Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 78: debated on Thursday 9 May 1985

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Thursday 9 May 1985

The House met at half-past Two o'clock


[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Death Of A Member

I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Tom Ellis Hooson, Esquire, Member for Brecon and Radnor, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

Private Business


SCARBOROUGH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL Considered; to be read the Third time.





The four Bills all have blocking motions against them. With the leave of the House, I shall put them together.

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 16 May.

Oral Answers To Questions

Northern Ireland

Assembly (Running Costs)


asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the estimated costs of running the Northern Ireland Assembly in the current year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that support for the Assembly came, perhaps reluctantly, because many of us thought that it was the last chance for the Northern Ireland politicians and people to learn to live together and work out their constitutional future? Will he now tell the political parties of Northern Ireland that the Assembly represents the last constitutional chance for them to do that, and that the patience and purse of the British taxpayer are not inexhaustible?

I would hesitate to say that anything is a last chance. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right Much patience is needed, and also a very clear sense of purpose. Since the constitutional parties have such a responsibility for helping to create political stability, I hope that they recognise that that includes a responsibility to listen and to consider concessions in return for concessions.

What steps are taken to ensure that reimbursement is not claimed inadvertently for the same expenditure by Members of the Assembly who are members of other Assemblies and bodies?

The claims made in respect of Members of the Assembly are rigorously scrutinised, and I am sure that the inadvertent possibility to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is covered in that scrutiny.

Will my right hon. Friend review the whole question of the usefulness of the Assembly before the next elections to that body?

Yes Sir. I have learnt to respect the efficiency and thoroughness of some of the scrutiny work carried out by the Assembly, but it has not yet succeeded in the main task set for it by this House, which was to work out proposals for the devolution of powers which would command widespread acceptance.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time will have to come when he must say to the Northern Ireland Assembly that, since it has not accepted the challenge put to it by this House, other circumstances will have to prevail and the Assembly cannot continue?

We are not at that point. I hope that the Assembly, through its Report Committee or in other ways that it thinks proper, will continue on the main task that I have described.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if rugby came into being by changing the rules when someone handled the ball, the Government may have to change the rules under which the Assembly is currently asked to operate?

Constitutional Talks


asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had about the constitutional future of Northern Ireland.


asked the Secrtary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his discussions with party leaders in Northern Ireland.


asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about recent ministerial conversations with political parties in the Province.


asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent consultations he has had with representatives of political parties in Northern Ireland.

At my request, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) has met representatives of the Ulster Unionist, Social Democratic and Labour, and the Alliance parties privately to explore and clarify their positions. He has also had an informal discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly Devolution Report Committee. His conclusions will help me to assess how best progress can be made towards new devolved arrangements for Northern Ireland.

Instead of pussyfooting around with an expensive and relatively powerless Assembly with representatives from only six counties of Ireland, is it not time that more radical steps were taken to set up some form of all-Ireland parliamentary body? Is any progress at all being made towards that end in the talks between the British and Irish Governments, or is the British Prime Minister afraid of a few Unionist Members who represent only a minority of opinion within Ireland as a whole?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister perhaps has a keener sense of the point of Parliaments than has the hon. Gentleman. It would be for this House, or the Westminster Parliament, and, I suppose, for the Dail on the other side of the Irish sea, to decide whether the Parliaments wanted such an organisation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the impatience expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), which my right hon. Friend appeared to echo, is matched by the frustration felt by the majority parties in Northern Ireland at his refusal to countenance the normal operations of democracy, namely, rule by the majority? Could not a useful role be found for the present Assembly by making it an upper tier of local government and allowing the proper processes of democracy to take place within it?

I am perfectly ready to consider any suggestions—that one or others—which appear to command widespread acceptance. By "widespread acceptance" we must mean acceptance across the division between the communities. The House would think me foolish if I suggested some new proposition without being convinced that it had that widespread acceptance.

Leaving aside the immediate question of the Assembly, will my right hon. Friend tell us the extent to which, in his deliberations with representatives of political parties in Northern Ireland, he has come across an awareness that, ultimately, it is only through compromise that social harmony can replace social discord?

That awareness is scattered across various pronouncements and pamphlets which appear at different times, and I always welcome it. We need to bring together those hints of greater understanding and a greater willingness to listen to others into detailed and practical discussions.

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that during the war Winston Churchill, as Prime Minister, offered to reunify Ireland. He made an offer to Dublin without consulting Stormont. Defence considerations were then dominant in his mind and are now dominant in the minds of the British and American Governments. Were the Republic to be persuaded to join NATO, would not the British Government's objection to reunification almost certainly completely disappear?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland are British and proud to be so, and that no decision taken by anyone else will change the Britishness of the Ulster people? Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the House must respect the supremacy of the ballot box, and that any politician wishing to defy the democratic wish of the Ulster electorate would make a mockery of all our battles for freedom?

Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom rests not on any perception of ours about the foreign and defence policies of the Republic, but simply on the wish of the majority of the people who live in Northern Ireland. I believe that their wishes are clear.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people on the mainland are asking why the Tory Government, and others before them, have set up ramshackle organisations in Northern Ireland which have cost a small fortune to run and why decent councils in Britain, which are being run well, are being demolished by the Tory Government while that in Northern Ireland never even gets rate capped?

Will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues impress on the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), the leader of the SDLP, the importance of that party's participation in the Assembly at the earliest possible time?

It is highly desirable that the SDLP should take its place in the Assembly, although I understand the present difficulties in doing so. We shall not reach the political stability in Northern Ireland which every right hon. and hon. Member here would like unless there is an unfreezing of attitudes, including the attitudes of representatives of both communities, towards the desires and anxieties of the island.

May I tempt the Secretary of State to be a little more cheerful about the prospects of progress and co-operation with the Republic? Does he agree that, whatever decisions fall to be made by Parliament, the initiative must come from the Government? Does he further agree that the Taoiseach and the Irish Foreign Minister have shown generosity and courage in an attempt to invite progress? Will he accept that the alternative to pessimism might not be optimism, but that it is at least hope?

I have not yet said anything cheerful or uncheerful about co-operation with the Republic. I was dealing with the proposal about a parliamentary tier, which surfaces from time to time. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a constitutional expert, I would expect him to honour my point, which is that if these things are to endure as parliamentary institutions, they must be parliamentary proposals.

Royal Ulster Constabulary


asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is (a) the current strength and (b) the total establishment of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
(Mr. Nicholas Scott)

The full-time strength of the Royal Ulster Constabulary on 30 April 1985 was 10,802, and the authorised establishment on the same date was 11,000. This represents a significant increase in the size of the force in recent years, increasingly reflecting the police's primary responsibility for all aspects of law and order in Northern Ireland, aided where necessary by the armed forces. I should like to take this opportunity to pay the warmest possible tribute to the courage and professionalism of the officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and their growing success in controlling terrorism.

I also would like to congratulate the RUC and its Chief Constable on how they protect the people of Northern Ireland. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that there are enough police to protect the people of Northern Ireland and the police themselves? What is the RUC's present policy on overtime, which seems to be needed quite a lot?

As I said in my original answer, the size of the RUC has been increasing steadily. More operational hours are being worked now than at any time except during the hunger strikes; more operational hours were worked in the past 12 months than in the previous 12 months. That reflects the primary role of the police. I and the Chief Constable are anxious that overtime should be at a level which helps the working of the RUC. Too much overtime can cause damage. By increasing the numbers, we can decrease the amount of overtime worked by officers.

Has there been some success in increasing the recruitment of members of the minority community into the RUC?

