I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for travel concessions for seamen, on returning from sea, to visit their families.

I do so in the terms of my Motion on the Order Paper, which is:

"That this House is of opinion that for social, family, economic and other reasons the withdrawal by British Railways of the cheap fare railway vouchers hitherto available to seamen and their families is wrong as it frustrates family reunions, deprives British Railways of fares, diminishes British Railways income and now calls upon Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Transport, by legislation or otherwise, to restore to British seamen and their families the relevant facilities which they have hitherto enjoyed."

I am supported by the National Union of Seamen, numbering thousands of seamen, and by a petition presented to me yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), who would be present today but for an unavoidable important engagement elsewhere. The petition, signed by 313 members of the Cunard line steamship "Sylvania," is in the following terms:

"We, the members of the above ship, wish to add our support to the protest over the withdrawal of the privilege railway voucher system since this has been stopped. We find many cases where this causes hardship to men and separation from families. We offer this protest in the hope that you can have this privilege reinstated or arrange for some similar scheme."

It would be an act of common justice to give seamen the cheap fares which I seek. The merchant seamen perform great services to the trade, industry and commerce of this country, services which are essential to Britain's exports and imports, and probably to Britain's stability. For years those services have been recognised by everyone, including the British Shipping Federation, the National Union of Seamen, the National Maritime Board and British Rail. Until two years ago British Rail recognised them in the appropriate and tangible way of giving seamen reduced fares from their port of landing to their homes. This was because seamen were often discharged at the end of a voyage at a different port from that of their engagement, and had to go home by railway. It was a fair, reasonable and humane facility, which enabled seamen to spend with their families their time ashore, which was often very short between voyages.

Suddenly, about two years ago, that long-enjoyed facility was withdrawn by British Rail, notwithstanding protests by the organisations I have already mentioned, which took the view that the family life of merchant seamen should be maintained and preserved, and not ruthlessly wrecked by continued absences from their families between voyages.

The National Union of Seamen, of which I have the honour of being a member, took the matter up. I asked a number of Parliamentary Questions on the subject, and correspondence ensued. On 4th July a letter from the National Maritime Board to British Railways supported the view that I am putting forward. It said:

"You will recall that on 23rd April last year your Board withdrew the concession which was granted to members of the Mercantile Marine. The National Maritime Board has, amongst other matters, recently been considering a revision of an agreement under which, in certain circumstances, seafarers are entitled to a rail fare concession from owners when discharged at a port other than the port of engagement. The shipowners have expressed their willingness to extend the concession to seafarers not at present covered by the agreement by granting them a warrant equivalent to 25 per cent. of the cost of a single journey. The purpose of this letter is to ask your Board whether they would be prepared to accept such a warrant and debit the British Shipping Federation Limited with 25 per cent. of the cost of a full single fare. At present you do, in fact, accept from the Federation railway warrants for the full fare."

The reply to that letter was negative and, indeed, surprising. It was very short. It was dated 10th July, 1967, and was in the following terms:

"Referring to your letter of 4th July, the British Shipping Federation have also asked me if it is possible to help them with this problem. I can only repeat what I have told the B.S.F., that one of the reasons for withdrawing the concession was to remove the paper work and so reduce administration costs. We cannot therefore agree to accept your suggestion, which would increase and complicate the accountancy work. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful."

So am I, and so are all decent-minded people.

I submit that the warrant proposed by the National Maritime Board was fair and reasonable and based on a fair and reasonable suggestion. The rejection of the proposal by the British Railways Board on the grounds of paper work, administration costs and accountancy work was, in my submission, trivial, unworthy and an offence to reason.

In a further letter on 22nd August, 1967, to me, the British Railways Board actually admitted:

"We appreciate that the British Shipping Federation and the National Maritime Board wish seamen to continue to have this reduction."

But the British Railways Board contumaciously persists in refusing to withdraw the ban that it imposed upon the seamen in this respect.

A great deal of consideration was given to this Clause by the Joint Select Committee. Some of the subsections are introduced under No. 3 recommendation of the Law Commission. The reason for the recommendation was that the Law Commission came to the conclusion that if a person failed or refused to answer questions by an inspector there was no penalty for the failure or refusal.

The Law Commissions recommended that if there was any doubt on the point it should be removed and that refusal or failure to answer questions should be made an offence. That now appears in Clause 5(7) and it is an important new law to be introduced in this consolidation Bill. I question whether it should be introduced without further safeguards to the individual, in particular the safeguard which is almost invariably put into legislation where there is an offence for failure to answer questions put by some official.

Such an offence under, for example, recent agricultural Acts has always been accompanied by a provision that the person questioned should have the right to refuse to answer if question and answer would be in breach of the privilege which a client has in his communi- cations with his solicitor. This is a privilege which is frequently called "the solicitor's privilege" but it is wrong to call it that. It is actually the privilege of a client who consults his solicitor that the solicitor should not be questioned upon matters between the two.

But subsection (7) has now been introduced into the Bill without any such qualification, although we have recently had a further example of the qualification of privilege when a similar provision was introduced in the Companies Act, 1967. Indeed, I recall no previous occasion on which this point has been raised when it has not been conceded by the House. I submit that, in introducing this new law on the recommendations of the Law Commissions, there should have been a qualification to this effect.

As always, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) put forward his argument with great reasonableness. Clause 5, and in particular subsection (7), is, in terms, as nearly as possible a verbatim re-enactment of Section 24(5) of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1962. The only change of the law which it makes and which was recommended by the Law Commissions is that it applies to the powers conferred on an inspector by subsection (3), thus removing a doubt. It is, therefore, in that respect a very good example of the application of consolidation with amendments within the restricted ambit appropriate to the term "consolidation". The kind of proposal that has been adumbrated would seek to make a different and substantial change in the Clause.

On the wider issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, I suggest that the whole matter should be considered in the context of the subsection. It is important to remember that, in a great number of instances, it will be in the interests of the grantee of the fishery rights that the inspector should have the full opportunity of making inquiry and collecting all the information that he can.

The right conferred by an Order under Clause 1 is valuable. Questions of fact relating to the appropriateness of its continuing in being must necessarily call for careful inquiry and investigation by an inspector and, as I have indicated, at least as often as not the outcome of that careful investigation can be expected to be to the advantage of the grantee.

The hon. Gentleman specifically referred to matters affecting the communications, for example, between solicitor and client and statements possibly possessing in certain cases an incriminatory character. Our belief is that this aspect of the matter—which. I agree, is most important—is sufficiently and adequately covered by the reference in the subsection as it stands to a refusal "or without reasonable excuse" failure to provide information.

I take the view, and recommend it to the Committee as the correct one, that the expression "reasonable excuse" gives sufficient protection and safeguard to any grantee or other person who may be affected by the application of the procedure that the Clause envisages. I trust, therefore, that the Committee will take the view that as the Clause and the subsection stand they meet the case and involve no such undesirable departure from precedent or principle as the hon. Gentleman has suggested they might on first view.

The Solicitor-General has given an unsatisfactory answer to a reasonable proposition and I would not wish the Clause to stand part as drafted. I suppose that it is a characteristic of every Government but particularly of this Government that there is a stubborn rejection of a perfectly nonpolitically controversial proposal from this side merely because, so it seems, the Government wish to hold on to their original drafting of a Statute.

If one has time, one eventually wears them down, as we have seen in recent legislation. Such proposals often go back to suggestions made on Second Reading and eventually are incorporated in the form of Lords Amendments after we have had time in which to drive them home to the Government throughout all the stages of the Bill.

In this case, however, we have not got the time. This is the last occasion on which the Bill can be amended, so that the Government are proposing to push it through without the normal qualifications of this sort of provision which have been accepted, after pressure, on several occasions in recent legislation, including taxa- tion, company and agricultural law. In all these cases, a qualification has been inserted to any provision such as we see in Clause 5(7).

The hon. and learned Solicitor-General has said that it is in the interests of the person questioned to answer these questions. It always is whenever a person is questioned. But it has been thought necessary in this case to provide that, if the questioner does not act in his own interest, he is a criminal. It is necessary to have some sanction when a person refuses to answer these questions. He may think it is not in his own interests to disclose communications between himself and his legal adviser, and the legal adviser may think that it is not in the interests of his client to answer those questions. In other branches of the law he is protected if he does not do so and he certainly should have been protected in this case.

Clause 20 deals with Orders and Regulations and with Parliamentary control over the Orders made by the Minister under the Bill. In particular, it deals with Orders made under Section 17, which deals with a subject which caused some anxiety and to which the Joint Select Committee gave a great deal of consideration and the Clause was substantially amended. It was amended, on the recommendation of the Law Commission, so that the offence of taking lobsters in spawn should have the same penalties as the offence of taking crabs in spawn.

The anomaly between the penalties for those two offences had arisen quite accidentally. In the evidence given to the Joint Select Committee it was explained that the provision concerning the taking of lobsters in spawn had got into the Sea-Fishing Industry Act, 1933, in a most casual fashion. It was put into a Section the rest of which had nothing to do with it. The evidence before the Committee was that it seemed to have been put in as an afterthought and had nothing to do with the rest of the Section.

Had it been given full thought it might well have been included in those provisions which require any Order under them to be brought before the House. Subsection (2) of Clause 20 says:

"Any instrument containing an order under Section 1 of this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

But when we come to Orders under Section 17 they merely have to be laid before Parliament. This is a repetition of the law as it stands under the 1933 Act. To that extent it is consolidation, but it is consolidation on the recommendation of the Royal Commission which recommended an alteration in the penalty. Therefore, once one accepts a recommendation of the Law Commission for an alteration of the law one can question it on other subjects as well. At least that is my submission. I submit that—

I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but I cannot allow that proposition to pass without challenge. It is open to comment on any recommendation made by the Law Commission, but it is not open in Committee to introduce some new change in the law, however desirable hon. Members may think it, unless it arises from some specific recommendation of the Law Commission.

Immediately I had said it, Sir Eric, I knew that I had expressed it in too wide terms. I think that my criticisms of Clause 20 come within the ambit of the recommendations of the Law Commission in asking that the two penalties be made the same.

