist government for 50 years in Northern Ireland.
No, it is a sad occasion here tonight that we have to agree to the dissolution of the Assembly and to agree to direct rule for another year. I am inclined to agree with what has been said; but for me to agree to this after having had the experience of Sunningdale has certainly brought about far-reaching consequences in my own mind. Perhaps the time for initiatives has gone. I think there is a feeling now in Northern Ireland that the Assembly, on which so many people based so much hope, did not achieve what we set out to do.
1140
We should not attempt to push another initiative just for the sake of being seen to be doing something rather than nothing. There is a strange belief in this House and in the other place that it is better to do something than to do nothing, but that is not necessarily true. I think that the Northern Ireland policital leaders will now have to take stock of these two orders and what has happened to them tonight. They have to ask themselves, not ask people in this House or people in another place, what future do they see for Northern Ireland. The only future that there can be is one that will be brought about by agreement between the two communities in Northern Ireland. This House can help to bring about such a solution. It cannot impose any solution.
I believe that a great responsibility now rests on the two sets of political leaders in Northern Ireland. I find that some of the criticisms that are now being levelled at one section of the community appear to be just a little unfair. There are two sides to the conflict in Northern Ireland. It is recognised in Northern Ireland, and it may as well be recognised here in your Lordships' House.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I listened with care to what the Minister said. I understand the reasons for the Government's decision. The Minister paid a generous tribute to the good work that was done by the Assembly but at the end it clearly was not doing its job and the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, has told us with clarity and fairness why it failed.
Yet inevitably its dissolution must be a further discouragement to the majority in Northern Ireland who are already discouraged enough. To me it is extraordinary that the Government, just a few days after their announcement, should have chosen to have a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference in Belfast—an action which I should have thought was bound to inflame Unionist opinion. Of course, it is important that they should be discussing security with the Government of the Republic. I think that we have all been impressed by the outstanding work of the RUC and the police over here in catching Mr. Magee and his associates; but IRA murders continue and Evelyn Glenholmes is still at large. Why cannot security matters be discussed quietly and without publicity in London or Dublin instead of making the meeting an occasion to cock a snook at majority opinion in Northern Ireland?
The Assembly has been dissolved and yet another experiment in devolution has come to a full stop. So what do we do? I believe that time is not on our side. The Hillsborough agreement has not produced peace and stability in Northern Ireland and before very long we may have a Government in Dublin that is led by Mr. Haughey. What happens then? What will the majority in Northern Ireland think about Mr. Haughey having a say in their affairs?
I suggest that the Government must devise, and devise urgently, some way in which moderate, reasonable opinion in Northern Ireland can make itself heard and listened to. I think that this is immensely important. I suggest that, as devolution has failed again, and despite the obvious difficulties spelt

1141
out by the Minister, we should begin to treat Northern Ireland more like other parts of the United Kingdom—for example, like Wales. When we look at Northern Ireland and at Wales, what is the most striking political difference that hits one in the eye? Surely it is the strange refusal of the main British political parties to operate in Northern Ireland. I am a Cross-Bencher and I do not know what moves political parties, but it strikes me as very odd that they all abstain from recruiting members or fielding candidates in this important part of the United Kingdom. It seems to me that this has very bad consequences. A Northern Ireland voter normally has a choice only between one of the two Unionist parties, the Alliance, the SDLP, or, I am sorry to say, Sinn Fein.
All these parties are Irish parties. Nearly all their candidates are one-issue men and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has told us that there is no compromise between them. Would it not be much better if people in Northern Ireland had the opportunity of voting also for a Conservative, Labour, Liberal or SDP candidate, who, if elected, could use his influence in one of these parties, and would it not be a good thing that they sometimes should give some thought to the other issues which affect the United Kingdom? It might, I suggest, take their minds off total preoccupation with the intractable problems which are special to Northern Ireland.
I do not suggest that we need make a dramatic or instant change, but I think that we have to recognise that devolution has not worked and will not work in the immediate future. It seems to me that we should as a matter of common sense examine the alternatives. That, I believe, means treating Northern Ireland and its citizens more like other parts of the United Kingdom, with Parliament giving the same careful scrutiny to Northern Ireland legislation as it does now to matters affecting Scotland and Wales. I think that that might help to reduce tension, improve the atmosphere and promote stability and confidence.
Lord Blease: My Lords, first, I should like to join with my noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord Prys-Davies, in welcoming the Minister's introduction to the order and the manner in which he presented it to us. At this late hour I feel somewhat restricted. Like my noble friend Lord Fitt, I am conscience bound: I should like to indicate to the people of Northern Ireland at least that a word or two was said here on their behalf. I have examined my heart, as I am sure other noble Lords have done, and seek to represent the views of the people of Northern Ireland and to say something that would be helpful. At this late stage I shall not be tempted to go down the road followed by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and deal with the integrationist point of view. We shall have an opportunity to deal with that later next month.