The Chief Constable's report for last year shows a small but significant improvement. The RUC and the Chief Constable are determined to do their best to secure a continued improvement.



asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest security situation in the Province.


asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland.


asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in the Province.

Since I last answered questions in the House on 4 April, two civilians have died in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province.

The security forces' efforts to defeat terrorism continue, and since the beginning of this year a total of 171 people have been charged with serious offences, including 20 with murder. 89 weapons, 3,327 rounds of ammunition and 2,222 lb of explosives have been recovered. The bulk of the explosives—about 1·5 tonnes—was found near Dungannon on 25 April. By denying the terrorists the use of that murderous material, the security forces undoubtedly prevented them from inflicting a great deal of destruction and suffering on the community, and I echo the earlier commendation of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the negative effect on security in Northern Ireland of such events as the visit of the Irish Premier to Londonderry, especially in view of the apparent acquiescence of the Northern Ireland office in that context?

I am not sure that I follow the connection made by the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister made clear the position about Dr. FitzGerald's visit to Londonderry. He is entitled to come and go there, if he wishes. We were informed of his arrangements, but the decision, timing and arrangements were his. We neither were asked for nor gave advice.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House is full of admiration for the efforts of the security forces? Is he entirely satisfied with the co-operation that he gets from the security forces in the Republic, especially at senior officer level, when a fugitive is fleeing from the law? Do we get full cooperation in that eventuality?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his first remark. Yes, we get co-operation. As the Irish Foreign Minister said in London earlier this week, such cooperation is in the interests of both Governments. I should like to see it improved. The right summary of the position is that co-operation is good, but could be improved.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anxiety of the Prison Officers Association and of others in Northern Ireland and elsewhere about the potential closure of Magilligan prison? Is he further aware that it is one of the few prisons in Northern Ireland which are fully following the Government's policy of integration in prisons? Will he assure the House that that prison will not be closed?

I am aware of that anxiety, which has been expressed direct to my Department. Certainly, it is part of our continuing policy to work for integration in prisons. The impact on the prison system as a whole in Northern Ireland of the prospective opening of the new prison at Maghaberry is still being considered.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that if Sinn Fein were to make a significant advance in the local government elections next week it would be a setback for security? As the Government discovered only on 24 April that the advice given to the House on 30 November 1984 about the foundation stone of identification policy — the medical card — was completely wrong, what further steps does he intend to take to ensure that such a matter does not happen again and to correct the present problems?

I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in linking the question. As soon as the chief electoral officer drew our attention to the problem, we carefully considered what we could do. We came to the conclusion that it was not sensible to amend the legislation, for reasons of timing and substance, which the hon. Gentleman knows. Instead, we have given the maximum publicity to the possibility of exchanging the old medical card for the new, and have streamlined and accelerated the administrative arrangements for doing that. According to my information, that is proceeding quickly and well.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the call by the Labour spokesman for Northern Ireland, the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), for the disbandment of the Ulster Defence Regiment is wholly irresponsible, causes only delight to the members of the IRA and all enemies of peace in Ulster, and in no way assists security in the Province? In acknowledging the debt that Ulster owes to the UDR, will the Government clearly affirm their support for the UDR as a crucial part of their efforts to fight terrorism? Would it not have been better for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest that the loony Left of the Labour party should be scrapped instead?

The hon. Gentleman may be right, but I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman skated round that awkward recommendation in a recent Fabian Society pamphlet, and did not commit himself to disbanding the UDR. He knows perfectly well, as does anyone who studies such matters seriously, that the UDR plays an indispensable part in the security of the Province.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a mounting feeling in the South of Ireland that its major problems of law and order require it to spend less on policing the border and more on policing its own country? If there is no major improvement in relations between the North and the South of the island, is there not a real danger of a withdrawal of support for security in the North, which will have major implications for all the people of Ireland?

Mr. Barry has made it clear that the efforts of the security forces of the Republic along and behind the border are made, not from a desire to do the British Government a favour, but from a calculation—I would say an accurate calculation—of their interests, given that the provisional IRA is clearly and explicitly determined to end the system of government, not only of Stormont and Belfast, but of Dublin.

What recent evidence, if any, does my right hon. Friend have that terrorism in the Province is still encouraged and supported, not only with finance, but through training in terrorism supplied by such good friends of democracy as Colonel Gaddafi, Mr. Castro and Mr. Gorbachev, in ascending order of merit?

I had better confine myself to the first. There is evidence from publications in the Libyan press that the Libyan Government believe that it is part of the responsibilities of the Libyan people to keep the provisional IRA in a good state. We must take that seriously.

Will the Minister admit that, although he thought that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) had skated round the issue, that was not the impression created in Northern Ireland? Would it not be advisable for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw his statement, because it would be an insult to the entire British Army if, because some people had acted wrongly, an entire regiment was so slurred? Does he recognise that it is not the Protestant involvement in the UDR which causes concern, but the fact that it is a regiment of the British Army?

I am not interested in helping the right hon. and learned Gentleman out of the problems created for him by his party. My opinion chimes with that of the hon. Gentleman.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the final analysis, the answer to the security problem is to bring together the two halves of the community, and that that can be greatly achieved through sport? Does he agree that the excellent marathon run last week was a demonstration of the way in which people who wish to work together can do so?

The Belfast marathon was clearly a great success. It attracted people not only from all over Ireland and the United Kingdom, but from many parts of Europe. The more people, whether sportsmen or others, who visit Northern Ireland to see what is happening there—the difficulties and the opportunities—the more satisfied the people of Northern Ireland will be, because they suffer greatly from the impression given in the media.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that Dr. FitzGerald's recent visit to Derry posed no problems for security in the area? Why does he not say that the Prime Minister of the Republic is welcome to visit any part of the United Kingdom at any time?

I said that Dr. FitzGerald was free to visit Londonderry or any part of the United Kingdom at any time —

—but I also said that the timing and the programme were, naturally, matters for him.

Will my right hon. Friend talk urgently with the local radio authorities in Northern Ireland, because radio stations are causing great difficulties for the security forces by interviewing IRA terrorists, who threaten Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

This matter has been discussed often, and I have no statement to make on it today.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that people should visit Northern Ireland, did he notice that Geraldine Ferraro, the former Democratic vice-presidential candidate, went there last week and joined the growing number of people who express their opposition to the mass show trials, without juries, using informers who are subject to inducements by the Government to give evidence to get convictions? Is he satisfied that that form of justice should be maintained anywhere in the United Kingdom?

I noticed that Mrs. Ferraro joined a number of people, including the right hon. Gentleman, who choose to spend a few hours in Northern Ireland and go away making definitive pronouncements about the conduct of the judiciary and judicial affairs. I do not understand the view that because evidence comes from an accomplice it should be disregarded, regardless of its merit. In the system that operates in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and federal cases in the United States, it is for the court and for the court alone to judge whether such evidence is justifiable. That is the right approach.

Does the Secretary of State agree that not only Mrs. Ferraro but many other people come to Northern Ireland on these bucket-shop trips and go away experts—including some hon. Members sitting not too far away from me? Will the Secretary of State wholeheartedly add his support to the UDR, which has suffered much over the past 15 years in Northern Ireland? Is it not time that he brought security back to the people in Northern Ireland and solved the problem after all this time?

I gladly repeat my tribute to the UDR, which is an indispensable part of security in Northern Ireland. It is an excellent thing that right hon. and hon. Members and friends from other countries should visit Northern Ireland. I simply plead that they do not come just for a few hours and then release a draft statement pontificating about matters which they have not had a chance to study. They should come with a balanced programme, see a wide range of people, and stay a day or two. I am sure that then they would be far wiser.