I am afraid not. It might have been open to the hon. Member to have made some comments on Clause 17, which deals with penalties, but it is not open on Clause 20 to suggest that there should he any extension or change in the scope of Parliamentary control other than contained in the Acts which are being consolidated by this Bill.

I do not wish to labour the point. I accept your Ruling, Sir Eric.

I would point out that under Section 17 there is no creation of the offence here. It gives the Minister power to make the offence by Order. The offence has been altered in Clause 17, and it was my thought that I could question it only when it comes to the making of the Order under Clause 20. However, I will not labour the point. I merely put it that under Clause 20 I would have hoped that we could have had subsection (2), the Parliamentary procedure, applying to all Orders under the Bill.

I beg to move, in page 18, line 29, after "order", insert "and a summary thereof".

This provision in Schedule 1 arises out of a recommendation of the Law Commission concerning the publication of Orders. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 provides:

"Where the appropriate Minister makes an order under section 1 of this Act, the applicants for the order shall cause notice of the making of the order to be published in such manner as that Minister thinks sufficient …"

The Amendment would require not only notice of the making of the Order to be published, but a summary of that Order as well.

The recommendation of the Law Commission, which was the tenth recommendation that it made, was:

"Where an order under Part III of the Act of 1868 is made, Section 35 requires the applicants for the order to cause it to be published and circulated in such manner as the appropriate Minister thinks sufficient for giving information to all parties interested."

Then it points out:

"By virtue of Section 34(3) of the Act of 1962 the order is now made by statutory instrument and is printed and published by the Stationery Office and section 35 is in practice construed as requiring the applicants to publish only notice of the making of the order.

We recommend that section 35 be amended to conform with modern practice."

Then it points out:

"Effect is given to this recommendation in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the Bill."

There is a substantial change in the law here, albeit to conform with existing practice. The Law Commission's further recommendation repealing the relevant Section of the previous Acts said that although it used to be necessary to keep a copy of this Order available to those concerned and publish it and so on,

"There is no difficulty now, as there may have been in 1868, for any of those persons to obtain a copy of the order from the Stationery Office."

This is very naive. It is often difficult to obtain Orders from the Stationery Office, and, in the case of an Order for fisheries in the North of Scotland or somewhere like that, there would be the utmost difficulty in obtaining the information.

If there is to be a change in practice here, it should provide for persons concerned with an Order of this sort to know at least a summary of what it is about, the area it covers, and who will be affected by it. Often under these Orders there is power to the grantee to make certain charges, and this is very important to the public who are concerned with such an Order. The public should be informed not only that an Order has been made but about the effect of it. To inform the public, it would be simple to publish not only the date of the Order but also the explanatory note to it saying what it is about. Merely to see that an Order conferring the right of several fishery has been made on such and such a date gives no information at all to the public.

In moving his Amendment, I am glad that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) forbore from anything in the character of general and unfounded strictures upon the Government for our attitude to the kind of point that he raises.

Orders conferring a right of several fishery or the right of regulating a fishery are usually fairly lengthy and detailed. As an example of the kind of detail that goes into them, one has in mind the area of sea over which the right is to be exercisable, which has to be defined precisely. That can be done only at considerable length. It would not be easy to produce an accurate summary which would be really informative, and an inaccurate summary would have great disadvantages and risks attaching to it.

I suggest that it is unnecessary to require the applicants to incur the extra expense which would result if the Amendment were accepted. The Amendment proposes that the applicants should provide the summary and, of course, the applicants are the persons who desire and hope to become grantees of the rights conferred. In the ordinary way, they will not be people who will find it easy to prepare, compose and provide a summary of a document of this kind, and I think that there ought to be reasonable consideration for them in dealing with the practicalities of the matter.

Under normal practice, applicants are required to publish notice of the making of an Order in a local newspaper, and that is a comparatively easy action to perform. To impose heavier burdens upon them would be undesirable, I submit, and anything in the nature of a fairly lengthy summary would involve a not negligible increase in cost.

10.45 a.m.

The Committee will observe that, under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, the applicants are required to publish a copy of the draft order. Those affected by the Order will, therefore, become aware of its contents and its provisions at that stage. It is true that, when the Order is made, it may differ from the draft, but it is unlikely to do so in practice unless an inquiry is held under paragraphs 4 or 5 of the Schedule. Notice of the inquiry has to be published. It is believed that persons affected by the Order will obtain a copy from the Stationery Office and will not rely on a summary in the Press.

The Order and its contents are available to those concerned and, as I have endeavoured to indicate, in the case of a person sufficiently interested in the content of the Order, it is more likely than not that he will want to see the whole Order and will not be satisfied with a mere summary.

In those circumstances, to require publication of a summary would really be balancing one thing with another to serve no useful purpose.

If it would be for the convenience of the Committee, I propose to put the Question, That the Clauses stand part of the Bill, collectively.

Sir Eric, I wish to question Clause 10, if you would put that separately.

So be it.

Clause 10 provides measures for the increase or improvement of marine resources, and the long Title of the Bill describes it, among other things, as a consolidation Bill

"… authorising measures for the increase or improvement of marine resources."

I was curious to know what are "marine resources".

Turning to the table of derivations, Clause 10 is a consolidation of Section 4 of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1959. It will be seen from Section 4 of that Act that Clause 10 is, word for word, a repeat of subsection (1) of that Section, but that it omits subsection (2). As this is a consolidation Measure I can to that extent query whether Clause 10 is a consolidation of the law contained in Section 4 of the 1959 Act. The important omission, which is contained in Section 4(2) of that Act, is:

"Any expenses incurred by the Ministers under this section shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament."

The Schedule to the Bill repeals Sections 4 to 8 of that Act, and it seems to me that in consolidating the improvements concerning marine resources this consolidation Measure gives Ministers power to spend money on marine resources, but deprives Parliament of control of that money, because it omits Section 4(2) of the 1959 Act. We are told, in the table of derivations, that this power is included in Clause 10, but on the face of it it is not. I hope that the Solicitor-General can give us some explanation of the position. What has happened to Section 4(2) of the 1959 Act?

My understanding of the point raised by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is that the provisions of Section 4(2) of the 1959 Act are contained in Clause 19(1) of this consolidation Measure. I offer that explanation to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that if he investigates the matter he will find that that is so, and I hope that his anxieties in this respect will, therefore, be put at rest.

I have now looked at Clause 19, and I find that it includes expenses incurred under Clause 10. There remains my complaint that the Bill does not include any definition of marine resources, but I doubt whether the hon. and learned Gentleman can put that right at this stage.

I do not want to oppose the Motion, but I wish to make a protest in that the situation which faces us seems to be similar, though slightly worse, than that which was mentioned yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in connection with the Leasehold Reform Bill.

The Amendments to that Bill were received by my hon. Friend at 5 o'clock on the previous evening. In this case the Amendments were not available in the Vote Office until half-past nine this morning. It means that although from the word "go" this has been a noncontroversial Bill, a Measure on which I am sure the Minister will agree there was a great deal of co-operation between the two sides in Committee upstairs, we are faced with considerable difficulty in absorbing the import of the Lords Amendments, many of which resulted from discussions held only yesterday. I hope that the Minister will make representations to the necessary quarters to see that we are not treated in this way on another occasion.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This drafting Amendment removes any doubt which there might be that the Secretary of State and other Ministers can call on the advice of the Commission on any countryside matter. I think that it will improve the Bill.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment puts beyond doubt that the Commission may, with the con- sent of the Secretary of State, lease, buy, or build such offices, as they require for the performance of their functions.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is your experience that I am a person who likes brevity. The shorter a Bill and the more lucid it is, the more I like it. I am ready to accept what the Minister says, that the Amendment puts the matter beyond a shadow of doubt, but is it really necessary? Similar words did not appear in the Highlands and Islands Development Bill which contained words identical with many of those in Clause 6 of this Measure.

I think that subsection (1, a), which gives the Commission power to acquire land, and subsection (1, b), which allows it to erect buildings, put beyond a shadow of doubt the fact that these buildings could be offices. I suppose that they could be other buildings, such as residential ones, but they certainly could be offices, and when one remembers that Clause 5 describes one of the Commission's functions as preparing and submitting proposals, surely the implication of that is that an office will be used for doing so? I should have thought that these words were not necessary.

I do not know whether in going as far as the Minister wishes to do in adding these words to the Bill he will be able to put on record now where he proposes to have these offices? I ask that because it is a matter of considerable curiosity to many of us.

I think that that is putting it mildly. I understand the hon. Gentleman's irritation at our having to adopt this procedure, but it is due to a lack of time. This is an agreed Measure, and I, too, regret that we have run into this difficulty. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman goes into the matter thoroughly—and I am sure that he would have done so had he had more time—he will find that the Highlands and Islands Development Act dealt with powers of acquisition which were pretty extensive, whereas this Measure restricts the power to development projects.

In Committee we were asked to be rather precise about the wording of the Bill. This Amendment—and many others —is an earnest attempt to try to meet some of the objections put forward in Committee. We have tried to spell out the provisions more clearly in legal terms in this and other Amendments, and I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman might bless us on this Amendment, even if he does not agree with us on many others.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is a useful drafting Amendment which brings in better words and expresses the provision more succinctly, as we were striving to do in Committee. I think that the hon. Member will agree that this is a good Amendment.

With this Amendment we can discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

These Amendments provide a solution to the problem upon which we had a lengthy argument in Committee, of the question who should be consulted at this stage of consideration. At that time I resisted the idea that every owner and every occupier who might be affected ought to be consulted at that stage. The Opposition quite reasonably made the point that this was wrong and that although in practical terms it might not be possible some mechanism should be devised. This is the mechanism that we have agreed on, and I commend it to the House.

This is the fourth addendum that has been suggested. There was one upstairs, another on Report, a further in Committee in another place, and finally this one. In the circumstances, I merely say that I am grateful that the Government have at last agreed that clarification of this point is a good thing.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment is quite clear, straightforward and desirable.