We have had a forthright exchange of views and have many times covered the well-trodden ground of Northern Ireland affairs. I think it will be acknowledged that this is a crucial period for the people of Northern Ireland. That is all the more reason why a few minutes should be spent listening to what yet another person from Northern Ireland has to say about the situation.
1142
On 12th June the Minister delivered a Statement to the House on the Northern Ireland Assembly. It was stated (at col. 411 of Hansard):
"I wish to emphasise to the House that the dissolution of the present Assembly in no way conflicts with our desire for devolved government nor our commitment to the Anglo-Irish agreement. Devolution remains the Government's preferred option and I hope that we shall see a future Assembly playing a responsible and valuable role in the Province. The sooner that happens, the better …
Only if we are prepared to talk together and discuss these matters can we hope fully to play our separate but complementary roles in building a better future for the people of Northern Ireland".
There are three points in that quotation to which I wish to make a positive and, I hope, helpful response. The first is that devolution remains the Government's preferred option; the second is that the Government hope that we shall soon see an Assembly playing a responsible and valuable role in the Province; and the third is that the Government remain ready to discuss with all constitutional parties in Northern Ireland the building of a better future for the people of Northern Ireland. Time prevents me from putting the case that I should like to put in support of those three important aspects of the announcement. However, I wish to declare that it is my opinion that the Government cannot just stand by and allow events to dictate the way forward. They should now take sensitive, constructive and positive action to initiate matters in Northern Ireland. In that respect I disagree with my noble friend Lord Fitt. I believe that the Government have a responsibility for bringing forward leadership at the present time.
One of the actions that I would suggest is that they should now initiate a ministerial conference, chaired by a senior Government Minister such as the noble Viscount, Lord Whitlelaw. The people eligible or entitled to attend such a conference should be elected Northern Ireland Members of the United Kingdom Parliament and official representatives of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland.
I would further suggest that, as a prerequisite for the convening of such a conference, the agenda should include among other matters a reaffirmation of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom as stated in Article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Secondly, on the agenda there should be condemnation of, and pronounced opposition to, all forms of terrorism, violence and coercion as a means of furthering political objectives aspirations and constitutional change.
There has already been mention of the need in Northern Ireland for the return of responsibility and accountability to the people of their elected representatives. I have always regarded this as absolutely necessary. If there is to be accountability, there must be responsibility. The agenda should include consideration of the appointment of Northern Ireland elected representatives to a security committee that would be given a reasoned and responsible consultative and advisory role in respect of overall policies and principles for upholding law and order in the Province and security of life and property. This was missing from the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The people of Northern Ireland have a right to a say and a share of the responsibility for maintaining law and

1143
order. It cannot be done in any other way on their behalf.
There is an urgent need for policies and concerted action to build a better life for all. That better life for all cannot be built by the Republic or by the United Kingdom Government alone. It must be built by the people in Northern Ireland. That action must be promoted with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
I conclude with what I regard as a statement of hope for the future. It is a statement on behalf of the Northern Ireland Youth Forum—a cry from the heart by young people in Northern Ireland who do not possess, I believe, a recognised voice. It does not become someone of my age perhaps to represent their views, but I consider it a privilege to do so. The Northern Ireland Youth Forum was established in 1979 by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who was at that time the Northern Ireland Minister responsible for education and youth affairs. It comprises young people under 25, who are appointed as representatives of youth in the 26 local government district councils of Northern Ireland.
The statement appears in a copy of Arena, published by the Standing Conference of Youth Organisations in Northern Ireland. The statement reads:
"The Northern Ireland Youth Forum would like to express its concern over developments on the political scene in Northern Ireland over the last year. We feel that these events can only be seen to have detrimental consequences for youth of this Province. The upsurge in violence has caused much heartache in Northern Ireland and has also led to greater alienation within our community. We are wary of the inevitability of young people being influenced by extremists from all quarters and again totally condemn all acts of violence regardless of the instigators.
"The Youth Forum is concerned over the number of statements which have been made from various quarters, hinting at violence and civil disturbance. We condemn such statements as they only lead to further divisions, add to the present fears and promote intimidation. We regret that there are constant disruptions in District Councils, Education and Library Boards and in the Health Boards as important work at grass-roots level is being harmed, and young people are among those bearing the brunt of such disruptions. We do not blame any one group for this as it, to coin a phrase, takes 'two to tango'. We see the present situation as unfortunate but may be avoidable.
"We want a future and would encourage greater dialogue between politicians within Northern Ireland as a way forward for peace and stability in our Province. We call for greater co-operation and closer involvement to help sort out the social needs and aspirations of all people in the North.