Is the Secretary of State at least persuaded that the most effective method of improving security is to win the hearts of the people of both traditions for a system of law enforcement which they can see is manifestly fair? Is it not clear that if that can be achieved the roots of paramilitarism will wither? Whatever the reason why the UDR is perceived as sectarian, is it not the case that doubts about whether it can now perform an effective role are entertained not only by the Fabian Society but by senior RUC officers and officials of the Security Committee?

It is true, as the Chief Constable made clear in his recent annual report on the security forces, that they need the support of as wide a section of the population as they can achieve. While the Army, including the UDR and the RUC, are, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, active and energetic in trying to bring that about, there is a responsibility on the elected representatives of the minority community and on their friends in the House to play their part in this process. I have made my position on the UDR clear and I have nothing to add.



asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what initiatives the Government have made to increase tourism in the Province.

Government initiatives in support of the Northern Ireland tourist industry include an expanded programme of marketing and promotional campaigns at home and abroad by the Northern Ireland tourist board and the provision of grant assistance by the Department of Economic Development to encourage the development of tourist amenities and accommodation in the Province.

I welcome the increase in tourism and the benefit it brings to the economy. Will this initiative to alleviate the serious unemployment problem in the Province be continued? Are there any plans to increase the sailings between Liverpool and Belfast?

Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Perry), who is interested in the passage to and from Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we welcome the increase in tourism. There has been an 8 per cent. increase in the number of tourists coming into Northern Ireland and the number is now approaching 1 million. That helps employment—about 8,000 people are employed in the tourist industry in Northern Ireland. I know that the hon. Gentleman is very interested in and concerned about Northern Ireland. I welcome his support for saying that Northern Ireland is a good place to visit, in particular because his constituency is so close to the Province As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said, if only people would spend two or three weeks in Northern Ireland instead of a few hours there, more sense might be spoken in the House.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the tourist attractions of Northern Ireland are very considerable and that not least among those attractions is the warm welcome that tourists receive from at least 99 per cent. of the population? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the opportunities given to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board by our missions abroad to bring this home to foreigners, who, in large numbers, already spend time in Northern Ireland, are adequate?

May I underline what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the hospitality of both communities in Northern Ireland. I am eight pounds heavier than when I first went there on 10 September 1984, which demonstrates that wherever one goes in Northern Ireland some of the best food in the world is offered to visitors. My healthiness at present depends in more ways than one upon what happens in Northern Ireland. As for my right hon. Friend's second point, there are now tourist board representatives in Scotland, West Germany and the Republic, and 350,000 visitors from the Republic came to Northern Ireland on holiday last year. We are examining whether the Northern Ireland Tourist Board is spending its money effectively and what more we can do to help.

While sympathising with the Minister's encounter with Ulster pride, is it not the case that those who spend a holiday in Northern Ireland and experience not only the beauty of the country but the friendliness and peaceability of the inhabitants obtain a much truer insight into the truth about the Province than those who, with preconceived political notions, flip over and back?

I can only agree with the right hon. Gentleman about holidays in the Province. It is beautiful. A great deal has been done to the loughs and harbours to make it even more attractive than before. Anything that any right hon. or hon. Member can do to encourage other people to come to the Province will be of advantage to all concerned.

Can the Minister tell the House what positive steps he and his hon. Friends have taken to encourage touring sports teams to come to Northern Ireland, bearing in mind the teams which have cancelled their visits because of threats by the IRA and the INLA?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing all that we can—and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), similarly—to encourage teams to come to Northern Ireland. It was undoubtedly due to the Government's encouragement that there was the recent excellent snooker result involving the Province.

Republic Of Ireland (Talks)


asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any pains to hold discussions with the leaders of the Republic of Ireland.


asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Irish Government to discuss matters relating to Northern Ireland.

I meet representatives of the Irish Government from time to time but I have no firm plans for a meeting at present.

In view of the dismissive attitude of the Prime Minister to the Forum report, when she voiced the trilogy "out, out, out", will the Minister consider the extension of the friendly attitude which we are assured exists in Northern Ireland to the Republic in order that the political set-up in the whole of Ireland may be discussed? For instance, when talking about British justice, will he try to justify to the Prime Minister of the Republic just how the supergrass trials fit in in any way, or do any good whatsoever, to the political situation anywhere, especially in Northern Ireland?

I believe that peaceable citizens are now living in greater security in Northern Ireland because in the past people have been correctly, according to the courts, convicted of terrorist charges as a result of the evidence of their former accomplices. Therefore, I should have no difficulty in explaining to Irish Ministers, if I met them, or to Mrs. Ferraro or to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that the system by which supergrass evidence in trials of this kind is tested by the court, and not before it comes to court, is correct.

Is the Secretary of State willing to comment on the merits of an Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier and its bearing on relationships between the two countries and on the problems of Northern Ireland? May I press him further? Is he aware that there is no possibility of such a tier being established unless he and the British Government positively discuss it with the Irish Government and set it up? The House of Commons has no mechanism for doing that on its own.

I must hold to the answer that I have given on this. If there is to be some new form of parliamentary arrangement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, its solidity, endurance and life will depend on that being a genuine parliamentary initiative. Governments can then facilitate and discuss it to the extent that Governments have to. But the impetus must come from Parliament.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that discussions with leaders in the Republic of Ireland are certainly not helped by Americans such as Mrs. Ferraro coming over to the Province and stirring up sectarian hatred for cheap political gain?

I do not want to be unjust to Mrs. Ferraro; she did not do that. She was rather careful in her comments. My criticism is that she did not spend long enough in the Province for her comments to be valid. It would be going too far to make the accusation that my hon. Friend makes.

Will the Secretary of State accept that it cannot and should not be beyond the wit of Her Majesty's Government to reach agreement at this historic time, following the report of the New Ireland Forum, to resolve with the Irish Republic the manifold problems that have separated us in the past? Will he give us an assurance that any discussions he is having with his counterparts in the Government of the Irish Republic are not being placed on the back burner and will be pressed vigorously and resolutely to an agreement?

The dialogue between ourselves and the Government of the Republic that was mentioned in the communiqué after the last Chequers summit is continuing, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and we are putting the necessary energy and good will into that.

Milk Quotas


asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in achieving equality with other regions of the United Kingdom for small dairy farmers in respect of milk quotas.

My right hon. Friend has continuing contacts with his agricultural colleagues, but it is not yet possible to announce what relief can be given to small dairy farmers in Northern Ireland.

Following the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food earlier this week that small dairy farmers in England and Wales would be brought back to the 1983 levels of production and that hardship cases would be met in full, will he assure me and the House that small dairy farmers in Northern Ireland will receive the same treatment, to which they are entitled?

I know of the hon. Gentleman's anxiety and that of many other hon. Members about small dairy farmers in Northern Ireland. The outgoers scheme has not been taken up in Northern Ireland to the same extent as in the rest of the United Kingdom, and that has created a problem. However, we are planning an early meeting of the three territorial Secretaries of State with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about that very problem.

Multi-Fibre Arrangement


asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will meet representatives of the textile industry in the Province to discuss renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement.

The multi-fibre arrangement is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and there will be a debate on the matter this afternoon. If I receive any requests for a meeting I will of course give them full consideration.

I welcome the Minister's response, but will he recognise that the matter concerns not only the rest of the United Kingdom but has specific implications for job opportunities in Northern Ireland? Will he use his influence with his right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade to have such an agreement speedily implemented, for the good of all the textile industry?