I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This again is a drafting Amendment. It makes the intention clearer.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

With this Amendment we can take Lords Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. This Amendment follows closely on a similar Amendment to Clause 31(1), which deals with public path orders, which was made in the Scottish Standing Committee as a result of the discussions which I had with the Scottish Landowners' Federation and the National Fanners' Union. It is a desirable Amendment. Similarly, Amendment No. 10 is desirable. Both my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and I have taken every opportunity to emphasise that access orders or compulsory acquisition orders were measures of last resort. In the Bill as drafted there was some doubt whether a local authority would have power to acquire land by agreement. This makes the position clear. Perhaps we can take also Lords Amendment No. 12, in Clause 25, which is similar to Amendment No. 11.

So be it.

These are Amendments of substance which make it clear that subsection (2) in both Clauses can be deleted. They are ob majorem cautelam. We do not need to have subsection (2) in either Clause, because we believe that subsection (1) is as extensive as we would seek to go even if we had both the other subsections. The Government feel that subsection (1) contains the powers that we desire and that subsection (2) need not be written into the Bill.

The hon. Member is perhaps treading dangerously when he quotes law at us. It makes me think that one or two of his hon. Friends, whose names I would not mention if the positions in the House were reversed, would undoubtedly have wished for a full explanation in the House of the Scottish system of feu and excambion, which many hon. Members will not understand. As we are anxious to make progress, however, I merely say that these Amendments are improvements.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

With this Amendment we can take Lords Amendments Nos. 14 and 15.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Everyone would agree that it is in all our interests for details of access land and any restrictions applying to it to be as widely publicised as possible. These Amendments are designed to facilitate this, and I commend them to the House.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

With this Amendment we can take Lords Amendment No. 17, in Clause 29.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is a useful Amendment because the erection of distinctive boundary pillars or posts could be as effective a way of indicating the boundaries of access land as the display of formal notices.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is a drafting Amendment repairing a minor omission.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Perhaps with this we could comfortably take Lords Amendment No. 20, Mr. Speaker.

So be it.

Both Amendments deal with the same drafting point. The three extra prepositions are needed to make the wording sufficiently comprehensive to cover all the possibilities as precedented in other Acts including the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, section 111(2).

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that with this Amendment we could take Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24.

So be it.

These Amendments—in particular that which contains the words "without prejudice to that generality" ensure that the Commission will not be prevented, in preparing a report of a long-distance route, from making proposals about any facilities which it considers should appropriately be provided. We touched upon this point in Committee, and these Amendments represent an improvement.

I should like to ask one question. Can the Minister explain the omission of lines 14 to 20? Their deletion seems to remove the responsibility which rests upon a local authority to say something about the expenditure incurred on various works.

This is relative to what the Commission is trying to do in developing these matters. We are trying to ensure that the Commission is not prevented, by the existence of this Clause in its previous form, from preparing a report on a long-distance route. People could argue that the consequences of preparing reports and so on would mean that certain obligations are being incurred by certain authorities. We are trying to make sure that the Commission can do this without involving itself in all these difficulties.

The four Amendments hang together, as was clearly made out in another place. If the hon. Member will search the records—I realise that it is only now becoming available; this illustrates our difficulties—he will see that the point is readily taken care of. If I have not explained the situation properly I will write to the hon. Member and make it clear.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

When subsection (2) was added in Standing Committee I undertook that the Government would look into the effect of the last four lines. The result of our consideration is the present Amendment. The words which it deletes were taken from the similar provision relating to district councils in Section 29 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894. These are different circumstances, but if a local authority exercises the permissive power which the Clause gives to maintain a public right of way it is only fair, in 1967, that it should be possible for it to be held responsible for damages arising from the way in which it has done the maintenance. This is a reasonable compromise. It is one that I hinted at, but I could not find the words earlier in our proceedings.

In our discussions upstairs, this point was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) as a possible objection to the hon. Gentleman's moving to add subsection (2). My hon. and learned Friend pointed out the difficulty. I am glad that the Minister has found that that advice was wise, as I felt sure that it would be. It shows the value of our being able to assist the Government on their legal problems in the absence of a Law Officer for Scotland.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

With this Amendment, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we take also Lords Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 32, 42 and 45.

If the House has no objection, so be it.

These Amendments are concerned with empowering the two electricity boards in Scotland to provide recreational facilities. We agreed in Committee that that would be desirable. The boards own large tracts of land and water. Both they and the Government feel it right that they should have clear powers to make the most of the recreational potential of their property.

The Amendments put the boards in the same position as Clauses 63, 64 and 67, put local water authorities: that is, they can provide facilities and charge for them or let them, they can provide facilities jointly with other persons and receive contributions from other persons or bodies towards their cost and they can make byelaws or appoint wardens. Hitherto, the North Board, by virtue of its "social clause", has been better able to provide recreational facilities for the public than has the South Board. The Amendments ensure that both boards will have these powers.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is a drafting Amendment designed to repair an unintentional ommission from the Bill.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we take at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 36 to 40.

If there is no objection, so be it.

These are related Amendments. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) will recall the fears that were expressed in another place that Clauses 61 to 63 gave sweeping powers to local authorities to do things on privately-owned land without consulting owners or occupiers or following the normal procedures. The Clauses were not intended to have that effect.

We have stressed throughout our strong desire that the Commission and local authorities should achieve their objects by consultation and persuasion. These six Amendments to Clauses 61 to 63 make it plain that the powers which they give can be exercised only by agreement with persons having an interest in the land to which they relate or after completion of the ordinary statutory procedures relating to access orders or compulsory purchase. This is testimony of our sincerity in this regard.

This emphasises what was said from the Opposition benches from the moment the Bill was introduced, that if the Bill, which meets, I think, with general approval from all parties and interests in Scotland, is to be successful, it will depend almost entirely on sufficient information being given to people about what will happen and on people being consulted concerning access routes and paths.

Although I dare say that the Minister of State could shoot me down in saying that I welcome the addition of these words, having criticised the addition of certain other words earlier, these are valuable words as they place beyond any shadow of doubt that what we regard as important for the success of the Bill will take place.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment inserts a useful and specific reminder to local planning authorities to bear in mind the possible disturbance which their proposals to provide recreational facilities may have on fishing rights.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment and Lords Amendment No. 44 are drafting Amendments consequential upon the enacting of the Water (Scotland) Act.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

As hon. Members know, access agreements may, if the owner sees nothing against it, include excepted land. Any necessary restrictions would be incorporated in the agreement. Plainly, however, wardens should be able to act on any access land. The proviso which the Amendment deletes is, therefore, not apt in a Clause such as the one we have described earlier. It is, therefore, right to delete it. The Amendment does so.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is a commonsense Amendment to take account of the fact that, with the best will in the world, the Commission is unlikely to have anything of significance to report in the current year.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment increases from 7 to 14 days the period of notice. This is what, after consultation, we thought should be done.

I would like to welcome this, and to express mild surprise, in view of the fact that we argued this extensively on a previous matter—the Highland Development Board case—where notice has only to be 48 hours or seven days in the case of residential property. This is very much a step in the right direction.

The circumstances are quite different. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that I gave a number of undertakings, some very specific and some only mild hints, of what might be done. I thought that I had done the latter in this case. Anyway, it is commendable that we should agree.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

As drafted the Bill did not give any guidance about the kind of circumstances in which the Secretary of State would direct, as the normal procedure, that the giving of notice of an access order should be dispensed with. This Amendment repairs the omission.

It would be accepted by all Members of the House that it is a matter of regret that such a short time is left today to debate the Northern Ireland region. Since we last debated the region, over 14 months ago, every other region has been debated many times over. It would probably be agreed that the problems in Northern Ireland are of such importance that a good deal more time should have been given by the Government to debate them.

The subject was last discussed when I raised it on the Consolidation Fund. I had sincerely hoped that when Northern Ireland was next discussed dramatic changes would have taken place there. It is with a sense of deep disappointment that I stand here today and tell the House that no changes have taken place in Northern Ireland since the subject was last debated.

Except for the rise in unemployment.

We have certainly had an increase in unemployment, which has affected every other region in the United Kingdom. I am delighted to hear that interjection from another Northern Ireland representative, because it gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the present Government here and to say that Northern Ireland has received more by way of financial assistance than any other region. The Government have received very little thanks for that. If the Tory representatives from Northern Ireland were being honest with themselves they would thank the Labour administration for helping the Northern Ireland economy.

Mark Arnold Foster compiled, and published in The Guardian a statistical analysis pointing out very clearly, that over and above all tax collected in Northern Ireland, it cost the British taxpayer and Exchequer £117 million per year to subsidise Northern Ireland. That is a vast figure and, since it has been published, further financial assistance has been provided.

In his Budget speech this year the Chancellor announced that a further £50 million in loans would be given to the Northern Ireland region for public authority and local authority works. I felt that before that money was given to the Northern Ireland Government, strings should be attached to it, so that we should have some say as to how it was spent. That money, given to the Northern Ireland Tories, is being spent in the areas where they will gain the most electoral support.[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] In the City of Derry, the town of Newry and in Strabane not one cent of that £50 million has been received, yet it was given to the Northern Ireland Government for the development of those areas.

Totally untrue.

Within the past few months a further £1,500,000 has been given to the Northern Ireland Government to plough into areas of high unemployment. The British Government are financially guaranteeing the building of two of the largest tankers to be built in the United Kingdom. Allied to this project we have a financial guarantee by the British Government of the building of an enormous dry dock at Belfast. The financial guarantees amount to something like £20 million or £30 million.

There is no other area within the United Kingdom which has received such financial assistance. It ill behoves any Tory from Northern Ireland to attempt to criticise the work of this Labour administration. Those very Members are worthy of criticism, because in spite of these vast sums of money given to the Northern Ireland Government, we still have the position that in the City of Derry, there are 5,000 unemployed—representing 20 per cent. of the male population and 13·9 per cent. of the female population. In Newry there is 19 per cent. of the male population unemployed and 11·9 per cent. of the female population. In Omagh the figures are 14 per cent. male unemployed and 8·9 per cent. female. In Strabane it is 25 per cent. male—one man in every four—and 9.8 per cent. for females.