"The Northern Ireland Youth Forum is totally Non-Party Political and has issued this statement independently of any outside [influence]. We have compiled this statement as the democratically-elected voice for young people in this Province who believe it was time our voice was heard. We, the youth of this country demand a peaceful and stable future in which we will be able to live!"
I believe that that is a plea from the heart. I believe that by presenting it in this House it will be perhaps heard by the elected representatives in Northern Ireland and by those with responsibility so that they may get together to work for the good of the youth of Northern Ireland.
I conclude by asking the Minister to indicate whether active measures will be taken by the Government to continue to promote the desirable consultations. I do not believe that consultations will take place unless the Government help and encourage that form of dialogue.
1144
The second question I should like to put to the Minister is this. Will he use his influence along with that of his ministerial colleagues to promote and encourage relevant consultations with the Ulster Farmers' Union, trade unions and employers' organisations, and with other representative commercial and social bodies in Northern Ireland, including the Northern Ireland Youth Forum?
It is only by awakening the people in Northern Ireland to the fact that their responsibility requires to be exercised in this respect that we shall have the kind of Assembly that we desire. It will not come through any spontaneous action.
In order to counter the widespread "disinformation," may I ask the Minister whether he will encourage all statutory bodies and public bodies —including the Government's information service in Northern Ireland—to maintain open and frank reporting of issues and events in the general public interest? I believe that we have a vacuum at the present time. This is being taken over by those who wish to promote ill-founded rumour and propaganda. It is necessary that there should be alert, honest and frank exchanges of views and information within Northern Ireland.
10.4 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as your Lordships will appreciate, we are all immensely grateful for the patience shown and the high quality of the contributions made by noble Lords in the debate this evening, especially on the order that is before us.
If I may try to answer most of the points that have been raised by your Lordships, perhaps I may go through the contributions in order. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will forgive me if I start with him first. The noble Lord suggested that the Assembly had become the exclusive territory of the Unionists. Of course, that is perfectly true. I think that the most cogent contribution was made by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, who had taken part in the Assembly since its inception. I think that the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, indicated how that came about, and gave many of the reasons why. We are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for his support of what the Government are trying to do and also for his firm thrust that we should not lose our nerve. Certainly on our part there will be no loss of nerve in trying to secure a better future for everybody—and I mean "everybody"—in Northern Ireland.
The main thrust of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and indeed of the noble Lord, Lord Blease (about whose remarks I shall have more to say later), and other noble Lords, has been the worry that there is lack of consultation. I stress that the doors of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister are open for more fruitful and further discussions. Of course, the Unionist Party leaders must speak for themselves. We hope that they will take up the constant offers of further discussions, and for all the best reasons I hope without pre-conditions.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies—and I think I quote him correctly—said that the religious leaders

1145
craved for further talks. Indeed, I note from the newspapers in Northern Ireland that religious leaders are hoping for moderation and hoping for further fruitful discussions and talks. The noble Lord mentioned men of religion and religious leaders. I am sure that he is acquainted with the slightly double entendre of those words in Northern Ireland politics, but not for the worst reasons. Perhaps I should not go too far with my personal thoughts on the men of religion who mix politics as well. I find them interesting and entertaining, and, above all, when they wish they have a great deal to contribute to the political life—indeed, the entire life—of Northern Ireland.
Another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was the treatment of Northern Ireland business in your Lordships' House and another place. I am sure that your Lordships will accept that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made very clear on 25th February this year in her meeting with the two leaders of the Unionist Parties that she was and still is willing to discuss with them the arrangements for handling Northern Ireland business both here and in another place. She made a very firm commitment. Indeed, it was one of the main commitments that my right honourable friend made on that day, and I stress that the offer remains on the table. I am sure that it would be the wish of everyone that that offer should be subject to further discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, went on to mention the second order—to which I have already spoken and which I shall move formally later—namely, the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order. He referred to the imperfection of the treatment. As far as Northern Ireland legislation is concerned, that may be the case. The noble Lord also asked an interesting question about whether the inter-governmental conference would be responsible to Parliament. I hope that we shall give as much information as we can both here and in another place about the proceedings at the conference when it takes place. I recall stressing to your Lordships that we wish to give all possible detail that we deem prudent. As your Lordships will remember, the conference is a discussion between two sovereign governments and it should be conducted along those lines. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, with his great knowledge of diplomatic discussions, discretion and, above all, good sense, would accept that I am partly on the right lines in putting that thought forward.
We are grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the emphasis which he placed on the fact that we are dissolving the Assembly and not abolishing it. I explained in the course of my remarks both today and last week why we took this course of action. We are grateful for the fact that the noble Lord has reiterated that it is a dissolution. Of course he noted, as we all have, the use of the Assembly to attack the Anglo-Irish Agreement and members of the security forces. The noble Lord also mentioned that this was the 13th time that the interim period extension order had been renewed. As he said, sadly this is the case. But for the reasons I have explained, my noble friends at this Dispatch Box and other holders of the office that I hold have given I hope not
1146
excuses but sound reasons why we believe that this order has to be continued.