I realise, as does the hon. Gentleman, that the percentage of people employed in the textile and clothing industries in Northern Ireland is three times greater than in the rest of Britain, and that is an important matter. If the hon. Gentleman is staying longer this afternoon, I suggest that he tries to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in the debate on the multi-fibre arrangement.

Does the Minister not realise that that answer is not acceptable to those who work in the textile industry in Northern Ireland? Does he not recognise that it would be socially intolerable to increase the existing pressures on employment in Northern Ireland through non-renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement? Will he give the House an assurance that he is prepared to fight his corner with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I put forward the views of Northern Ireland. But, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) knows, the decision is made by this Parliament and not just by Northern Ireland. Indeed, those hon. Members who are integrationists want the decision to be made by this Parliament. Consequently, this afternoon's debate will be the decisive factor.

Prime Minister



asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

If it is true that today the Cabinet decided to abolish or phase out the state earnings-related pension scheme, how can the Prime Minister justify 11 million people being swindled out of their right to be able to spend their retirement in comfort and dignity? How many of those 11 million people who will be adversely affected by the Cabinet's decision believed the pledges that were given at the time by herself and her colleagues to the effect that the scheme would not be touched?

The hon. Gentleman must contain himself in patience. Today the Cabinet completed its consideration of the social security review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will now finalise the Green Paper, which is to be published following the Cabinet's decision. He hopes to be able to publish it and accompany it by a statement to the House soon after the Whitsun recess.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

During her busy day, would my right hon. Friend care to reflect on the fact that at the Endeavour school in Middlesbrough handicapped children who are confined to wheelchairs are being abandoned by their teachers at lunch-time, in connection with the dispute, and that so-called professionals are causing great distress to both parents and children?

I believe that the information that my hon. Friend has given about the school in his constituency is correct. I understand that for a time the head teacher was trying to cope on his own but was unable to do so. I am amazed that the teachers should have taken this action, and my sympathy lies with the children, many of whom are in wheelchairs, and with their parents.

Is the Prime Minister aware that a very warm welcome awaits her on her visit to Scotland tomorrow? As we have just passed the 10th anniversary of her pledge to abolish the rating system, will she recognise that no announcement of temporary relief—however welcome—will be a substitute for redeeming that pledge?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we have made some provision for temporary relief on domestic rates in Scotland—as was announced some time ago—amounting to about £90 million. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to be able to make a further announcement to the House next week, which will help with commercial rates. We are also studying the longer-term reform of rates, and we hope to be in a position to make an announcement about that when the studies have been completed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons stated for the loss of the Bosporus bridge contract was the time taken to put together an aid and trade project? Is she further aware that although she returned from her highly successful visit to Sri Lanka three and a half weeks ago, we still await the result of the aid and trade negotiations on the Samanala Wela dam?

When I was in Sri Lanka I announced a further aid package of £20 million for Sri Lanka, following the £115 million aid package that was given to enable the building and completion of the Victoria dam. My hon. Friend asked about the Bosporus bridge. The contract went the other way because the rival consortium gave heavy aid, not only for the bridge, but for the road contract. We are still in contact with the Turkish Government and hope that we can rescue something from that contract.

The Prime Minister had what she quaintly called her rates summit at Chequers six weeks ago. Was it there that the decision was made to rush through a panic Bill for Scottish commercial rates relief, or did the decision come later, without the benefit of a seminar, but with the benefit of the knowledge that the right hon. Lady was going to a Scottish Tory party conference that is on the warpath?

The relief that has already been given to domestic ratepayers in Scotland has been very welcome, particularly bearing in mind that of the 17 per cent. average increase in domestic rates in Scotland this year, two thirds is attributable to council overspending. Overspending councils are to blame. Even if the right hon. Gentleman does not like it, the ratepayers of Scotland will be pleased if further relief were given from those high-spending Labour councils.

The Prime Minister knows that she is talking nonsense. The Comptroller and Auditor General has said that by far the biggest reason for increases in rates in Scotland and elsewhere is the withdrawal of Government support for local authorities. Is the Prime Minister aware that she is engaged in a U-turn and is to give back to Scotland the £1,000 million that she has taken away from local authorities there in the past five years?

I stand by the statement that of the 17 per cent. average increase in domestic rates in Scotland this year two thirds is attributable to council overspending. The offset of 8p in the pound to domestic ratepayers at a cost of about £90 million has cancelled out the increases which are directly attributable to revaluation. There is also great difficulty because of high-spending Labour councils. It is they who cause the trouble. The right hon. Gentleman should remember the example of Edinburgh.

May I—[Interruption.]—refer the Prime Minister to the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Audit Commission? Will the Prime Minister take up these matters with that body so that she does not mislead the House with her recital of figures that are not based upon reality?

My right hon. Friends are, of course, considering the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, which will not always favour the viewpoint of the right hon. Gentleman. In the meantime, perhaps he will acknowledge that two thirds of the increase in domestic rates in Scotland is attributable to council overspending and that the overspenders are Labour-controlled.

As we commemorate our momentous victory over Fascism—a victory that could never have been won without both our American and Russian allies—is it not a matter for regret that the 40th anniversary should have been marred by the trading of insults between the two super powers? Will my right hon. Friend and Great Britain take an especial lead in seeking in the months ahead to bring closer together the United States and the Soviet Union, so that we may together win the peace as we so victoriously won the war?

I believe that it is in the interests of the Western Alliance and of the Soviet Union that there should never be conflict between us. To achieve that we have to be prepared to defend our way of life at a rate that will deter any aggressor, and in the meantime to enter into discussions with the Soviet Union on how best to reduce the large stores of weaponry, which we all want to see diminished.


asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 May 1985.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Is the Prime Minister aware that some of my constituents were heroes in the last war and fought for a country fit for heroes to return to and live in? Is the right hon. Lady further aware that those same heroes are now unemployed? Is she aware that in Maesteg 24 per cent. of the male population are out of work and that if a colliery closes at St. John's, Maesteg, 45 per cent. of the male population will be unemployed? If the right hon. Lady has a message for the Tory party conference in Scotland tomorrow, could it be that she will join the ranks of the unemployed?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are as anxious as any other and Conservative Members are as anxious as Opposition Members to increase the number of jobs that are available. That increase will not come merely by sharing out the number of jobs among more people, which would mean lowering wages as we increased the number of employed persons. I do not believe that overmanning is the answer to our problems. The answer lies in the private sector increasing the number of small businesses and thereby increasing the number of businesses that can expand and take on more people. There is no other answer in the long run to getting more jobs.


asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.

Does my right hon. Friend welcome the forthcoming Local Enterprise Week? Does she look forward to a reduction in interest rates as a further encouragement to new businesses?

Yes, I welcome the Local Enterprise Week, which is being run by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment with responsibilities for small businesses, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier). I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) is running a meeting to further the objectives of the week. Its purpose is to help those who are able to start up in business on their own by ensuring that they obtain all the expert advice that is available to them. I hope that meetings in Bolton and elsewhere will be successful.

Does the Prime Minister recall that during the passage of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill it was decided that the foundation stone of stopping personation by Sinn Fein at local government elections should be the medical card? Is the right hon. Lady aware of the exchanges that took place between my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), on 28 November 1984, when it was alleged that all medical cards would be sufficient for this purpose? Is she further aware that at the end of April it was discovered that only medical cards issued after 1973 would be valid and that this has resulted in anything between 15 and 20 per cent. of the electorate being disfranchised? What steps does she intend to take to ensure that this does not happen again? Does she agree that the officials and Ministers responsible should be removed from office?