Most hon. Members on this side of the House at least will agree with me that these are figures which would not be tolerated in any other area.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The reason why these figures have reached such a height is because these areas are anti-Unionist areas and the Northern Ireland Government have deliberately, over the years, engaged in a policy of industrial isolation because of the electoral complexion of such areas.

All reasonable people, on whatever side of the House, should condemn this policy. No matter what the political complexion of an area may be in this part of the United Kingdom it is admitted by Members of all political parties that the people in it are entitled to a home and a job. This is not how the Northern Ireland Unionists see it. Before any further financial assistance is given by this Government strings should be attached saying where the money is to be spent—where the need is greatest. I say this as an Irishman, but principally as a Socialist, sitting on the Socialist benches of this House.

There is a figure of 8 per cent. unemployed in the Northern Ireland region, but there is a region within a region. It is this which is the victim of the Unionist machinations and policy, to make quite certain that these people will not have jobs in their own areas, but will be denied homes and be forced to emigrate to Great Britain, thereby taking away a danger which would otherwise arise, threatening the Unionist electoral representation.

All that I ask for my constituents are the same rights and privileges which are enjoyed by every other British subject. I do not think it is too much to ask. When I raised this subject last I made a very reasonable request that the citizens of Northern Ireland, who are allegedly an integral part of the United Kingdom, should have the benefit of the "one man one vote" system, operating as it does in every other United Kingdom constituency, for local and central government. This is not an outlandish request. I realise that in making such a reasonable request I will meet violent opposition from the members of the Unionist Party because they appreciate that, if such a proposal were accepted, it would affect them electorally.

The people of Northern Ireland have great respect for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. They appreciate the stand he has taken against discrimination in this country. My right hon. Friend has thought it important to introduce legislation to protect minorities; Pakistanis, Indians and other immigrants to Britain. If Her Majesty's Government consider it necessary to have protective legislation of this kind, how much more necessary it is that this same protection is given to United Kingdom citizens in Northern Ireland. I press here and now for all the legislation that has been introduced to protect minorities in this country to be made applicable to Northern Ireland.

Why, in Northern Ireland, do we not have an office of the Parliamentary Commissioner? If it is good enough for Manchester it is good enough for Northern Ireland. I appreciate that by asking for the protection of this type of legislation I am seeking to erode the edifice of Unionism and Toryism in Northern Ireland, but in doing so I ask for the support of every liberal-minded hon. Member in this House.

I also appreciate the other difficulties which are facing the Home Secretary. Perhaps he does not want to bring about another constitutional crisis in relation to Northern Ireland. Her Majesty's Government face an acute economic problem, the problem of Rhodesia, of Vietnam, of the Middle East, of our balance of payments and so on. Despite these other urgent problems, it is my duty, as the representative of West Belfast, to ask for attention to be paid to Northern Ireland affairs, which, in my opinion, are very low on the agenda of this House. However, I know that I have the wholehearted support of my hon. Friends, in addition to the support of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, in demanding that Northern Ireland affairs be given more consideration.

If the Home Secretary considers—and he has my support in this—that it is important to have race relations legislation and to extend it, I urge him to ensure that that legislation is extended to cover religious discrimination, for this type of discrimination in Northern Ireland can be far more vicious and soul-destroying than any action which may be taken against coloured immigrants.

The Belfast Telegraph, a newspaper which is recognised as normally being a supporter of the Unionist Administration in Northern Ireland—although it is also known for trying to get away from certain old ideas and calling for a more liberal attitude—felt it important to write an editorial in the Saturday, 30th September, issue headed, "Sublime stupidity". Under that heading the newspaper stated:

"The Minister of Education began it. Reconstituting the Employment Service Board, he appointed 33 members, chiefly Education Committee nominees. At the most, three were Roman Catholic. The Minister of Health followed with the Hospitals Authority (22 members, two Catholics) and the General Health Service Board (24 members, two Catholics)."

The editorial went on:

"Here is the old old story, so old that it has almost passed without remark. But this time it makes nonsense of the Prime Minister and all that is said about a bridge-building policy. An opportunity to invite a larger number of Roman Catholics to participate in public service could not have been more opportune. In the event, not one additional appointment was made. Should this be?"

The editorial went on to question the sincerity of the Northern Ireland Prime Minister.

The hon. Gentleman will recall that he drew the attention of the Northern Ireland Parliament to an advertisement which appeared in a local newspaper, in which it was stated

"None but Roman Catholics need apply."

I imagine that he would also include that in his strictures.

My hon. Friends will remember that I happened to be in Westminster when that advertisement appeared. I was incensed by it. I made inquiries in the Northern Ireland Parliament and asked the Minister for Home Affairs to carry out an investigation. He did and, in reply to me a few days later, said he had found that the advertisement was authentic. I then made further inquiries. What he regarded as authenticity was this: a man went into the newspaper office, asked for the advertisement to be inserted and paid for it. In fact, no job there was available, no such firm existed and, what is more, it was done by supporters of the Unionist Party in an attempt—[Interruption.]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong and if anyone wishes to read the exchanges which took place in Parliament there on this subject he need only refer to the Northern Ireland House of Commons HANSARD for 11th May, and at columns 1173 to 1175 he will see exactly what happened. The hon. Gentleman made no objection at the time. There was an inquiry and this was found to have been a perfectly authentic advertisement. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his views about whether it should be regarded as discriminatory, but the facts are there.

I have said what I have said without hesitation. Indeed, I have now discovered the name of the person who placed the advertisement. I am referring to a member of the Unionist Party—[HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] I give an undertaking to the Home Secretary that I will send him the name and address of this person—[Interruption.]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friends and I think as much of this declaration on his part as we thought of the one he made in this House about telephone tapping by the Unionist Party and the fact that it had been admitted in the Northern Ireland Parliament? On that occasion we were told that evidence would be submitted to the Prime Minister. Have we seen any such evidence? When are we likely to see it? Or will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that assertion now, because until he does—[Interruption.]

No.

On a point of order. Is it in order for hon. Gentlemen opposite to make speeches when they are supposed to be intervening? Should not they wait until they have an opportunity to speak?

Order. Mr. Fitt.

I had hoped that there would not be too many interventions. The more that hon. Gentlemen opposite intervene and stop me speaking the more they will be limiting their own time to speak.

It will be remembered that on two or three occasions I have had an opportunity to speak about Northern Ireland affairs in this House. Two days after I spoke on this issue the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) stood at the Dispatch Box in a foreign affairs debate and claimed that I had made wild assertions. He claimed that it was all lies and that nothing like this was happening in Northern Ireland. He more or less said, "Shipmates do not believe him, because he is a liar".

Only one way existed to prove or disprove my allegations. On that occasion I took the only way out. I took a number of my hon. Friends to Northern Ireland to see for themselves. I took them to the area to see at first hand the charges I had levelled at the Northern Ireland Government; and they came back convinced of the justness and rightness of my accusations. They have had talks with the Home Secretary about it and I am, therefore, supported by them today—although before me is a galaxy of talent in the shape of 11 Tories opposite. Suffice to say that my hon. Friends understand the situation in Northern Ireland.

We have a severe economic burden in Northern Ireland, but any help that the Westminster Government has given to the region will not gain the British Labour Party a single vote, because the Unionist Party takes all the credit for anything this Government have done to alleviate unemployment. Two or three months ago, when the unemployment figures were very high, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland had discussions here with the Cabinet, and the Minister of Commerce had discussions with the Cabinet and so did the Minister of Finance. Each one of them was vying with the other for the credit, saying: "I went to Whitehall and I wrung this assistance from the British Government. They did not want to give us anything, but I got it." Not one of the local papers said that the British administration wanted to alleviate the unemployment situation—the Unionists took all the credit, saying, "We went to London and demanded what you need to keep your jobs." I therefore ask the British Government to look again at the way they deal with the Northern Ireland Government.

We do not have a Parliamentary Commissioner in Northern Ireland at the moment, but I suggest that we should have an economic Ombudsman—to call him for want of a better name; a person in this Government who could act as liaison officer between the Northern Ireland Government and this Government on questions of development in Northern Ireland. He would be aware, I am sure, of the discrimination that takes place in Derry, Newry, Strabane and other areas, and would take steps, perhaps, to remedy that situation. That would stop the continuous to-ing and fro-ing by various Northern Ireland Ministers all trying to get the credit and ensure their further election to the Northern Ireland Parliament.

I understand that legislation is pending relating to the social services agreement which exists between this Parliament and the Northern Ireland Parliament by which every single cent paid out in Northern Ireland comes from the British taxpayer. The Northern Ireland Exchequer does not contribute one halfpenny. Yet, at election time, the Unionists say: "Just look at the great social benefits we have"—conveniently forgetting to add that those benefits are paid for by the British taxpayer.

The British taxpayer gets very little thanks for what he pays out. We remember the activities of the 12 Tory Unionist Members who, from 1964 to 1966, tried their damndest to bring about the downfall of the British Administration. That was scant thanks for the help that was given. Members of this Parliament should take a long time to forget those very troublesome days, when the British Government was put in peril by the activities of those 12 Members. I understand that such legislation is pending, but rumours have got abroad in Northern Ireland that the British Government may be reluctant to introduce it in case it should lead to a whole debate on Northern Ireland. I urge the Government, if it is necessary to introduce that legislation, to introduce it as early as possible.

I also understand that in a recent White Paper the Lord Chancellor recently referred to the effects of Common Market entry on Northern Ireland, and stated that a further extension should be given to the Northern Ireland Parliament if and when we enter the Common Market. The British Government should be very reluctant to give further power to the Northern Ireland Parliament.

I understand, too, that legislation is pending to enable the British Government to appoint a sixth High Court judge in Northern Ireland and that this will entail amendment of the existing Government of Ireland Act, 1920—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has managed to discuss under this Motion almost every subject he has wished to discuss, but the one thing he should not discuss is new legislation.

I readily accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I only say that, if such legislation is pending, the Government should make sure of establishing guarantees.