Perhaps I may now turn to the marvellously robust comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. Nobody in this House, let alone in another place—or indeed very few in Northern Ireland—could have contributed more than the noble Lord to political life in Northern Ireland. I have attended as an observer in the Assembly, and I have watched the noble Lord as a very capable and able deputy Speaker. Perhaps he has picked up a few tricks here. The commitment and personal effort of the noble Lord have been a shining light in the political life of Northern Ireland.
He may recall my good wishes in his efforts as long ago as 1973, since I think the first eight speeches I made in this chamber were related to Northern Ireland. I recall the noble Lord and I from somewhat humble positions on the Back-Benches discussing orders and Acts in 1973.
The noble Lord mentioned the need for devolution. It was inevitable that, with the need for devolution and the Assembly not working as it should, the Assembly would be ultimately wound up. I hope that the noble Lord and the House might accept that direct rule works well; but of course it does not allow Northern Ireland elected representatives to decide all the policies for Northern Ireland. Your Lordships' House and another place provide a democratic check; but inevitably Northern Ireland has a separate party-political system. We hope that a devolved Administration within its own responsibilities would more closely reflect local concerns and priorities.
To survive, this devolved Administration would have to be widely acceptable. I seem to remember those two words being quoted by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Mr. Prior, in 1982. They are still relevant today. As we have learned this evening, if all parties in Northern Ireland could learn to work together, we are of the opinion—and I am sure everybody in this place would be—that it would not merely help to promote but would contribute greatly to reconciliation between the two sections of the community.
This particular policy of devolution does not imply any lack of support for the union. What it does is to recognise that because of the divided community in Northern Ireland, which has been stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, the geography of Northern Ireland, and as always in any discussion of Northern Ireland and its politics, its history, it really is impossible to treat Northern Ireland as though it were identical in all respects with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Noble Lords such as Lord Fitt, Lord Blease, and Lord Dunleath, would admit that the longer those like myself, mere Scots, go to Northern Ireland and serve and work there, the more we find that we have to learn. It is a learning process that I love and enjoy; but Northern Ireland is different, and it is for these reasons that we have orders such as those we have before us this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, raised another point when he suggested that the Anglo-Irish Agreement might be suspended. I hope that he and the noble Lords, Lord Fitt and Lord Blease, would accept that the agreement has the potential to offer—I stress

1147
"the potential to offer"—real benefits to both sides of the community in Northern Ireland.
We shall not suspend an agreement which has been overwhelmingly endorsed by Parliament, here and in another place, which represents all the citizens of the United Kingdom. Personally one might accept some of the strictures that have come from the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that Members of this House and another place might not have read in detail or learned by heart every item, comma, jot and tittle of the agreement and know every part of it. But I believe that Parliament is representative of the vast majority of citizens of the United Kingdom. We for the Government are committed by the terms of the agreement to hold regular and frequent meetings of the conference. But I stress that the conference will proceed with its work sensitively and in the interests of both communities.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked me three questions. I am afraid I have two words to reply to him—I hope it is not too impudent, rather like the Empress Josephine—"not tonight". I shall take note of the problems that the noble Lord had with the Social Security Bill about re-training the DHSS employees. I was interested to hear his views on integrated schools. I knew of four and that there are more; but I shall take his views on board, and if I can reply to him by letter I shall do so. I hope he will accept that I shall take his comments on long-term prisoners on board. But I am afraid I came, rightly or wrongly, briefed to deal with the orders that are before us this evening. Let us not forget four more orders later when we have finished these two. I am afraid that this is not the Encyclopaedia Britannica speaking but I shall endeavour to give the noble Lord the usual courteous reply.
When the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, spoke we were glad to have a full report of his doings in another place. It is strange—it seems rare—that the noble Lord was in a place which was open to me and other Members of your Lordships' House but not to ex-Members of another place. It was encouraging that he noted the proceedings elsewhere and doubtless we shall read in detail what took place there. The noble Lord's comments on the vote for the Anglo-Irish Agreement perhaps were not entirely fair; but I think he will accept that politics is not entirely fair. I stress that the vote in your Lordships' House and in another place reflected not a wish to cock a snook at Unionists or a wish to be in any way triumphal. It expressed a wish in all parts of your Lordships' House and in another place that this was another step on behalf of the Government in seeking to bring about some form of reconciliation, some form of improvement in the situation in Northern Ireland. That is what we sought to do.
The noble Lord had one or two criticisms about the Anglo-Irish Agreement. As he will be aware, there are several misunderstandings and misconceptions within Northern Ireland about both the terms and the operations of the agreement. First, let me stress that the agreement is not a step towards a United Ireland. On the contrary, in a document binding in international law on both the Republic of Ireland and on the United Kingdom it reinforces the status of
1148
Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. This cannot change unless a majority of the people in Northern Ireland wish to change that status.