I am aware that the validity of medical cards has been a source of some concern for those who represent Northern Ireland seats. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland answered a question on the issue before I entered the Chamber to the effect that he is taking every step possible to ensure that valid medical cards are available.


asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to welcome the proposed privatisation of British Gas? Will she explain why this future private monopoly cannot be broken up according to region and function?

I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the decision further to privatise, and to privatise the gas industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy considered whether the gas industry should be broken up either by region or by function. He came to the conclusion that it would take far too long to break up by region and that that would be far too expensive. He recognised, too, that that could have an adverse effect on the price of gas in some areas. For these reasons he decided that it would be better to go ahead by privatising the gas industry as a whole.

Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to congratulate the membership of SOGAT, the country's largest printing union, which has recently voted by a majority of nearly 4:1 to retain its political fund

The SOGAT members vote exactly as they will on whether to retain their political fund. They have an opportunity to vote and we insisted that there should be a vote. How they use their vote is a matter for their decision. I shall be only too delighted if more trade unions believe in giving their membership the right to vote by secret ballot. This advance has come about only as a result of the Government's actions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the leader of the National Association of Head Teachers that the NUT's refusal to meet the Secretary of State for Education and Science was ill-judged? Does she further agree that the country is entitled to expect an honourable profession not merely to seek to increase its pay by striking, to the sufferance of children, but to come forward with sensible proposals for a restructuring of its profession' so that a wise, overall solution can be achieved?

Yes, it is disappointing that the NUT will not take part in any meeting with my right hon. Friend. It has said that it wants an improved offer in Burnham and will discuss only this year's pay offer. My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to say that we need a restructuring of the profession, proper appraisal provisions and proper contracts of service. Then we can, perhaps, have a much more fundamental talk about the whole pay structure.


3.31 pm

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on security.

On 22 February I received the report of the Security Commission on its inquiry into the case of Michael Bettaney, the former security service officer who was tried for offences under the Official Secrets Acts and was sentenced to 23 years imprisonment in April last year. The report is being presented to Parliament as a Command Paper this afternoon.

The commission has fully examined Bettaney's career in the security service, with the object of identifying any errors on the part of management in relation to Bettaney's employment. It finds that the process of recruiting Bettaney was carried out consistently with the procedures at the time. There is, in fact, no reason to doubt his loyalty at that time, or to suppose that he had at that stage ever contemplated the possibility of turning spy.

The commission makes a number of serious criticisms of the errors by the security service in relation to the management of Bettaney's career. In particular, it concludes that there came a point in October 1982 when there should have been, but was not, a very full investigation of Bettaney's lifestyle, which probably would have led to the removal of his positive vetting clearance and the cessation of his employment in the security service.

It remains the case, however, that Bettaney's attempts to get himself recruited as an agent of the Russian intelligence service were not successful. The security service's investigation that led to Bettaney's eventual conviction was effective and conclusive.

Although in the course of his attempts to get himself recruited Bettaney did communicate some secret information to the Russians, he was arrested before he was able to pass over the major proportion of the secret information that he had collected, and the grave damage that would have ensued by such communication was averted.

In the light of its investigation, the commission makes a number of recommendations for changes in positive vetting procedures in the security service. The most significant of these is that, at quinquennial review, special and separate reports should always be called for from all those who have supervised the subject since clearance was last given.

The commission also recommends that the revised and improved arrangements which apply at present only to the more senior grades should now be extended to all staff. These recommendations are being put into effect.

In the course of its investigation the commission received evidence of a more general character which was critical of various aspects of the internal organisation and management of the security service. It did not attempt to pass judgment on those criticisms, but has recorded its impression of aspects of organisation and management which seem to it to require examination and reassessment. The last chapter of the report makes some suggestions for changes in management attitudes and arrangements, and indicates a number of matters which, in the commission's view, call for particular consideration.

These criticisms and suggestions are being thoroughly examined and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I are determined to see that action is taken to remedy management weaknesses.

The new director general is giving the utmost care and attention to the Security Commission's criticism of errors in relation to Bettaney's employment, as well as to the general management criticisms to which I have referred. He will make the changes that are judged to be necessary to improve the organisation and management of the service and will report to my right hon. and learned Friend and me later this year. I shall arrange for his conclusions and measures to be reported to the Security Commission for any further comment that it may wish to make.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about the handling of members of the service who are troubled over particular matters and activities within the service. The director general has been asked to consider, and to report to my right hon. and learned Friend and me, what developments he proposes by way of internal outlets for the expression of grievances or anxieties of individual members of the service.

Finally, I emphasise that the criticisms of management do not extend to operations or overall efficiency.

Indeed, the Commission says:
"nothing in this report is intended in any way to call in question the professional and operational efficiency of the Security Service, which we believe to be of a high order".
Nevertheless, the criticisms that the Commission makes of the handling of Bettaney's case are serious, and every possible effort will be made to see that the shortcomings that it describes do not occur again.

The Security Commission's report reveals great managerial inefficiencies within the security service, and I am sure that the whole House and the country will share the concern expressed by the Commission.

Plainly, Britain needs an effective and efficient security service. May I, therefore, welcome the Prime Minister's announcement that she will immediately implement the Commission's recommendations on positive vetting and that the new Director General will attend to the other criticisms made by the Commission?

May I also make it clear to the Prime Minister that, unfortunately, her statement does not meet the real seriousness of the problems illustrated by the Bettaney case? When she says:
"Bettaney's attempts to get himself recruited as an agent of the Russian intelligence service were not successful",
it seems that the right hon. Lady betrays a certain complacency. The fact is that no man could have tried harder than Bettaney to get himself recruited to the Russian secret service, and his fortunate incompetence is not a sufficient reassurance about the general condition of our services. Yet another internal reorganisation cannot, and will not, allay the widespread concern about the state of Britain's security services.

The Michael Bettaney case is only the latest in a series of incidents which have shown that our security services are not as proficient as they should be—indeed, must be—in clearing spies from within their own ranks and in detecting and defeating the spies from powers that seek to do us harm.

Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is wrong that the security services should dissipate time and resources in conducting the surveillance of loyal British people, who have no connection with espionage and pose no threat to the security of this country, when they should be concentrating entirely on real subversives, real spies and real terrorists who do wish us harm?

The Prime Minister has told us of her decision simply to pass to the Director General the evidence to the Security Commission from, as the report says,
"present members of the Service at various levels and from former members".
That evidence is "highly critical" of the service. The right hon. Lady's response to those authoritative criticisms from various levels within the service is not good enough.

Following the report from the Director General, which the right hon. Lady expects later this year, precisely what action will she be prepared to take to remove the problems identified in confidence by those within the service who have made criticisms?

Finally, is the Prime Minister aware that people who share her political affiliation, as well as those who share mine, and people with no political affiliation, believe that it is essential to establish a system of external oversight, representative of all parties, and answerable to the House, with the appropriate safeguards for necessary secrecy? Will she place the security services on a proper statutory footing and establish a parliamentary review procedure so that we can satisfy ourselves and the country that this nation's security is being properly protected?

On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, it is a fact that Bettaney was arrested before he was able to hand over some of the information which he had accumulated—[Interruption.] That is a fact. He was arrested and therefore he was caught within his own organisation before he was able to hand over the information.

Secondly, the Security Commission had two main criticisms. The first concerned the handling of Bettaney's career. The right hon. Gentleman will see that in the paragraphs and chapters of the Security Commission's report it argues very carefully and closely its reasoning. I think that we should leave it to be read in detail and leave the new director general of the security services to deal with that matter, as I am certain he will.