A very important point affects my constituency in the Northern Ireland Parliament—the Dock Division of Belfast; not Belfast West. A portion of the old Victoria Barracks, formerly held by the Minister of Defence, has been given to the Belfast Corporation for housing purposes. The Ministry of Defence retained 9½ acres, and in a Parliamentary Question I asked the Minister of Defence whether he would be prepared to give up that remaining 9½ acres for housing development in order to help to relieve the serious land famine in Belfast. The reply was that the Ministry would be quite prepared to give up the land to the Northern Ireland Government or the Belfast Corporation. There has since been a decided reluctance by the Northern Ireland Government and by the city to acquire that land for housing purposes, on the ground that it would upset the present electoral machinery there. So we do not have houses built because it might affect the seats—

That is not true.

I understand that the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) is to appear on B.B.C. Television in Northern Ireland on Sunday, and I can assure him that the whole population there is waiting with bated breath to hear him. I can assure him that the T.A.M. rating will go up by 100 per cent.—

Also untrue.

I began my remarks by saying that 14 months have elapsed since we last had a debate on Northern Ireland and I should have thought that dramatic reforms would have taken place in that time. In this country they would not be regarded as dramatic at all. What is dramatic about giving one man one vote? What is dramatic about putting an end to gerrymandering, and giving jobs to people according to their need? But all these things are dramatic in Northern Ireland. Yet not one step has been taken by Northern Ireland to implement such reforms.

I realise that the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland is accepted by the Government Front Bench here as one of the more liberal Prime Ministers we have had in Northern Ireland. I suppose that he is accepted as the best of a bad lot—"Don't shoot the pianist, he's doing his best." At the same time, the British Government have the right to insist on reforms in Northern Ireland. They can tighten the pursestrings, and say, "You will get no more money to be spent to your own political advantage in a given area. If we give any financial resources, they will have to be spent in Strabane, Newry and all the other areas where the people are living in deplorable conditions, and where men have never known what it is to have a job in their own home town."

Those made unemployed in Belfast are in a far better position than they would have been three years ago, because since then this British Government have given us the Redundancy Payments Act, earnings-related supplementary benefit, and the like, but these advantages do not apply to people in Strabane and Newry: they cannot have any earnings-related supplementary benefit because, due to the policies of the Unionist Party, they have not had any earnings for the last 10 years.

I must impress on the Home Secretary the urgency of the situation. Speaking in Trafalgar Square a few months ago, I said that where we had an exploited and oppressed people, denied houses and jobs because of their religion or because they were not supporters of the Unionist Party, and they reached such a stage of frustration that they found that there was nothing to be gained constitutionaly, who could blame them if they themselves tried to do something to rectify their own position. I was roundly condemned by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), who sent letters to every hon. Member of this House but, in a cowardly manner, refused to meet me in public debate in Northern Ireland on the subject. He refused to meet me in public debate and I said that I would debate with him in any public hall.

The hon. Member is keeping to his usual standards of accuracy. I was not invited to debate with him in Northern Ireland, although I would be glad to do so. What I would do is to debate with him in this House on that speech. If he would sit down, we could get on with it.

When people feel that there can be no redress of their wrongs in a constitutional way by drawing attention to the existing situation, they would be quite entitled and it would be morally valid for them to do something to rectify their position. I said this at the conference in Scarborough and I listened to Anthony Lester speaking on the Race Relations Act. He spoke of the population in America and said that he did not want the same situation here with such riots as there have been in Chicago and other areas. Those people are entitled to take steps to rectify their grievances. I predicted what would happen in Northern Ireland. I did not incite people to violence—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh !"]—but at this moment this is happening. Only last week in the town of Dungannon—

rose—

No, sit down.

Order. Mr. Fitt.

Only last week in Dungannon 15 housing allocations were made by the local authority yet people whose names had been on the waiting list for years were denied.

On a point of order. This important debate on Northern Ireland is taking only something like an hour and ten minutes. Is there nothing you can do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to prevent the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) from hogging all the time and keeping out other hon. Members?

Order. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has been speaking for a long time. I am sure that all hon. Members will bear in mind that there is very little time left for this debate. Mr. Fitt.

The Tories from Northern Ireland have been speaking in debates here for the last 40 years. I have an opportunity to speak now, and I shall certainly take that opportunity.[Interruption.]

Order. The debate will be more useful and more effective if it is heard in silence. Mr. Fitt.

The Tories representing Northern Ireland spoke a great deal, and voted a great deal, from 1964 to 1966. I am taking the opportunity to point out what happened in those years. I want to give the hon. Member for Belfast, North a chance. I know that he is in a state of nervous frustration at the moment, but I want to give him a chance to reply. Hon. Members will listen carefully to his remarks, which I am sure will be completely unacceptable to most hon. Members.

To the Home Secretary I say that many people in Northern Ireland are looking to the British Government to impress on the Northern Ireland Government the necessity for bringing about reforms in Northern Ireland to ensure that we are all treated as British subjects. That is all we ask. We do not ask for more. I believe the British Government have it in their power to do this. I realise that they listen to the pleas and stories from Captain O'Neill, the allegedly liberal Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, but I tell the Government Front Bench, and every hon. Member on this side of the House, that the present Prime Minister of Northern Ireland is getting away with a massive confidence trick. He comes to the Prime Minister here and says, "I would like to introduce reforms but, I am sorry, I have a crowd of backwoodsmen behind me and they prevent me from doing so. Give me another six months and I will do it" and then he says, "Give me another six months"—and another six months. As leader of the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, he hopes that the British Labour Party will be defeated at the next election and then it will be quite unnecessary for him to introduce reforms.

If, unfortunately, this Administration were defeated—I certainly hope it will not be—the people in Northern Ireland who at present are asking in a constitutional way for reforms, would say, "We tried that method." People told me before I came to this House, "What is the use of going there and talking to a lot of Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen? They do not understand." I impressed on them that I am a Socialist and my Socialism knows no national barrier. I am as ardent as, perhaps more ardent than, any who sit on this side of the House.

I know that the British Labour Government would listen to pleas, made not only by me, but by many Socialists in Northern Ireland, urging the necessity to bring about those reforms before the lifetime of this Government expires. If that does not happen I predict that there will be trouble. I hope that I am wrong because I do not want to see trouble in Northern Ireland. When I predicted that it would happen, the Northern Ireland Prime Minister said that I was going out of my way to advocate the bomb, the bullet and violence. As a pacifist, I do not want to see violence, but I do not want to see the people trampled under by the jackboot Unionist Party.

rose—

Sit down.

Order. The hon. Member for Belfast, West has not given way. Mr. Fitt.

I wish to say how necessary it is that the British Government, even with all the problems they have in Vietnam, Rhodesia and the rest, should pay particular attention to the problem of Northern Ireland. I do not think that is asking too much. As a Socialist in a Socialist Administration I hope that in the very near future steps will be taken to remedy the existing situation in Northern Ireland.

I had hoped that today we would have a constructive debate on the serious economic problems of Northern Ireland. This, unfortunately, has not transpired. I am bound to say at this juncture that the arrangement of business for today has proved unsatisfactory. I cast no blame or aspersion in any direction, although something must be said about the length of the speech by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). On the other hand, I am sure that the Home Secretary will take a reasonable view of this matter and that the Government will come to the conclusion that this was not a reasonable day on which to hold a debate on Northern Ireland.

Unfortunately, many economic problems of Northern Ireland have not received the airing which they should have and I shall have to conclude my speech shortly in order to allow the Home Secretary time to take part. It is a matter of extreme regret that very little of a constructive nature on economic affairs was said by the hon. Member for Belfast, West. We should not have been surprised. The House will know that over the summer last year we had some trouble with what have been called Protestant extremists in Northern Ireland.

They were condemned in this House, and rightly condemned, for what they did. I was among those who condemned them, but I am in some doubt as to whether they have done so much more harm to good community relations in Northern Ireland than has the hon. Member for Belfast, West.[Interruption.] That is not irresponsible. There is no need to look beyond the terminological inexactitudes he employs in this House over and over again. There is no need to look beyond the speech he made in Trafalgar Square, which has been quoted in this House. He has been unable to deny it, despite his wriggling and writhing. There is no other interpretation of it. He called in aid the Belfast Telegraph and I do also, because that newspaper came to the same conclusion, that there is no possible explanation but that the speech must have been interpreted by many as a call to violence, an incitement.

I shared the platform with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) in Trafalgar Square that day. I can state categorically that at no time did my hon. Friend make any plea for violence. He predicted violence if the normal constitutional paths were denied to the majority in Northern Ireland.

That is not my interpretation of the hon. Gentleman's speech, nor is it the interpretation put upon the speech by the Belfast Telegraph, which wrote a perfectly responsible report.[HoN. MEMBERS: "He was there."] That may be, but the hon. Gentleman's recollection may be faulty. However, let me for the purposes of this argument accept the evidence, which I am sure was given in good faith, of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Ryan). My case does not rest upon that alone. Although it may have passed unnoticed by some people at the time, the hon. Member for Belfast, West has said exactly the same thing before. He said it in a public speech in Strabane. Perhaps the hon. Member for Uxbridge was present on that occasion.

The hon. Member for Belfast, West said it even more effectively from the point of view of my argument when he spoke in Camden Town Hall. He knows, as I know, what Sinn Fein means in Northern Ireland. He knows that it is the political arm of the I.R.A., a body which caused no fewer than six deaths among the security forces in a recent campaign, millions of £s of damage, and injury to the person in many cases. The hon. Gentleman knows that. I know it. This is the report of the Camden Town Hall meeting:

"Mr. Fitt told the delegates that although he had always opposed the policy of the Sinn Fein, the policies of force, he was having second thoughts and was now wondering if this was the answer."

Oh.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I intend to answer this. Prior to my election to this House, Sinn Fein had opposed candidates who had sought election on the abstention ticket. Sinn Fein did not want to recognise the authority of this House. Sinn Fein said, "What is the use of going to England? They do not understand. They will do nothing about it." I then said, in many public speeches up and down the country, that I had sufficient faith in British Socialists—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I be allowed to resume my speech?

Mr. Chichester-Clark.

May I resume my speech?

No.

I am sorry. I intervened because I thought that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) was addressing me on a point of order. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is making a very long intervention.

I will make it very, very—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made a very long speech. I hope that he will end his intervention.