Secondly, in no way is the agreement a form of joint authority. It does not give the Government of the Republic of Ireland a veto over decision-making in Northern Ireland. The conference has no executive role and we the Government here and all governments in the United Kingdom will remain responsible for all the decisions of government and the benefits and the wellbeing so sought after by the noble Lord, Lord Blease. We will remain responsible for all that, as far as the citizens of Northern Ireland are concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, concluded by suggesting that the Government were boxed in. I stress that the Government are in no way boxed in; at least two senior members of the Government, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, are open, if need be, even tomorrow or soon, to the leaders of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to see what can be done to improve the relationships within Northern Ireland.
I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that there is no question of liking or lumping the agreement. We wish to discuss it. The noble Lord mentioned something, I think from one of the Belfast newspapers, about the birthright of the Unionists in Northern Ireland. As a Scot, I will stress to him that the citizenship of the United Kingdom is the birthright of every single one of us, Scots, Welsh, English and Northern Irish. I hope that everybody in Northern Ireland will accept that it is not just one birthright, that we believe that they are members of the United Kingdom, and we are proud to have them with us.
We are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for his studied contribution to the debate on the Motion on the Order Paper tonight. I stress to him that there is no question of cocking a snook at the Unionists at all; indeed, the Government want a quiet discussion, if I may say so to the noble Lord, of the type he knows for he has spent his life in quiet, constuctive and fruitful discussions. That is what we seek, and I believe that that is the basis of the agreement and the conference.
The noble Lord also made one particular reference to some of my remarks earlier, and I hope I have marked them, but I should like to stress them again to the noble Lord. They were on integration and the administrative consequences of integration and how really grave these would be, so that we cannot change local government structure in Northern Ireland since this would, we believe, wreck the system. Secondly, may I stress to the noble Lord and all integrationalists, that if Northern Ireland primary legislation were to be enacted by a Bill, it would place an enormous burden on Parliament? Indeed, I was trying to compare the situation which might take place, were this to happen, so far as Northern Ireland and Scotland were concerned. I think I mentioned that in 1983 there were 13 Orders in Council concerning Northern Ireland containing separate provisions. For Scotland, major Bills in another place, then in your Lordships' House, I think amounted to four. We all know, I think, how long Scottish legislation takes in your Lordships' House. So with, I hope, the usual good humour, I will

1149
tempt the noble Lord to suggest just how long 13 separate Bills in your Lordships' House as well as in another place would take in one year. I believe it is asking too much of our system of government here and in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, was the final speaker and he just wondered whether the Government should allow events to dictate the operations of the Government in Northern Ireland. I hope not, I hope that we are taking a forceful and firm line. The noble Lord raised the question of the Youth Forum, and he wished for further consultation. I think I have a note here of what the noble Lord has to say about a conference covering various important aspects of the future, all aspects of Northern Ireland's future. But my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State made clear their willingness to listen to constructive suggestions. I would say that at present we do not see much evidence of the necessary will among the parties in Northern Ireland to talk to each other constructively, let alone to come with some agreed agenda to see my right honourable friends.
If I may conclude with one thought for the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, we find advantages in the agreement, we believe that the agreement has much to offer to both communities in Northern Ireland. It is an opportunity to promote reconciliation between the two traditions in Northern Ireland and it provides a forum in which to reflect the concerns of the Nationalist community. We hope to gain the support of the Nationalist community in spite of the somewhat gloomy prognostications of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, earlier this evening. We hope and seek to gain their support for the institutions of the Province, including law and order—and let us not forget either the judicial system. This would represent a very real gain for the majority, whose rights are not affected in any way by the agreement.
There is one thing more. The agreement provides the best prospect for progress against terrorism by encouraging better cross-Border security co-operation. We believe that there have been one or two encouraging steps in this particular direction. I apologise that I have had to try to conclude my remarks at a fairly swift pace. If I have missed any serious points, I am sure that we shall catch up with them and I shall endeavour to see that your Lordships' points are answered. With that, I commend to your Lordships the Northern Ireland Assembly (Dissolution) Order 1986.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1986
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th June be approved. [25th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will have heard me making a quite lengthy speech at the outset of this debate. I propose to say nothing more this evening but merely that I beg to move this order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th June be approved. [25th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986
  Companies Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1986
    Business Names (Northern Ireland) Order 1986

      Company Securities (Insider Dealing) (Northern Ireland) Order 1986
      Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the four draft orders laid before the House on 1st May be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.]
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, the draft Company Securities (Insider Dealing) (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, the draft Business Names (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and, finally, the draft Companies Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 be approved. Perhaps I may stress that should any noble Lord object to my moving these orders together, I shall move them separately; but I intend to speak to them all together since I hope that they hang together.