The commission also made a general criticism that it had received from other members of the security services adverse comments on the way in which the service was managed. The commission did not go into that. The commission did not validate those criticisms, for it is sufficient both for the commission and for us that they were made. and clearly that whole matter must be inquired into. When the Director general has come up with his proposals and put them into operation we shall also refer those proposals to the Security Commission for any further comment that it may make. Therefore, I believe that we have met the legitimate concerns and the serious criticisms of the Security Commission.

The need for external oversight has been argued at length in the House and came up again during the passage of the Interception of Communications Bill. All Governments run the security services in the same way and on the same lines, because they know when they are in power that that is the best way to run them. They must be run under unified management. They cannot be referred to an external group.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that all that has happened in the past emphasises and underlines the need for a safe and efficient way of dealing with complaints by members of the security services? Will she consider the recent proposal of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, including two former Home Secretaries, to appoint a complaints commissioner to deal with complaints internally and without any breach of security by members of the service? Bearing in mind that the American CIA has an ombudsman with powers of oversight — an appointment which has proved to be highly successful, so far as one can gather—does my right hon Friend agree that such an appointment of a comparable kind here would be the safest of all safety valves?

I saw the speech that my hon. and learned Friend made to this effect during the passage of the Interception of Communications Bill. It was generally in line with what he has just said. We are naturally concerned that for those in the security service who have certain strong feelings about duties which they are asked to perform there should be a channel through which they can make their views known.

I believe that quite a lot will occur through a change in the style of management there. I listened carefully to my hon. and learned Friend's comments. Before jumping to any specific conclusion, I have asked the new Director General to consider this with the staff and to put forward proposals. My hon. and learned Friend's proposal will, of course, also be considered.

The professional and operational efficiency of the secret services surely must come into question when Bettaney was not competent enough even to be able to be recruited by the Soviet security services. Although Sir Anthony Duff is a very distinguished public servant, will the Prime Minister give careful consideration to the proposal for a complaints ombudsman covering both the security and intelligence services? If the CIA and the FBI are both capable of being subjected to an ombudsman and also to a Select Committee of Congress, surely it is time now for an all-party parliamentary Select Committee of both Houses to be able to scrutinise the secret Vote of both the security and the intelligence services.

No. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in the latter part of his question. He did not do that when he was Foreign Secretary. for, I believe, very good reasons. I think that we should continue to enable the secret services to run in a secret way—after all, those against whom they operate always have the benefit of secrecy—and carry on in the way that we have done in that they are responsible to Ministers, whether the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary.

With regard to the internal complaints, I have nothing to add to what I have already said about that matter in answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner).

Will my right hon. Friend discard the obviously fatuous suggestions of the Leader of the Opposition, which would be likely to prove positively harmful in their effect? Nevertheless, will she recognise that the spasmodic reviews of the security services by the great and the good are not adequate for the purpose, and that a permanent inspectorate within the services would be likely to prove the best solution?

I have noted my hon. Friend's comments, but I am sure he will agree that the best way is for the new Director General to consider these matters first and make his own recommendations.

As part of the consideration of what the Prime Minister described as internal complaints, will she report to the House later this year on the ideas of the new Director General on this matter? Several of us agree with the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee that the best channel would be a sort of ombudsman inside MI5. It took the Bettaney case to achieve any consideration of the matter, and I accept any criticism that might fall on me because of it. It is a serious matter, and the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) has made a very good suggestion.

Without any commitment, may I consider what the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) has said? It is important to find a solution, and it is important that I report that a solution has been found. I would need to consider whether it would be wise to report the solution precisely.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the aftermath of the Blunt revelations about six years ago both she and the then Home Secretary, Lord Whitelaw as he now is, indicated that there would from then on be the tightest possible ministerial oversight of security services? Is it not an uncomfortable fact that the weaknesses revealed by today's statement show that pure ministerial oversight, however good the Ministers may be, is not quite good enough? Will she now be a little more sensitive to the views, held in all parts of the House, that some form of Privy Councillors' committee or ombudsman would reassure public opinion in this area?

I think that my hon. Friend would be the first to accept that Ministers should not get involved in the day-to-day management of any service. I am sure that he would accept that. The criticism in the Bettaney case was of that kind of management. That is being inquired into and, I believe, will be put right. There are also certain proposals as to what should happen on the quinquennial review of vetting, which was where the problems arose. I do not think that it would be helpful to the security services to have their operations and their management exposed to cross-examination in this House. I think that it would be highly damaging to them.

Would a purely internal outlet for the expression of grievances of individual members of the service have dealt with the situation where a senior official of MI5 believed that the then Director General, Sir Roger Hollis, was a spy and found himself under investigation for pursuing that line of inquiry?

I have already made my views on that quite clear and given the official statement. Therefore, I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman raising it again under the Bettaney case.

I believe that there could be an internal route under a different style of management. It is being considered. The hon. Gentleman heard the reply that I gave to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that many people feel that she is doing her level best to restore the credibility of the security services, but that some of us feel, in the light of the infiltrations at a very senior level and the continued catalogue of errors such as the one we are now facing, that that must call into question not only the management but the actual operation of the security services? For that credibility—which is the key issue—to be restored, surely nothing short of forming a new service will suffice?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend. As he will be well aware, the security service has had its very considerable successes, and those successes have received much less publicity than problems of this kind.

I do not believe that we need a new service. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise the excellent work that the security services do, and try to boost their morale rather than to lower it.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that what is so disturbing about her report is that she refuses to comment on, let alone take action over, the allegations that a number of people have been investigated by MI5 and the special branch, not because they were subversive in any possible sense, but because of their opinions? I remind the right hon. Lady of the case of Mrs. Haigh in the west midlands.

Secondly, may I ask the Prime Minister why, in replies to me, she has said that she would not give permission for the newly appointed Director General of MI5 to give evidence, if invited, before a Select Committee, or to come here perhaps once a year to answer questions from hon. Members? Does the Prime Minister not recognise—unlike some of her hon. Friends—that if there is to be confidence in MI5 and the security services, some degree of parliamentary accountability is necessary?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of Lord Harris's definition of subversion. Only when activities fall within that definition are they investigated. The hon. Gentleman referred to further accountability to the House. I remind him of the view taken during the lifetime of the last Labour Government. On 28 July 1977 a Home Office Minister said:

"I am inhibited from commenting on the allegations in any detail by the long-standing and well-established convention that these matters are not discussed across the Floor of the House."
—[Official Report, 28 July 1977; Vol. 936, c. 1223.]

I believe that in the case of this service it is necessary to continue that practice.

Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that the personal information that is held and is exempt under section 27 of the Data Protection Act on the ground of national security is relevant to national security, and that no irrelevant information is held? In view of what has been said by hon. Members after her statement today, will the right hon. Lady consider what may be the best way of reassuring the British public that that is so?

I do not believe that that question arises from the commission's report on the Bettaney case. I believe that these matters were discussed during the passage of the Interception of Communications Bill, and I have nothing to add to what was said then.

Order. There is a very important debate to follow. I shall take one more question.

In view of the serious statement on security by the Prime Minister, will she consider withdrawing a statement sent to me from the Cabinet Office Management and Personnel Office? The Minister concerned said that it was the Government's

"declared policy to introduce competitive tendering for services, including security guarding, in Government Departments … I cannot go into detail about the steps which are taken to ensure the suitability of commercial guarding companies".
That is what I was told, and yet the Prime Minister makes statements about her concern for national security.