I have been attacked, and I think that it is most unfortunate. Sinn Fein, the extreme Republican wing, asked, "What is the use of going to Westminster?" I impressed upon the electorate and upon those people that I believed in constitutional methods. Sinn Fein is now saying, "We told you so. Nothing has been done".

The hon. Member could, I suppose, wander on for ever and ever, but he will not produce and has not produced any satisfactory answer to what he said in this speech. The truth of the matter is that the hon. Gentleman is as irresponsible a public representative as has ever been elected to this House. This is beginning to be realised very widely indeed.

I want now, in the very brief time available to me, to come to some of the things the hon. Gentleman said. He spoke about the unemployment situation in Londonderry City. He spoke about the unemployment situation generally west of the Bann and said that this was an area which had been starved by the Unionists. No one knows better than the hon. Gentleman how untrue that is, because he knows full well that even in recent times—in recent weeks—considerable extra inducements have been offered by the Ministry of Commerce over there, no doubt with the sanction of the British Government, to any industrialist who is prepared to go over. Very generous terms indeed were offered to the great Michelin firm. This is well known. It has been said in public. A letter has appeared from the Ministry of Commerce to the Leader of the Opposition in Northern Ireland saving this. If the hon. Gentleman disbelieves this, he is at liberty to consult this firm or any others which have put out scouts in to these areas. I could go on. Indeed, currently, a very large international chemical firm is interested in this area. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that in the area which I have the honour to represent there is the largest industrial complex probably in the whole of Europe. This has been put there at great cost in terms of energy and—

It is not in that city.

It is just outside. I know the area better than the hon. Gentleman does. Furthermore, advance factories have been erected there. They are only waiting for tenants. There is a Government training scheme on which millions of £s have been spent. The hon. Gentleman knows all that. The same is true in the Strabane area and particularly in Enniskillen. My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Lord Hamilton) knows this full well. I have the facts here. Unfortunately, there is not time to state them. I will show them to the hon. Gentleman.[Interruption.]

Order. As perhaps must be expected, this has been a very hard-hitting debate. I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will give consideration to listening to the argument.

Even if the hon. Gentleman had not joined his voice with mine on previous occasions and asked for the continued operation of the Joint Anti-Submarine School at Londonderry, which employs between 600 and 700 men, I think that he could at least have asked for a postponement of its closure. Why has he not done so? Why has he not come out in public and supported me? Could it be because he is a Republican and not a Socialist at all? It is a very serious matter. Perhaps he will think that over. Maybe he was convinced on the merits of the Government's case. If so, let him say so, and let him say it in Northern Ireland. He had better think a little harder about that one.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now support me in some of the other things which I had hoped that I would be able to deal with in a good deal more detail and which I had hoped to address ser- iously to the Home Secretary. As we are speaking of the North West and of Londonderry City in particular, I refer to the very old established shirt industry there. The hon. Gentleman mentioned it. He must have heard of the difficulties which are being experienced there in an industry which even in that region employs 5,000 people. This is a very considerable number in an area which has the highest unemployment rate in the United Kingdom. The industry is experiencing difficulties from the import of Portuguese shirts. The manufacturers there realise, as I do, that under the E.F.T.A. Agreement we have our obligations. It seems, at any rate to me, from a first look at the E.F.T.A. Agreement, that at least under Article 20 there is some chance that some kind of restriction—I am no protectionist —could, if thought desirable, be applied where there is an instance of high unemployment in a sector of an industry or in a particular region. This would appear to be the case. I know that representations are to be made to the Board of Trade in the near future. It will be for the Home Secretary to decide whether he can put his weight behind those representations.

I had hoped to raise with the Home Secretary the question of the increase in air fares to Belfast. The hon. Member for Belfast, West and I may share common ground here. This is a very considerable burden for an area which is physically detached from the rest of the United Kingdom. I say this in the knowledge that I am, I regret to say, representing these facts to a Government who must be said to be hostile to alternative services which have from time to time tried to start up in the last few years. I should like the Home Secretary closely to study this question.

I had also hoped to question the Home Secretary on the question of the Anglo-Eire Trade Agreement. I gave some warning on aspects of this about two years ago from this Box. The Home Secretary knows the effect that the Agreement has had on the meat trade in Northern Ireland, on the new meat plants there, and on the United Kingdom market as a whole. I hope that he will be able this afternoon to tell us something about what has happened at recent meetings between Mr. Blaney and the Minister of Agriculture in Her Majesty's Government.

I also wanted to raise with the Home Secretary in particular questions relating to the high cost of cereals imported into Northern Ireland. I shall have to write a letter to the right hon. Gentleman on that matter. It is a problem which could well be—no matter which side of the argument one is on, one must face the facts—exacerbated by our entry into the E.E.C. It is a problem which we should be considering now.

I also wanted to mention certain problems connected with the pig industry, but I must not continue any longer and take up any more of the Home Secretary's time. I will write him a letter on the points which I have not been able to cover owing to the shortage of time.

A good deal has been said by the hon. Member for Belfast, West and by other hon. Members at other times about community relations in Northern Ireland and the desire to improve them. That desire is there. The improvement has been taking place. It will take place that much faster if it is realised that tensions of generations and scars of history take a long time to heal. People in public life can do a great deal by drawing attention to those things which unite a community, not just those which divide it, as so constantly the hon. Gentleman does.

Much has been done to smooth away the tensions, but, of course, there are still certain deep-seated fears in the community, as in any other. Mainly—the hon. Gentleman is on record himself as saying this on occasion—these fears arise from such problems as shortages of jobs and of houses. These are the main fears, and we in this House can contribute a great deal more than we have done if we face the fact that the tensions and difficulties which arise from history are exacerbated by social and economic conditions still apparent in Northern Ireland today. We can do something, despite what may have been said in the House at times about our having no control over what goes on in Northern Ireland. We have control to this extent, that we can encourage and help. I have not been able to go into the question of subsidisation but I shall be happy to answer the hon. Gentleman about that any time he wants.

What about reform of the electoral system?

I shall not let the hon. Gentleman intervene again. He has talked enough. He knows perfectly well that reforms are taking place in the electoral system. That is another example of the hon. Gentleman failing to rise to appeals to him to be fair minded in these matters.

The House can do a great deal to encourage and help the Northern Ireland Government on its enlightened path of bringing prosperity not just to any one section of the community but to the whole of Northern Ireland, that prosperity which the people of Northern Ireland so rightly deserve.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) for sitting down at the time at which I suggested it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to reply. No one can pretend that we have had a full and exhaustive debate on this subject, though I must say that no representations were made from the other side beforehand that this was not an appropriate time for it. However, I note the comments which have been made about that.

A Supply Day?

Other points of that kind have been noted. It is traditional, when Northern Ireland is debated, for the Home Secretary to give some sort of review of the economic as well as other considerations. In trying to do this, I feel somewhat in the position of someone endeavouring to deliver a lecture on the battlefield, but I can assure the trenches on both sides that one advantage of the time is that the exigencies of the moment mean that it must necessarily be a very short lecture.

At the end of my speech, I shall say a word about certain broader issues. For the moment, I direct attention to economic affairs. The economy of Northern Ireland suffers in acute form from some of the problems which face some of the regions here in Britain. The pattern of existing industries has been steadily outdated. Unemployment is consistently at too high a level, and a complete restructuring of the economy of Northern Ire- land became necessary some time ago, the need being not only for more jobs and more factories, but also for a review of the essential infrastructure on which a stable and prosperous society has to be built—new housing and new towns, with all the environmental services going with them, new transport services both inland and for the sea and air journey to Great Britain—I note what was said about that—new skills for the working population requiring a massive effort of retraining and education.

There are some who would say that these things are of small importance compared with the divisions in society in Northern Ireland. In my view, while achieving a higher level of prosperity and welfare will not of itself heal these divisions, it will be more difficult to heal them without such a high level of prosperity and welfare, and, moreover, continuance of the economic handicaps can only serve to perpetuate and worsen the divisions.

What is being done? Two and a half years ago, the Northern Ireland Government commissioned the Wilson Report on economic development, and they said that they accepted it as their programme up to 1970. The economy of Northern Ireland, however, is part of a larger whole, and the general level of economic activity must depend on that ruling throughout the United Kingdom and on the broad conditions governing that level. Inevitably, the measures which we had to take in July 1966 have had their effect in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, and Northern Ireland, as we all know, is vulnerable, like some other regions, in times of general economic difficulty. Northern Ireland has not gone unscathed. None the less, considerable efforts have been made by the United Kingdom Government to give economic assistance, by a Labour Government here in the United Kingdom—

And by the Government in Northern Ireland.

By a Labour Government here and by a Unionist Government, as I understand it, in Northern Ireland.

And the Conservative Government here.

And by a Conservative Government, no doubt, previously.

Until the summer of last year, progress had been considerable, and, in the two and a half years up to June 1966, a total of 14,000 new jobs had been created in manufacturing industry alone. The level of unemployment, while still high by United Kingdom standards, was coming well down on that of previous years. It is rising again to unhealthy levels now. It was 7·5 per cent. for September, and 7·4 per cent. for mid-October, which is a slight improvement. However, without wishing to enter into detailed controversy about the position in the City and County of 'Derry, I recognise that in certain parts the position is very much worse than is indicated by an overall figure of 7·5 or 7·4 per cent. This is something which we cannot ignore.

At the same time, however, the total which will be spent on attracting new industry to Northern Ireland in the current year will be £31 million as against £24·7 million last year, which is an important factor. This money goes to Government-built factories, capital assistance grants of up to 50 per cent., for projects offering a reasonable return in unemployment terms, and grants towards initial operating costs. There is a fuel subsidy to offset higher transport costs. Grants are generally available on both plant and buildings, and industrial buildings also enjoy substantial derating. In addition, there is a large Government-sponsored training programme, and there is the additional premium for employment in manufacturing industries at the same rate as the regional employment premium in our development areas. Apart from assistance provided through the employment premium, there is close co-operation with us in Great Britain in steering industry to Northern Ireland, which is given no less priority than we attach to our own development areas. Likewise, Government contracts are awarded to firms in Northern Ireland on the same preferential basis as to firms in our own development areas. Government measures designed to alleviate problems of unemployment throughout the United Kingdom take particular account of Northern Ireland's problems, and there is very close co-ordination on regional planning policy in Britain with that being pursued in Northern Ireland.