      All these orders were laid before your Lordships on 1st May this year. All of them go to consolidate the Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 1960, the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 and the Companies (Beneficial Interests) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983.
      I am further able to indicate to your Lordships that the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills considered this extensive consolidation on 14th May this year. The committee was satisfied that all these measures are pure consolidation. I hope your Lordships will accept that these orders make no change of substance in the existing law but bring that law together in a series of updated orders. With that brief explanation, I commend the consolidation, if I may, of all these orders en bloc, if that be the wish of your Lordships.
      Moved, That the four draft orders laid before the House on 1st May be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.]—(Lord Lyell.)
      Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on this side of the House very much appreciate the brevity with which these orders were moved. If I simply say to the Minister that we take his word for it, I am sure he will understand that we do not wish to debate one of these orders with 681 articles, I am told, and 21 schedules. As the noble Lord pointed out, these cover a matter of great importance and substance, not just to the business community as one might think but

      1151
      also to every person who lives in Northern Ireland; because while these are not consumer protection measures, nevertheless the importance of regulating business and making sure there is a proper framework within which the people of Northern Ireland can feel they have the same protection as those on the mainland is very important.
      The Minister knows what we are going through in legislative terms. Tomorrow we discuss the Building Societies Bill and the Financial Services Bill. We are living at a time, with the Big Bang coming off later, when it is very important indeed that the people of Northern Ireland should take an interest in this matter. We trust that all who are affected feel that we in this House take very seriously that they should get the most protection they possibly can. We on this side of the House certainly understand the consolidating nature of these orders, and we certainly give them a warm welcome.
      Lord Lyell: My Lords, I see no other Member of your Lordships' House who wishes to suggest that I might desist from speaking. I shall speak for thirty seconds and express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for his welcome of these orders. I was in his position some years ago, and I never ceased to take an opportunity to tease the Minister. I am exceedingly grateful that the noble Lord did not start working through 600 or more sections tonight. He may note that even at this late hour I may call in aid my noble and learned friend. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills seem to have examined all these orders, which seem to mirror United Kingdom legislation. They seek to bring Northern Ireland company legislation and commercial dealings up to date. I say again that I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his reception of them; and I am also grateful to your Lordships for allowing me to move all four orders en bloc.
      On Question, Motion agreed to.

      Protection of Children (Tobacco) Bill
      10.32 p.m.
      Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
      Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Pitt of Hampstead.)
      On Question, Motion agreed to.
      House in Committee accordingly.
      [The BARONESS WHITE in the Chair.]
      Clause 1 agreed to.
      Clause 2 [Amendment of section 18 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937]:
      The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom)The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom) moved Amendment No. 1:
      Page 2, line 21, at end insert—
      (" (d) after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
      " (6) For the purposes of subsection (1) and (2) of this section, any substance sold in a container (whether sealed or not) shall, subject to subsections (7) to (9) of this section, be presumed to conform to the description of the substance on the container.
      (7) Where a prosecutor (within the meaning of section 462 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975) intends to rely on subsection (6) of this section, he shall give notice of his intention to the accused or his agent not less than 14 days before the commencement of the trial.
      (8) The accused shall not be entitled to challenge the presumption in subsection (6) of this section, unless he or his agent gives notice to the said prosecutor of intention to do so not less than 7 days before the commencement of the trial.
      (9) A notice under subsection (7) or (8) of this section shall be by recorded delivery letter, and the execution of the recorded delivery shall be sufficient evidence of the time of posting and of intimation of the notice, which shall be presumed to have been intimated to the addressee on the day after the day on which it was posted, except that, in the case of a notice posted on a Friday or a Saturday, it shall be presumed to have been so intimated on the Monday next following.".")
      The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is of a technical nature and arises because of the rules of evidence which are applicable to a criminal trial in Scotland. There a prosecutor must prove the nature of the contents of a container such as a bottle or tin, and in those circumstances evidence would require to be led from expert scientists as to any analysis of the contents. This is so even where, for instance, there is a brand product which carries on it a brand label which specifies the contents and the nature of the contents may not at the end of the day be a matter for dispute between the Crown and the accused.
      The amendment seeks to obviate the need for full scientific examination in every case by creating a presumption for the purposes of any trial that any substance sold in a container, whether or not the container is sealed, shall be presumed to conform to the description of the substance on the container.
      I should say that Parliament has already legislated in a similar manner: first of all, in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 in regard to any liquid which is found in a container, sealed or open, in circumstances where that may constitute an offence under the legislation; and again in 1980, in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, in the section which deals with offences at sporting events, where a similar presumption is to be found in relation to offences such as the possession of alcohol, for instance, while persons are travelling to or from a sporting event or at a sporting event itself.