I am not prepared to allow private companies to be responsible for the security of the correspondence of hon. Members. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh. The citizens of this country are entitled to security for their correspondence with their Members of Parliament. To place that security in the hands of private companies—

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be brief, as we have a busy day.

My point of order arises from the Prime Minister's statement. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, there were only four hon. Members standing at the end of the Prime Minister's statement—myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who had been trying to ask a question all the time, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who began to seek to ask a question in the middle of questions, and the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), who began to seek to ask a question at the end of questions. You, Mr. Speaker, moved on without calling us, but at the end of business questions you said that you would take questions until 4.15, but called all those hon. Members who had been seeking to ask questions up to now, 4.24. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker, because—

Order. Let me stop the hon. Gentleman right there. These are different matters. The hon. Member will accept that business questions are prized Back-Bench opportunities to put questions to the Leader of the House. He will know that I always seek to call as many hon. Members as possible on business questions. I cannot always call everybody on statements; it would be impossible to do so. More than 32 hon. Members wish to take part in the next debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to delay that, because many of those hon. Members are colleagues from his side of the House.

I understand that, Mr. Speaker, but the point needs to be made. I appreciate your point about business questions being prime time for Back Benchers, but so are statements on security services. The chances for hon. Members to ask questions are fewer on this subject than on business questions. When we try to raise the matter, it is blocked by the Table Office. I wanted to raise three clear points with the Prime Minister, none of which were made during the supplementary questions. I wanted to ask that anyone in the security services—

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot do that. I have to exercise discretion. He will know that there are other opportunities to put his questions. I try to be as fair as possible in allocating the available time. I cannot take further points on that now.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is being selfish in seeking to keep out other hon. Members. The only sanction that I shall have is to call more hon. Members from Conservative and alliance Benches if the hon. Gentleman wishes to take time from his colleagues.

A question arises out of your first ruling, Mr. Speaker. You said that there are other opportunities for Back-Bench Members to raise this matter. Where are those opportunities for debate on the security services? The Leader of the House said that there will not be a debate next week.

Business Of The House

3.54 pm

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement concerning next week's business. It will be as follows:

Monday 13 May—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions. Remaining stages of the Surrogacy Arrangements Bill, and of the Prosecution of Offences Bill [Lords].

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

Tuesday 14 May—Second Reading of the Oil and Pipleines Bill. Remaining stages of the Ports (Finance) Bill.

Wednesday 15 May—Opposition Day (11th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion titled "The Government's Neglect of British Industry and the New Technologies."

Motion on the Unfair Dismissal (Variation of the Qualifying Period) Order.

Thursday 16 May— Motion on the Spring Adjournment.

Second Reading of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords].

Friday 17 May—Private Members' Bills.

Monday 20 May—Debate on a Government motion on the report of the Auld committee of inquiry into proposals to amend the Shops Acts, Cmnd. 9376.

The House will wish to know, Mr. Speaker, that it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Spring Adjournment on Friday 24 May until Monday 3 June.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement.

In view of the hostility that the Unfair Dismissal (Variation of the Qualifying Period) Order will arouse among hourly paid workers, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that more time is given for that debate next Wednesday so that more right hon. and hon. Members can participate, as the subject will affect many workers in Britain?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, for the sixth time, for a debate on the report of the Commission for Racial Equality and tell him that we want such a debate to be held on a day and at a time when it can be reported fully in the press?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing anxiety among management and workers at the prospect of the social security review and its findings undermining the state earnings-related pension scheme, which workers depend on to provide them with pensions that will free them of the need to claim social security in retirement? The Prime Minister said earlier that the discussion of these matters in Cabinet had been concluded. When will we have a statement? Will it attend to each of the subjects separately, or does the right hon. Gentleman hope that they will be lumped together, thereby somewhat restricting the discussion that should take place?

The right hon. Gentleman will have heard that it is proposed that the White Paper should be published shortly after we return from the Whitsun recess and be accompanied by a statement to the House. I note what he said about the desirability—

I am most grateful for that correction. It is a Green Paper. We are linked in a dream partnership that has saved me from those incautious words. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about the ambit of the statement and will refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about a debate on the report of the Commission for Racial Equality. He will appreciate that this matter has been attended to through the usual channels. I shall ensure that the matter is further attended to.

I take account of the right hon. Gentleman's request for extended time on the debate on the unfair dismissal order on Wednesday. That matter can be helpfully attended to through the usual channels.

Did the Leader of the House notice that the House got on to the Adjournment last night at 8.17 pm? Is this not difficult to reconcile with any suggestion that the Government might find it difficult to provide a little time for the passage of measures desired by the House?

The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to travel hopefully. It is in the essence of Parliament that it should be unpredictable, above all, about the Committee stages of Finance Bills, which are greatly influenced by the wishes of the Opposition. I am not sure whether the Government can be blamed if business ends a little early.

Order. This is an appropriate moment to say that there is nothing unpredictable about the number of hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate on the multi-fibre arrangement. In view of that, I shall allow business questions to continue until 4.15 pm.

In view of the damage being done to schoolchildren and schools by the Militant Tendency and the Young Socialist organisation of the Labour party office, which are subverting schoolchildren dangerously, keeping them out of school and closing schools, may we have an early statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Science, on which hon. Members may question him and seek an assurance from him that schools will not be closed because those organisations are damaging children's chances of education?

I shall refer my hon. Friend's point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. He makes a legitimate point about a matter which has caused a great deal of anxiety. However, I must point out that he has a chance of raising the matter on the motion for the Spring Adjournment.

Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the report in the media that the Secretary of State for Scotland will today make a statement about rates in Scotland at the Tory party conference? Will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland makes the self-same statement in the House, and apologises to the House for making the statement out with the elected Chamber?

If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is locked in conclave with the Conservative party conference, he deserves our good wishes, not our abuse. Any substantive statements that must be made about rates will undoubtedly be made to the House next week.

As many Conservative Members are anxious that the Government should get their conclusions right following the social security reviews, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be the fullest possible opportunity for debates on those matters soon after the Green Paper is published? Can he further confirm the point to which he alluded in answer to his dream partner, that it will be a genuine Green Paper?

I take account of what my hon. Friend says about the desire for a debate in the Chamber. It must be held in the wider context of a national debate, which will attend the topic. I confirm that it is a Green Paper.

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I have frequently pressed him for a debate on the Export of Goods (Control) Order, which brings into operation the COCOM agreement. Indeed, he has gone further and given a generally sympathetic welcome to the value of such a debate. Has he had time to see the reply from the Minister for Trade, who said that the order would probably come into effect on 12 June? Will he show more clearly whether the Government are prepared to give time to discussing this matter which is vital to British high technology industry?

I shall certainly consider that point and be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

Regarding the Auld report on unrestricted Sunday trading, is my right hon. Friend aware that, although Conservative Members accept that the anomalies in the present law need to be rectified, we have grave doubts about the need to introduce unrestricted Sunday trading? Will he bear that in mind when he prepares for the debate?

I note what my hon. Friend says. Clearly the matter evokes a wide range of opinions across the House. He will be interested to know that the Government motion will go down this afternoon and, therefore, will be available for consideration.

As we now know that the largest political donation in history is enmeshed in fiduciary impropriety, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate so that we can discuss proposals to prevent future double-dealing, double standards and double hypocrisies on the part of the double Davids?