As a result, despite the short-term current difficulties, which are certainly real, considerable progress is being made to put the economy of Northern Ireland on a more satisfactory long-term basis. This is coming by the growing diversification of its industrial base, which has diminished emphasis on the traditional industries of agriculture, linen and shipbuilding, and the growth of new industries with good prospects for development such as motor components, electronics, man-made fibres and the like have been encouraging developments.

The traditional activities will undoubtedly have a major part to play. Agriculture remains the largest single sector of the Province's economy. There is need for a policy of amalgamation, for nearly half the farm holdings in Northern Ireland are too small to be regarded as full-time undertakings. The Agriculture Act of this year provides a scheme for 50 per cent. grants towards such amalgamations, and, in addition, the 1967 Annual Review has, in my view, been of considerable benefit to Northern Ireland agriculture in the increases in guaranteed prices for fat cattle and sheep and for milk and in a wide range of subsidies.

I mentioned the traditional industries of Northern Ireland. Shipbuilding is important to Belfast and the province as a whole. Not only does it employ a large labour force, but the availability of the work at the yards has repercussions on other industries. The industry there consists almost entirely of a single firm, Harland and Wolff, which has undergone thorough internal organisation. It has received a large loan from the Northern Ireland Government, conditional on reorganisation, and now looks forward for several years ahead to a steady programme of work. The recent Order for two super-tankers, the largest ever built in this country, was most encouraging.

The House will also have been glad to hear that the Ship Building Industry Board, which we set up to aid the development of the industry, has agreed to back the construction of a very large building dock at a cost of £8 to £10 million, of extended yard capacity to build tankers of 300,000 tons and more. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology has performed a very real service for Northern Ireland by the work he has been able to do there.

We are grateful, but I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the leader in the Business News section of The Times today, which points out that building tankers does not represent work for all the faculties in the yard. We need more work through British shipowners building container vessels and other such vessels in British yards.

I remember that when I was Minister of Aviation the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) always asked for more. It is worth-while to point out what has been done by the British Government, which is very considerable.

There is also the other great Belfast firm, Short Brothers and Harland, which the hon. Gentleman talks about a good deal and knows well. The House knows, from the statements made before the Recess by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, that the firm is going through a very difficult phase, and requires considerable financial assistance from the Government. Shorts are implementing the recommendations of the detailed report on its aircraft division by a firm of management consultants and when this is complete, together with financial reconstruction, the aircraft division and the company as a whole, will we all hope, start into the future on a viable commercial footing. It is going ahead with the production of wings for the F28 and F228 and has entered into a contract with Rolls-Royce to design and produce pods for the RB 203 engine, and the British Government has made it possible for the Skyvan to continue in production.

I said earlier that a sustained attack on the economic difficulties of the region can make it much easier to solve the special social and political problems of Northern Ireland. People employed in a vigorous modern economy with a technological base which demands high management and other skills are less likely to be obsessed by old quarrels. There have been many criticisms of the administration of Northern Ireland. The general feeling of concern which underlies many, although not all, of those criticisms is something which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I share but we cannot simply put aside the constitution of Northern Ireland or ignore the historical facts which underlie the present position and present policy.

The Prime Minister told the House last April that he did not think that a Royal Commission to inquire into the administration of Northern Ireland was the answer. Under the Northern Ireland constitution, certain powers and responsibilties are vested in the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland. Successive Governments here have refused to take steps which would inevitably cut away not only the authority of the Northern Ireland Government but also the constitution of the province. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend and I have not concealed from the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, with whom we have had continuing discussions, the concern felt here. I must add that we have not concealed on occasion our admiration for the courageous stand Captain O'Neill has taken on certain issues and at certain times.

The process of bringing about some rapprochement between Northern Ireland and the Republic is bound to be accompanied by mistrust and suspicion in the minds of many people on both sides. But a start has been made, and no one should underrate this easing of relations as a contribution to the essential problem of easing community relations in Northern Ireland itself. I believe that nearly everybody in the House—certainly everybody on this side, but also many hon. Members opposite—wants to see rapid progress in that direction. After all, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. That is its raison d'être as an entity. It exists because of its desire to be part of the United Kingdom, but that unity can have little meaning unless we work towards common economic and social standards and common standards in political tolerance and non-discrimination on both sides of the Irish Sea.

There is room for argument—and we have heard a good deal this morning—about the pace which is practicable or desirable. But we must at least be satisfied about the direction. Provided we can be so satisfied, there is a great deal to be said for not trying to settle the affairs of Northern Ireland too directly from London.

Before this Government was formed, I spent a good deal of my time studying and trying to write about 19th-century and early 20th-century history. No one can undertake detailed studies of that period of British history, as many other hon. Members have, without being left with the conviction that despite the many attributes of the English a peculiar talent for solving the problems of Ireland is not among them. I believe that I might carry my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) with me in that statement. I think that it may be true of the North as well as the South.

Few issues in the past have shown a greater capacity to divert and dissipate the reforming energy of left-wing British Governments than deep embroilment in Irish affairs. But all that is subordinate to the desire—indeed, determination—that most of us have to see the making of real economic, social and political progress. There are at present reasonable grounds for hope, and I trust that they will not be disappointed.

. Does my right hon. Friend agree that discrimination on religious grounds is as abhorrent as that on racial grounds, which my right hon. Friend is in the forefront in condemning? Will he consider including it in forthcoming legislation?

It would raise not the issue of whether religious discrimination is as abhorrent as racial discrimination, on which I agree with the proposition put forward by my hon. Friend, but the question whether one was to apply to Northern Ireland legislation that would normally be domestic to Great Britain. While different views can be held against this, it would be to put a quite different interpretation on the constitution of 1920 than hitherto.

In the few remaining minutes, I welcome the Home Secretary to his first debate on Northern Ireland and would like to say, as one who admired his book on Dilke, how much we enjoyed the delicacy of his words on the influence of Englishmen and those of the Parnellite group who encouraged Englishmen to take an interest in affairs in Ireland as a whole.

The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) suggested that the movement towards better relations in Northern Ireland was phoney. I wish to refer to the speech made by Mr. Robert Thompson, President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, last 23rd May, who paid tribute to Captain O'Neill for his stand against the forces of reaction, and to a speech by Mr. Herbert Moffatt, a respected trade unionist, at the annual conference of the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers, who said:

"There is a spirit of co-operation abroad today among ordinary folk in Northern Ireland. It is unfortunate, and I hate to say it, that when some Labour M.P.s come to visit us, rather than cement the friendly relations between our people we find the opposite to be the case."

I would also refer to remarks made by the Reverend J. McGarvey, parish priest of St. Mary's, Limavady, who said to Captain O'Neill on his visit to St. Mary's school there:

"Your visit is evidence of your genuine desire to sponsor good relations throughout the country."

There are many other quotations that I could give.[Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member's remarks from a seated position—

I am very grateful for the opportunity of calling attention to an anomaly which has arisen in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson).

Four of my constituents have recently discovered that included in the gross annual value of their house is a figure for garden sheds which they do not possess and have never possessed. They did not discover this during the appeal period in the year of revaluation, 1966. This is understandable. They received a pink form which gives them the gross annual value and rateable value, but it does not include extras such as garages, central heating or garden sheds. Therefore, they had no reason to suspect that as they had never possessed a garden shed they would have one included in their gross annual value.

The anomaly was accidentally discovered during gossip with their neighbours when they found that they had a higher assessment than their neighbours for the same type of house. They went to the city assessor, who informed them that this was because they had a garden shed. They pointed out that they did not have a garden shed.

The assessor told me that nothing could be done about this. I also approached the town clerk, and he in turn said that nothing could be done about it. The assessor advised these people of their right to appeal in other than a revaluation year to the Valuation Appeal Committee. A letter that he sent to one of them said:

"With reference to recent correspondence on this matter I have decided, after consideration, that I am prevented by law from offering any reduction in assessment for the nonexistence of a garden shed at this address. The entry in the valuation roll as originally notified to you must, therefore, stand."

He goes on to say that they have a right of appeal, and ends:

"I am bound to state, however, that by virtue of the provisions of Section 9(2) of the 1956 Act your appeal, in my opinion, would be considered as incompetent."

It seems to me a strange thing that one party to the appeal should be allowed, as a so-called expert, to intimidate the other party into not appealing by saying that on the basis of his expert knowledge it would be ruled as incompetent. It is wrong that he should send such a letter.

In spite of the letter I advised my constituents to appeal. They agreed to do so provided that I would represent them before the Appeal Committee. I thought that this was reasonable because the letter which they received from the assessor said in relation to Valuation Appeal Committees:

"At the hearing you may appear in person or be represented by counsel or solicitor or, with the leave of the Committee, by any other person."

As these people have no great knowledge of procedure of this kind—many of them are even frightened of it—they agreed to appeal only on condition that I would represent them.

So I went to the Valuation Appeal Committee. I was astonished to find that the Chairman of the Committee stated that if the appeal related to a question of law or fact, only a solicitor could act for these people. This would appear to suggest that if I were merely expressing an opinion the Committee would listen to me but if that I were expressing a fact it would not listen to me. This seems to me to be a very strange state of affairs.

I was further surprised to find that in the excerpt from the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, that was sent to these people it was stated:

"Provided that notwithstanding the provisions of sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (b) of this subsection the assessor shall, in making up a roll for any year other than a year of revaluation, give effect to … any alteration in the value of any land and heritages which is due to a material change of circumstances."

It seems to me that on the basis of that provision in Section 9 there is a case for altering this. It seemed very strange—

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking that there should be new legislation to do this? If he is, he is out of order on the Adjournment.

No, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am leading up to Ministerial responsibility in this matter. It is necessary to give the background to enable hon. Members to understand what this is about. I am merely giving the background before I come to the point of Ministerial responsibility. I hope that you will bear with me and allow me to do this. I can assure you that it is necessary to do this so that even the Minister of State can understand what this is about.

I should like to have the opinion of the Minister of State when he replies on whether or not a Committee should refuse to hear someone. It must be obvious that no sane person is ever going to appeal in a case of this kind where the solicitor's fees will undoubtedly be greater than any possible saving that he could achieve in the four years between revaluations. People would be off their heads if they engaged solicitors in cases like this where they would be bound to lose more than they could possibly save. I should like to have the opinion of the Minister of State on this state of affairs.

Section 9 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, suggests that if a shed is removed the valuation can be decreased. On the other hand, if there is no shed there in the first place, the authorities cannot remove it, and if they cannot remove it there is no material change of circumstances and, therefore, the gross annual value cannot be reduced.

Having been refused permission to put the case before the Valuation Appeal Committee and the appeal having been thrown out, it struck me that this was a tailor-made case for the Parliamentary Commissioner. I can think of no more appropriate case for him to deal with than this. Therefore, I wrote to the Parliamentary Commissioner and asked him to investigate the case and do anything he could in the matter. I received a reply which said that it was outside his jurisdiction because it dealt with a local authority matter. It would seem to me that it should be brought within his jurisdiction.

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but once again he is approaching the need for new legislation, and he cannot do that and remain in order on the Adjournment.

I realise that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is why I merely said it and left it.

Next, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland and put all the facts to him. I received a reply from my noble Friend Lord Hughes, the Joint Under-Secretary of State, on 7th September. My noble Friend wrote:

"Thank you for your letter … to the Secretary of State about two of your constituents who have been assessed for rating of garden sheds which they do not have."

He then pointed out that in his opinion the assessor was right in saying that he could not change it, etc., and continued:

"The system unfortunately does not make allowance for the automatic correction of an anomaly of the kind which appears to have arisen, quite accidentally, in Dundee. That position is governed by the terms of the 1956 Act itself, there is no action open to the Secretary of State to take on any individual case or group of cases."

I draw particular attention to that phrase because of what happened afterwards:

"… There is no action open to the Secretary of State to take an any individual case or group of cases."

Order. The more powerful the hon. Gentleman's arguments, the more I am convinced that he is really asking for new legislation. He cannot do so and I cannot allow him to go on indefinitely.

I am trying to point out that while the Secretary of State says in this letter one thing, in another he says something different. How I am to lead up to the second letter without referring to the first, I do not know. The second letter would be Greek to the House if I could not refer to the first.

If the hon. Gentleman is merely presenting a case that different views have been presented at different times by the Secretary of State, then he is in order.

I read that phrase from the first letter twice so that it would be firmly understood, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It so happens that I have a number of old Acts of Parliament lying about my House. One of my sons was reading through these one day and discovered an Act referring to this very problem—the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1963, Section 20 of which says:

"Where it is shown to the satisfaction of a rating authority that any amount has been paid to them in respect of rates by reason of an error of fact, and the amount is not recoverable apart from this section, the authority shall repay the amount to the person from whom they received it or to any other person appearing to them to be entitled to that person's interests:

Provided that no repayment under this subsection shall be made after the end of the sixth year after that in respect of which the amount was paid, unless application therefore was before that time."

That, I submit, completely contradicts the letter which Lord Hughes sent stating that the Secretary of State had no power to do anything about this matter.

I drew Section 20 of the 1963 Act to Lord Hughes' attention and subsequently he agreed that it covered the very point I had made. It seems strange to me—and this is where the Ministerial criticism comes in—that the Secretary of State should convey to me in one letter that no action was open to him and in a subsequent letter that the point was now covered. It seems strange that no one in St. Andrew's House seemed to know about Section 20 of the 1963 Act. It is a strange omission.

On 11th October, I received a second letter from Lord Hughes in which he said:

"I enclose a copy of the letter which I have cent today to Lord Provost Mackenzie about the assessment of non-existent garden sheds. As you will see I have stated that if the Town Council decided there has been an error of fact they have an obligation to make refunds."

I have seen the letter which Lord Hughes sent to the Lord Provost. As he said in his letter to me, it points out to the local authority that, under Section 20 of the 1963 Act, it has a duty to repay this money if there is an error of fact. The error of fact, although the Valuation Appeal Committee did not hear me, was admitted to the Committee by the Assessor.

I have approached the Lord Provost about the matter and have asked him to carry through these repayments and he has sent me the following letter:

"I thank you for your letter of 14th October.

In view of the information, which has now come to hand, about the terms of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1963, it is my intention to discuss the matter of rating of non-existent garden sheds in the City, with the Treasurer at an early date.

After I have had all opportunity of doing this, I have no doubt an item will be included on the agenda of the appropriate Committee, so that the matter may be given attention.

When a decision has been obtained, I shall write you again."

Powers are given to the Secretary of State under the 1956 Act to make orders. I ask my right hon. Friend to take whatever action is possible within his jurisdiction to rectify the flaws highlighted by these cases. The City Assessor of Dundee has agreed that these cases are probably duplicated in every constituency in the country. This is a serious matter that requires looking into by the Secretary of State and I urge him to take whatever steps are within his power to rectify the position.

I suspect that the indignation caused to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) by this case is the reason why he has been a little ungenerous to my noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who was an excellent Lord Provost of Dundee and is extremely interested in this matter and concerned about it.

I am sorry if I misled the House on this. I am in fact grateful to my noble Friend for the speedy way in which he dealt with this matter after I drew his attention to the 1963 Act.

It seems that now there is a slight change in emphasis. But my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, by implication, my noble Friend and myself were being criticised for the way in which this matter was handled and for the apparent contradiction between the letter sent by Lord Hughes on 7th September and that sent on 11th October. But perhaps I misunderstood my hon. Friend. I thought, however, that he had suggested that Ministers had changed their minds and this was not so.

It was perhaps almost galling to me to hear my hon. Friend complain of the operation of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, because many of the criticisms that he made were in fact uttered by us in Opposition when the Act was going through 12 years ago. We are precluded by the Act from taking specific action in individual cases or groups of cases like this.

My hon. Friend referred to the 1963 Act, pointing out that the local authority has some discretion in this matter, and that is true. No doubt his speech will be read with interest. The Finance Committee of Dundee Corporation is to decide whether or not to exercise its discretion in this connection. It can decide whether or not there has been an error which should be rectified by the rating authority, Dundee Corporation.

I do not know how many non-existent garden sheds there are in Scotland that are being rated by assessors. We are very concerned about the way in which the valuation system is working. We have seen a number of anomalies and defects arising from the 1966 re-valuation. My hon. Friend takes great interest in rating problems and, as a former Treasurer of Dundee, knows that we are engaged on a review of valuation procedures. But this would involve legislation and therefore I shall not touch on that aspect now.

We are taking into account a number of points, and the 20 cases of non-existent garden sheds that we know of have been drawn to the assessor's attention, even though the garden hut element in the valuation is as small in some eases as only £1. Still, it is a matter of principle and that is always more important to a Scotsman than £1.

The matter was raised by my hon. Friend and his right hon. friend and neighbour, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, and we have been able to go into the matter very thoroughly. I will recite the fact that the assessor was founding on Section 9 (1, b) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, and that, when the city assessor referred to Section 9 (2, a) of the 1956 Act, namely, that appeals are not competent in inter-revaluation years unless there has been a material change since revaluation, he was reciting the law as it stands.

I will not go into the reasons why the Dundee Revaluation Committee rejected the appeals of the three constituents. That is a matter for them. The operation of these appeals committees cannot be subject to a direction by the Secretary of State. The whole system yes, but not the specific operations of the system at the moment of their coming into being and being a real issue. That would be undesirable. It is something that in statute is firm and can only be changed by a new statute.

The reason, in defence of the present statutory provisions is not without some understanding. In a revaluation year ratepayers have a minimum of about two months between the last date of the issue of valuation notices by the assessor and the last date for lodging appeals in which to check the valuations, which cover pertinents such as garden huts. They can check to see that they are correct in relation to similar properties and, if they have any doubts, they can either approach the assessor informally or lodge a formal appeal. The argument is that if inquiries and complaints were allowed to spill over that 2½ months into subsequent years, it might open the door to other anomalies and difficulties, and comparisons would become less and less reliable as time goes on.

I do not want to be tempted into a defence of the statute or an argument for changing the statute, because I would be out of order. I merely recite the fact that the city assessor, as he sees it, is within his rights in this action as statute presently lays down. We are, however, reviewing this, but in this specific instance the question of any adjustment before the review of the Secretary of State can be translated into reality lies at the hands of the Dundee Corporation. The review will cover various procedural matters, such as the valuation timetable and information given to ratepayers in valuation notices and arrangements for hearing appeals.

Therefore, some of the points raised this morning will be covered by that, but it might be useful if we had a debate, when the review has finished, so that the Secretary of State can have the benefit of comments from his hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite on the usefulness of the review. It may be that they can suggest other possibilities of reform of the present system, which, alas, will be with us at least for another five years, I would think, and therefore we should get this system working as well as it possibly can. Other topics may be included in the review, depending on the terms of the assessor's reports for this important year of 1966–67 which should be in the Department in the course of November. The review should be concluded by the spring of next year, so I hope that my hon. Friend will remember that it might be useful for us to have such a debate and he may be able to help in arranging it.

I welcome the chance of commenting on this. I am glad that my hon. Friend is discharging any claim that we have been unreasonable in this matter or have not taken action as quickly as we can. We are the prisoners of statute, just like everybody else, and we can only take action where we can.

I cannot comment on what the Finance Committee may do tomorrow. It remains to be seen how it will discharge the matter of discretion. The matter of rents again is completely at the hands of Dundee Corporation, who are responsible to the Secretary of State for the tariff of rents. I know that in Dundee the position on rents is related to the gross annual value and hence the rating on these nonexistent garden sheds in turn reflects itself in the rent, but that is a matter which is within the discretion of the Dundee Corporation. It has always been a well-governed city and I am sure that the persons on behalf of whom my hon. Friend has been speaking will get proper and due consideration at the meeting of the Corporation tomorrow and in subsequent weeks.

The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the Sitting until half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.