      It is important to note that this is a rebuttable presumption and it does not in any way compromise the accused's position. First of all, as your Lordships will see, under subsection (7) the prosecutor is required to give notice to the accused of his intention to rely upon the presumption; thereafter, under subsection (8), the accused person may give a counternotice that he intends to challenge that presumption. Thus his right is protected to insist that the Crown shall prove that the contents are of the nature alleged by full legal and scientific proof. But, where the matter is not contentious, the presumption, in circumstances where notice is given by the prosecutor and not challenged by

      1153
      the accused, would allow the trial to proceed without the unnecessary expense of full scientific examination and the leading of the evidence of two authorised analysts.
      With leave, may I make reference to an amendment which is down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and which relates to subsection (9)? Your Lordships will understand that subsections (7) and (8) provide that notice shall be intimated in the first case by the prosecutor to the accused or his agent outwith a certain period of time before the commencement of the trial; and by the same token the accused may not challenge the presumption unless he gives a counternotice outwith the period of seven days before the commencement of the trial.
      Subsection (9) specifies how such notices shall be given. They require that the notice shall be in writing —that is stated before—and it shall be by recorded delivery letter. As noble Lords will know, in the event of a recorded delivery the person who places the letter in the hands of the Post Office receives what I think is often an orange-coloured certificate and that is the execution of the recorded delivery. Your Lordships will understand that that merely gives the time of the posting. The prosecutor, or it may be the accused, will not know how long it takes for the notice to reach the addressee.
      Therefore, in the cases to which I have already referred, Parliament has provided for a presumption that the intimation will have reached the addressee within a stated period of time. The reason for that is perfectly plain. If the prosecutor or the accused had to wait to find out when the notice had, in fact, reached its destination, it might have reached it after the stated time limit and he would have no opportunity then of sending a further intimation. As I have said, what has been done here is in accordance with precedent.
      I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that the result of his amendment, which would take away the presumption and merely indicate that the execution of the recorded delivery shall be sufficient evidence of the day of intimation of the notice, seems to me to mean that the person who sends the intimation would have an advantage, because he would be able simply to send it on the eighth or fifteenth day before the commencement of the trial and would not give sufficient time for the counter-intimation to be given.
      As I say, there is ample precedent. The system has worked well. I know of no difficulties that have arisen in Scottish criminal procedure as a result of the two Acts in which similar provisions are to be found. I therefore invite the Committee to accept this amendment, which is purely procedural. As I say, it does not prejudice any party but may secure an advantage in saving time at the trial. I beg to move.
      Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2:
      Subsection (9), line 4, leave out from ("the") to end and insert ("day of intimation of the notice").
      The noble Lord said: As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has explained, this is an amendment to subsection (9) which makes the presumption—and a rather rash presumption the
      1154
      Committee may think—that a recorded delivery letter arrives the day after it is posted. That is the presumption contained in subsection (9). The difficulty that can arise is explained if we take the following example.
      An accused person arrives at the court and says, "Here is a document which arrived this morning by recorded delivery. If you do not believe me, you can look at the postman's book this morning containing my signature, showing that this document arrived this morning. The Act of Parliament says that I am entitled to 14 days' notice of the receipt of this document." The prosecution get up and say, "There must have been an extraordinary delay in the post, because we posted this document 15 days ago and we have our orange receipt form to show that". The prosecution will go on to point out that the Act of Parliament says that the letter is presumed to have been delivered on the following day after it was posted 15 days ago.
      So how does the learned judge resolve that dispute? One would hope that the actual time of delivery would take precedence over the presumed time of delivery in the Act of Parliament. I have always been led to believe that the best evidence is to be preferred, and surely the best evidence is the date upon which the document arrived in the hands of the recipient. Indeed, it makes nonsense of providing 14 days' notice if you are going to have a presumption that the document was delivered to the recipient earlier than the date upon which the postman's book shows that it was delivered to him.
      I hope that I have said enough to show that subsection (9) is not satisfactory. It may even be precedented; but I am old enough now to know that the statute book is full of good precedents and had precedents, and if this subsection is precedented it is a bad precedent. Where the actuality of the situation is in favour of the accused person, it must be wrong to act upon some presumption, albeit in an Act of Parliament, which is against the interest of the accused person. I trust that I have said enough to show that subsection (9) is in this way defective. My amendment substitutes the actuality for the presumptive matter. I trust that it finds favour with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and that he will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
      10.45 p.m.
      Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: It is with some regret that I cannot accept the amendment of the noble Lord. The words, "execution of the recorded delivery", are the reference to the certificate which is received at the time of posting. The consequence of his amendment would be that that execution would be held for the purposes of subsection (9) to be the, "day of intimation of the notice", which would be complete nonsense because it would at that stage not even have gone out of the post office.
      That is why I have suggested that one has to have the presumption of the kind which is suggested here to ensure that at least some time elapses between the time of posting and the presumed intimation of notice to allow, first of all, the prosecutor or the accused in advance of the final day to estimate how long it is that the post is going to carry the recorded delivery to its

      1155
      destination; and, furthermore, to be reasonably certain in the sense that if he can provide to the court the execution of the recorded delivery that shall be assumed to be sufficient evidence both of the time of posting, which is the only thing over which he has control, and of course intimation of the notice.
      With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will understand my concern that the result of his amendment would be to make even greater difficulties than those which he has anticipated. It may be because he—and it is entirely my fault for not having explained it—has not understood that the execution of the recorded delivery is that document which is handed over at the time of posting and is not the document which is available at the time when the notice is delivered to the addressee. Accordingly, I regret that I cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment and I ask him to withdraw it.
      Lord Airedale: I do not claim that my amendment is perfect, but what I seek to achieve is that if the accused person is to be given 14 days' notice by Act of Parliament that notice shall begin from the date upon which the recorded delivery letter is received because that date can so easily be discovered. I am suggesting that it is quite wrong ever to rely on some notional earlier date presumed in a section of an Act of Parliament earlier than the date upon which he actually received the letter. The only date when the 14 days should begin to run is the date upon which the accused person received the information.
      If we take this matter to a decision this evening or try to, I do not suppose we shall arrive at a decision. We have to have a Report stage anyway, so I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will have another look at this subsection and see whether it cannot be improved in order to achieve justice for the accused person.
      The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness White): Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw the amendment?
      Lord Airedale: No.
      The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is that Amendment No. 2 as an amendment to Amendment No. 1 be agreed to?
      Lord Airedale: I made an appeal to the Minister to have a look at this. We have to have a Report stage. Surely this can be looked at again.
      Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I did not intend to do a discourtesy to the noble Lord in not rising again. I obviously will look at what he has said. I have made plain the problem which I have outlined; that there is no way in which effectively one can discover when the notice was intimated, so that, for instance, a person who in perfect good faith may have given notice 18 days before the commencement of the trial and the post has taken longer and it gets there 13 days before. That means that the prosecutor is cut off from his right, because the first notice would have arrived there too late and the second notice would no longer be open to him. That would mean, perhaps, that a difficulty could arise.
      1156
      By the same token, it could not be said that, having received the notice 13 days before, the accused would not have ample time in which to consider whether or not he should be entitled to challenge. In those circumstances, if he sent it off in time then the prosecutor could not complain under subsection (8), because it would be assumed that the accused, having sent it off, let us say, 10 days before, could reasonably assume under the presumption in subsection (9) that it got there timously although in fact it had not done so.
      It is to deal with those kinds of problem that the framework, which, as I have said, is precedented, occurs. But obviously I shall go away and consider the matter again with those who advise me. I cannot, however, at the present moment, offer much comfort to the noble Lord, for the reasons that I have set out.
      Lord Airedale: I am very much obliged, and I am pleased that the noble and learned Lord will take another look at the matter. In those circumstances, I am of course pleased to withdraw my amendment.
      Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      On Question, Amendment No. 1 agreed to.
      On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
      Lord Ennals: I only rise in order that those who read with fascination the Hansard report of these proceedings will recognise that I was here to support my noble friend. I certainly support this clause.
      Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
      Remaining clause agreed to.
      House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

      Protection of Military Remains Bill
      Report received.

      Dyfed Bill [H.L.]
      Reported from the Select Committee with amendments, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
      House adjourned at six minutes before eleven o'clock.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  TOURISM: GRANTS SCHEME
  TOURISM: GRANTS SCHEME
  BRITISH SHIPS: VISITS TO SOVIET PORTS
  BRITISH SHIPS: VISITS TO SOVIET PORTS
  CRISTAL: PROPOSED ABOLITION
  CRISTAL: PROPOSED ABOLITION
  FOOD POLICY: PROPOSED ADVISORY COMMITTEE
  FOOD POLICY: PROPOSED ADVISORY COMMITTEE
  VISITING ARTS: FUNDING
  VISITING ARTS: FUNDING
  HOME HELPS: MEDICATION OF CLIENTS
  HOME HELPS: MEDICATION OF CLIENTS
  CORNWALL: AMBULANCE SERVICES
  CORNWALL: AMBULANCE SERVICES
  NHS DRUGS: PARALLEL IMPORTS
  NHS DRUGS: PARALLEL IMPORTS
  LAND: SALES BY RESIDUARY BODIES
  LAND: SALES BY RESIDUARY BODIES
  SOUTH EAST REGION: PLANNING GUIDANCE
  SOUTH EAST REGION: PLANNING GUIDANCE
  THE WIDDICOMBE REPORT
  THE WIDDICOMBE REPORT