I have always sought delicately to avoid the big Ds. The matter could conceivably arise on the motion for the Spring Adjournment. I should love the opportunity of answering such a debate.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members have recently received from the Fees Office a letter about their mileage allowance? For cars between 1,300 cc and 2,300 cc hon. Members will receive 28p, and for cars over 2,300 cc they will receive an embarrassing 42p. Is that not an open invitation to hon. Members to buy foreign gas-guzzling cars? Is it not absurd at a time when the Government seek to contain public expenditure, and should we not debate the resolutions again?

It is an interesting development of the argument—I think that it has now been lifted from the columns of the Daily Express—to suggest that the only large capacity cars are foreign cars. If my hon. Friend wishes to become an expert on gas-guzzling cars, he will find plenty of home grown varieties. I shall be happy to see him if he wishes to raise any serious points on the matter.

Is the Leader of the House aware that both sides of the House wish to establish an Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier? When Ministers are asked about it they say that it has nothing to do with them and that it is up to Parliament. Can the right hon. Gentleman either find time for a debate on the matter, or suggest a way by which the House can express its views and achieve that end?

No time has been provided for such a debate next week. If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is such universal support for the proposition, he has other ways of testing it.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that in the past there has been criticism on the Floor of the House of the ability of the Church of England to represent great national occasions in our religious services. May we place on record that yesterday the service in Westminster Abbey and the remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury were highly acceptable and splendidly delivered?

I am not sure that next week's business is the obvious way to place on record praise for yesterday 's sermon. However, that shows that Parliament has its ways and means.

Will the Leader of the House make it clear whether, when we discuss the Auld report on 20 May, we shall have a firm declaration from the Government about the report's proposals on wages councils? As a Member sponsored by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, I must declare my interest. I listened yesterday to the remarks of my hoe. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) about the declaration of interests. The Leader of the House should examine closely the interests of hon. Members who may participate in that debate, especially private interests in garden centres, DIY stores, Sunday opening and amendments to the Shops Act. Will he assure the House that he will ensure that those hon. Members declare their interests, especially regarding a firm called GJD?

I will draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to the hon. Gentleman's point about a debate and a statement of Government policy about wages councils, as he will take part in the debate. I think that the House understands the expected conventions about the declaration of interests, and I am sure that it will abide by them.

Is my right hon. Friend prepared to consider sympathetically the request by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) for more time for the debate on unfair dismissals, in view of the fact that many of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends are threatened with unfair dismissal by their general management committees and may wish to bring their problems to the House for discussion?

I thought that my warm reaction was so transparently sympathetic and devoid of any code that it must be for the reasons stated.

Does the Leader of the House accept that the Prime Minister and several of his ministerial colleagues have given specific, categoric and repeated assurances that the NACODS agreement would be scrupulously observed? Is he aware that the National Coal Board has shown a considerable disdain for. and appears to be rejecting, the agreement? If he will not provide time for the House to debate the agreement, may we at least have time to consider the meaning of words such as "sacrosanct", and to allow Labour Members to use such words as "inexactitude"?

I realise that this is a matter of general concern on both sides of the House. There is no provision for a debate next week, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to the point that has been made.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that yesterday, on a bogus point of order, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) launched a scurrilous attack on the Liberal party, suggesting that the British School of Motoring had bought it with a bribe of £188,000. My right hon. Friend said that this would be a suitable matter for the Spring Adjournment debate, but we must all wish to be fair to the Liberal party. Would it not be more appropriate to have a three-hour debate so that we could find out precisely what happened?

It is an imperfect world, and next week only the Adjournment debate is available.

May I ask the Leader of the House a serious question for a change? Will he arrange the business of the House in such a way as to give us the opportunity to debate the peremptory closure of coal mines in the north-east of England, especially Blyth Bates colliery and a pit in Durham, where the National Coal Board has completely ignored the existing review procedure and peremptorily closed both pits without notice, without negotiation and in breach of promises made to the NUM in both areas? Will the right hon. Gentleman treat this matter as extremely urgent, since more than 3,000 jobs in the north-east are involved?

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman raises a matter of great constituency interest, to which he has already drawn the attention of the House through the Standing Order No. 10 procedure. I can offer no Government time for a debate next week, but I shall report the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

On Monday afternoon, the House will be given an opportunity to debate civil liberties. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is disgraceful that the National Council for Civil Liberties (sic) is trying to deny to some people the most fundamental civil liberty of all—the right to go to one's place of work free of intimidation and mobs? In the light of the disgraceful goings-on in the council, will my right hon. Friend try not to put in too many statements on Monday afternoon so that the true guardians of civil liberties on the Conservative Benches can speak in the debate?

Private Members' debates on Monday afternoons have been known occasionally to lapse into torpor. I am glad that my hon. Friend gives notice that that will not be the case next week.

Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 672?

[That this House believes that, in order to carry out their responsibilities to their constituents and to play a more effective role in the legislature, it has become urgently necessary for honourable Members to have, as a minimum requirement, the resources to employ a secretary and a research assistant paid direct by the Fees Office; and expects Parliament to provide these resources as a matter of urgency for every honourable Member who wishes to make use of such facilities.]

Has he noted the many hon. Members from both sides of the House who have signed the motion? Is he further aware that many hon. Members believe that our efficiency is greatly impaired by the lack of secretarial and research resources, and will he arrange for an early debate on this matter, which is taken seriously by all hon. Members?

I recognise that it is a matter of considerable seriousness to many hon. Members, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that no Government time is available for such a debate next week.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the event of hostilities, Britain would be largely denuded of its regular forces, leaving a key role to be played by reservists, the civil defence force and the police? Is he further aware that some Socialist-controlled police authorities are preventing officers from their forces from taking part in exercises, such as "Brave Defender" which will take place in the autumn of this year, and that that will have a detrimental effect on our national defence? Does not interference with national defence by local authorities deserve a debate?

I endorse wholeheartedly the importance of the topic, but there is no Government time for the debate that my hon. Friend wishes. I suggest that he pursues whatever opportunities free enterprise presents.

Does the Leader of the House recognise that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will have angered many hon. Members on both sides of the House? It was not an acceptable answer. The names on the early-day motion represent only the tip of the iceberg. If the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to become like the captain of the Titanic, rearranging the deck-chairs as the ship goes down, he would do well to make Government time available for such a debate.

Order. Although I said that questions would stop at 4.15, I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising. Perhaps I could say to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that I shall trade a question from him for his point of order.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in 1984, 4,100 youngsters under the age of 18 went missing in the Metropolitan police area? Is that not a worrying figure? The child of one of my constituents was kidnapped and taken to Pakistan only two weeks ago, but the Foreign Office did not keep in touch with the Home Office, so that when the child returned to Britain there was no check at the airport. May we have a debate on missing children as a matter of urgency?

I cannot offer Government time for such a debate, important though it is, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's point to the attention of Ministers in those Departments.

Is the Leader of the House aware that, this week, the European Parliament debated a motion concerning the plight of Cypriot refugees, and that it will debate another such motion in the near future? Would it not be appropriate if the House— [Interruption.] If Conservative Members want the name of my tailor, I shall gladly give it to them. This is the latest in summer wear. It is British-made.

Would it not be appropriate to debate the position of Cypriot refugees who were not covered by the 1982 partial amnesty decision? Several families living in Britain are threatened with deportation to a part of Cyprus where their homes are occupied by someone else, and Caterina and Vassilis Nicola have taken refuge in a church in Camden Town to avoid such deportation. Should not the plight of those families and of Cypriot refugees in general be fully debated by the House, as it never has been since the war in 1974?

I must give a disappointing reply to the hon. Gentleman. No Government time has been provided for such a debate next week. If he wishes to pursue the subject, he should try the avenue of an Adjournment debate.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman