I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on drought. As I told the House in answer to the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) on Monday 3rd May, there was then already a danger that parts of the country would be facing water shortages this year. Their severity would vary very much from area to area, but on the basis of something like average rainfall, the water authorities hoped to avoid major interruptions over the summer.

Since that time, the special group of senior officials and representatives of the water industry which I established at the end of April has met regularly and I have been kept informed on a weekly basis. During the last week it has become clear that a combination of the underlying water shortage with the abnormally hot and dry summer we have experienced in the southern half of the country this year now faces us with potentially severe problems of water supply in a number of areas—primarily in parts of East Anglia, the East Midlands, the South and West, and South Wales. A great deal will, of course, depend on the weather over the next couple of months and, crucially, on the way in which the public respond to the water authorities' requests to save water, but it would be irresponsible not to recognise that over the late summer and autumn we may in some places have to tackle a series of localised water emergencies.

We have discussed with the water authorities the range of powers available for dealing with this, and have concluded as a result that they are inadequate for what is a quite unprecedented situation. In particular, they have two major defects; they do not allow for progressive limitations on non-essential uses of water in a developing shortage, and they do not enable the water undertakers to impose in an emergency a flexible and equitable water rationing system.

We have accordingly decided to bring forward urgently a short Bill designed to confer on statutory water undertakers new powers of control over use of water in times of shortage. Essentially we shall be building on the powers for drought Orders already contained in the Water Act 1958. The exercise of the new powers will as at present be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales, and they will be applied for limited periods in specific areas where the water supply situation warrants it.

I do not want to exaggerate the problems. Over much of the country, water supplies should be adequate to see us through without difficulty until the winter rains come. But groundwater levels and river flows have fallen abnormally low, and it is factors like these which make the future uncertain. The unprecedented weather conditions, which we share with large parts of Northern Europe, continue. In the light of this, it is right that we should arm ourselves well in time against possible difficulties later in the year. I hope, too, that everyone will recognise that this places a heavy responsibility on all of us to make sensible and economic use of our water resources.

The unfortunate necessity for a measure of this character is widely recognised, and I think that in that context the right hon. Gentleman's phrase "until the winter rains come" is not a phrase with which we are very familiar in terms of our own climatic conditions.

Certainly there will be a welcome for the Government proposals in many parts of the country. The availability of water supplies has clearly significantly deteriorated in recent months, particularly since the right hon. Gentleman's statement on 3rd May, when he said:

"the immediate position is under control."—[Official Report, 3rd May 1976; Vol. 910, c. 837.]

Certainly it has become measurably worse since then.

The announcement on 23rd June to the effect that there were 26 drought Orders in 17 counties was an indication then of the serious situation. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell us to what extent drought Orders have been widened since then. There was no mention particularly of food production and national interest in the context of water supply, and I think the House would like an assurance in that respect. I refer to farming, horticulture and, particularly, livestock.

What proposals has the right hon. Gentleman to promote the saving of water consumption, particularly by heavy users in industry? I have in mind the immense quantities used for cooling in the electricity generating industry.

The regional water authorities, of course, are capital intensive, and the high level of water charges is of widespread and increasing concern. Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the position with regard to capital borrowings for the industry? This matter was referred to in his review of the water industry in England and Wales, but with fixed interest rates at their present levels over a 60-year period—this is, I know, in his mind—it has been suggested to me that significant savings could be made if regional water authorities were able to borrow within a more flexible framework and not entirely from the National Loans Fund.

I am happy to assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Opposition wish to co-operate in the proposed legislation, in comparison with other legislation that we have before the House, but I hope he will be able to allow a reasonable period in which we may look at the terms of the Bill. Can he give us any idea when it is likely to be available? I am sure that if there is adequate time for reasonable consideration, a favourable wind will be given to his proposals.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the terms in which he spoke. I know that he appreciates, as I do, that while there must be an opportunity for proper scrutiny of the Bill, we are dealing with a matter that is of great importance, and I am grateful for his undertaking of co-operation in the general principles concerned.

Dealing with his individual points, with regard to agriculture and industry, we are very concerned about agriculture. We are giving this full weight, and the regional water authorities themselves have the matter very much in hand. As for industry, what we are trying to do by the measures that we are proposing to take is to ensure that it will be able to go ahead with as little interruption as possible. That is why the sort of powers that we are seeking are for dealing with the more non-essential uses of water.

I have found during the past few weeks a tremendous amount of co-operation and ingenuity on the part of the regional water authorities. They have been well aware of the situation in their areas. I have, however, recommended to them that there should be local advisory service committees, which will be able to deal with questions that will inevitably arise area by area and locality by locality.

As for the long-term situation and the hon. Gentleman's reference to the borrowing powers of regional water authorities as this is rather of longer term, it will be considered in the later consultations.

Does my right hon Friend realise that although, in the Mid lands in particular, we welcome these urgent steps to meet the immediate problem, we are very much concerned about the longer-term problem? It is not only a question of borrowing. For over 20 years many of us concerned with the Midlands have suggested the establishment of water grids to bring water to the dry counties from the wet regions, and the storage, for use inland, of water from the four rivers that pour into the Wash. Successive Governments have brushed that proposal aside. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to treat the longer-term problem seriously?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We really have to consider the long-term problem, and we may have to give it more consideration than we have done in the past. Nobody can be a weather prophet, but it may be that there is a small climatic change in our country. One simply does not know.

In reply to my right hon. Friend's question, this is one of the factors with which a stronger national water authority than perhaps exists at the moment might very well have to deal.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that we on the Liberal Bench welcome the move that he has announced, and pledge our support? However, it is fair to say that any action that has been taken has been cosmetic rather than fundamental. It seems to us that the right hon. Gentleman should have considered the fact that although the present water shortage may well be unprecedented, it was pretty similar last year, and the pipeline that was built to bring gas from the North Sea could easily have been accompanied by an adjacent pipeline to carry water.

May I put three points to the right hon. Gentleman? First, instead of pouring money into regional water authorities, which are overstaffed and in many cases inefficient—indeed, many private water companies are much more efficient than the regional water authorities—would he consider a grant to farming communities to enable them to build reservoirs for this sort of emergency?

Second, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, electorally unpopular though it may be to say so, the domestic sector is much better able to do without water than is industry or agriculture?

Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman consider, in particular, some of the abuses of water? I remind him, for example, of what happens at racecourses such as Ascot and Newbury, which use millions of gallons of water. Such vast use in land husbandry would produce an entirely different result. Is it not essential, overall, to preserve local discrimination regarding what to do with the water that we have?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said. As to the distinction that he draws between private water companies and regional water authorities, I can only say that Nature does not make that distinction. Nature is dry or rainy, according to how it feels.

In responding to the hon. Gentleman's last point, about racecourses, I suppose that I should declare an interest, in that I am president of a golf club. I accept that activities such as the sprinkling of greens in areas of water shortage are not only wrong in themselves but are a positive disincentive to ordinary law-abiding citizens to save water. That leads me on to the point that, as I am sure we all accept, we must give preference to agricultural production and to our industrial programme. There can be no doubt about that.

In his opening observation, the hon. Gentleman commented on the powers. We are dealing here with a drought of greater dimensions and greater severity than any records have shown over the past 250 years—not all over the country, but certainly in the southern part of England. It is not that there are no powers. Powers were given under the 1958 Act, and in 1973 the Conservative Government, when introducing the Water Bill, did not think that there would be any need to intensify those powers—rightly, in my view. They were more than adequate for what was shown by any records we had over the past 250 years.

It is the change that has occurred in this year, which may or may not continue, that has caused us to believe—this is on the advice and request of the water authorities themselves—that we ought to tackle the matter in a rather stronger way.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take it that people outside the House will greatly welcome the fact that the Government are now taking the drought very seriously? As the matter is urgent, perhaps he will explain why the Bill is not ready today. Second, may we have an assurance that counties such as Northamptonshire and the others affected will not be left to fend for themselves, and that directives will go out to those with adequate water supplies, such as the London area, to supply water where at all possible to the counties suffering shortage? Finally, is it not about time that we considered a national "Save it" campaign for water?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he put the matter. As I said in my statement, he raised the question on 3rd May, and we had already set up the joint working committee at that time. I remember that he welcomed the setting up of that committee, and he was right to do so, because it has given us an early-warning system. After all, what we are talking about now is an extreme situation, which may or may not arise—but in prudence we want to guard against it—in, say, early September.

I know about the hon. Gentleman's own area. Indeed, with his permission, I hope to visit it on Monday to see for myself. I understand his concern for that area—a concern which, quite rightly, is felt by every hon. Member for his own area. But the difficulty in which the hon. Gentleman puts me is this: any system by means of which one achieves large-scale movement of water from areas of plenty to areas which might suffer drought are extremely expensive and in any case long-term. One cannot solve the immediate problem by those long-term measures, but I agree that that ought not only to be kept in mind but moved forward. I assure the hon. Gentleman that everything possible will be done to help his own area and all other drought-affected areas.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present situation has highlighted the need for a national water grid system, instead of the piecemeal movement of water from one area to another, so that we have a system similar to that used for electricity and gas supplies? Will my right hon. Friend take it also that people in my constituency have for long been thoroughly tired of having to pay inflated charges for water while at the same time supplying so much water to other areas? Is it not time for an immediate concerted effort to install a national water grid, with a national charging system?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. The trouble is that that would not get us out of the immediate difficulties. I know that my hon. Friend has studied the consultative document with care, and I believe that all these questions will naturally emerge as we continue the consultation process on which we have already started.

As my large farming constituency is one of the worst affected, I reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) with regard to food production. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases the normal sources of water for spray irrigation no longer exist, and that from day to day onwards, now, crops will fail unless there is rain or spray irrigation? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this as a separate and special matter of urgency, quite apart from the Bill, the introduction of which we welcome?

I know about the area that the right hon. and learned Gentleman represents, and, of course, he is quite right. I wish to reinforce the absolute necessity of safeguarding agriculture in every way we possibly can. The point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes about spray irrigation is well in hand, not only in the water authorities but in the joint group that I set up in April.

I commend my right hon. Friend on the setting up of the monitoring group to which he referred as long ago as last April, but will he answer two questions? First, what consideration has been given to the terminal report of the Water Resources Board, which went into the matter raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick), that is, what is popularly called a water grid? Has this been considered by the Central Water Planning Unit or the National Water Council? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that consultations have taken place, and, if so, tell us when the outcome will be available?

Second, will my right hon. Friend ask the National Water Council to investigate, perhaps with the National Farmers' Union, the possibilities of maximising water percolation next autumn and winter, so that we may have maximum recharging of groundwater resources, perhaps on a small scale on each land holding? This might avoid the possibility of shortage next year if we get only a moderate rainfall this winter.

I confess that I am not technician enough to be able to answer my hon. Friend's second question, but I shall pass it on to the National Water Council and ensure that the council is aware of it. In response to my hon. Friend's first point, I can tell him that the council has looked at the report and has submitted a number of recommendations upon it to the Government. We are at present studying that matter in detail.

Would it not have been more impressive if the Minister had acknowledged that, sooner or later, supplies of water must be metered, as are electricity and gas supplies, and if he had brought with him a programme—spread over 10 or 20 years if need be, because of limited resources—starting with the largest users, to implement such a plan, since only thus can we achieve fair and reasonable control over the water supplies which are needed year by year in greater quantities?

With respect, I cannot see how that would have helped in the immediate situation, whether it be right or wrong, and my task today was not to be impressive but to see that we do not run into an unnecessary water crisis.

When will the legislation be ready, and will it apply to Scotland, since there are shortages also in Scotland in certain areas? Meanwhile, what short-term measures are there for encouraging water authorities throughout the United Kingdom to co-operate, since there are some still with water surpluses while others suffer shortage?

It is always difficult to make people understand why there should be water shortages in some parts of an island that has surpluses of water in other parts. We have tried to ensure that the water authorities come together and work together—and they have. If the present possible crisis has taught them anything, it has taught them to come together to share their problems.

The situation in Scotland is different from that in England. In Scotland the matter is under control, but in the South of England we are dealing with something that has not happened for 250 years—in living memory. The question of what papers are necessary for Scotland is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

I fully support the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), but I have two questions to ask. First, will the Minister consider advising the regional water authorities to alter the present charging system to industry, because it does not encourage them to conserve water supplies? Secondly—and I have written to the Minister about this on several occasions—will he encourage water authorities to put less money into personnel and more into capital projects to utilise and conserve the vast quantities of water that are pouring into the sea. That matter was referred to by the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas).

I was referring to your own mortality, Mr. Speaker when I inferred earlier that living memory was 250 years. Let us say that the present water situation is one that has not been recorded for 250 years.

The hon. Gentleman's suggestions are for the long term, not for the immediate possible crisis. But he must not think that any point made will be ignored, whatever the answer is. The present water authorities have been in existence for two years and we already have the consultation programme that we promised after two years.

Is the Minister aware that the lack of rainwater coming down the Thames Valley causes a particular pollution problem? Will he appeal to all users of the River Thames, particularly those using pleasure boats who are throwing an unprecedented number of beer cans into the river, to exercise special restraint?

My first task must be to give those powers to the water authorities that they will require if the crisis arises. How they deal with their own area must be a matter for them individually. If I made an appeal it would be that people should listen to what their regional water authorities tell them in each locality and follow their instructions.

Is the Minister aware that in the areas covered by the South Staffordshire Water Board there is at present no problem because of good planning over the years and the geographical position of the area? Will he give urgent attention to the possibility of such boards giving assistance to hard-pressed areas? Is he aware that his assurances on giving farming priority will be welcomed in my constituency, as will his assurances about industry, particularly if it includes the production of beer, which will also receive widespread national approval? Will he also tackle the problem of the time it takes to apply for and be granted drought Orders?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His last question will undoubtedly come up at the Committee stage of the proposed Bill. Let us look at that then. Some form of immediacy is necessary.

The drought has clearly taken the Meteorological Office by surprise. Are there any plans to increase the resources and capacity of the office, or to increase the resources that we make available to the international meteorological organisation?

That is not my responsibility. The Meteorological Office generally is doing a very good job. It has been working very well with us and the water authorities, and I am very satisfied with its performance.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement will be welcomed generally? I brought the matter to his attention during Question Time some weeks ago, and he informed me that the matter was local rather than national. Is he aware of the irresponsible attitude by the public in the indiscriminate use of water? For example, a golf course in Sussex was recently excessively watered. Can something be done by massive advertising to convince the public? Will he make it obligatory to place a large brick in the cistern of each lavatory? That would make a tremendous difference if it were repeated millions of times.

These are matters to be left to the regional authorities. There is a massive controversy throughout the country—a greater controversy than that which exists in the House—about whether one should put a brick in the cistern. As I understand it, the germ of the tremendous controversy is that the size of cisterns differ and one might have to flush twice in certain areas. There is no national crisis, but we face the possibility that, with the present type of weather that we have been having, there will be very bad local conditions. We therefore want to give powers to the water authorities.

Is the Minister aware that in some areas householders with cesspits are alarmed about flushing at all? Will he examine the possibility of adding a clause to his Bill providing for the water authorities to apportion treatment costs equally between all households, because the high costs are of critical importance to 900,000 householders? That idea has already won the approval of certain of his colleagues.

I understand the hon. Gentleman, but he must consider the problem from my point of view. We are dealing with a possible series of emergencies, and it is right that we should act to deal with them as swiftly and as efficiently as possible. I do not want to complicate it, even though there are a number of good points I was grateful for the assurance by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) that the Opposition will be with us on the general principles of the Bill. It is important to get it through as quickly as possible.

I beg to move,

That the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th May, be approved.

As the House will recall, the arrangements for direct rule under the Northern Ireland Act 1974 are renewable for a maximum of one year at a time. I have said on a number of occasions that at present there is no alternative to continuing direct rule. I am therefore seeking the approval of the House today to an Order extending the statutory basis for direct rule for another year from 16th July.

However, the Government's long-term aim is to see a devolved system of government established in Northern Ireland which will enjoy widespread support across the community. The Government regretted that the Constitutional Convention was unable to produce a constitutional solution which commanded sufficiently widespread public acceptance. The Convention failed in its immediate purpose. We have to face this fact. The Convention was nevertheless very useful. It showed just how hard it is to solve the constitutional problems of Northern Ireland—it is just as difficult for Ulstermen as for anyone else. Furthermore, the Convention enabled people to meet who would not otherwise have had the opportunity to do so.

I do not wish to say much today about the talks that are currently taking place between the official Unionist Party and the Social Democratic and Labour Party. I am not involved in the talks, and it would not be helpful if I were to rush in with comment at this stage. I am always ready to entertain constructive and responsible ideas from those in Northern Ireland. I have always believed that a solution to the problems of Northern Ireland will have to be worked out in Northern Ireland itself.

I would make two other points. The first is one I made to the Chairman of the Constitutional Convention in a letter I sent him last January, when I said that:

"Experience in recent years has made it plain that no system of government within Northern Ireland will be stable or effective unless both parts of the community acquiesce in that system and are willing to work to support it".

That remains as true as ever it was and means that no proposals for the future government of Northern Ireland could be put into effect without the right degree of public support.

But—and this is my third point—the problem is to get the timing right. I have no faith in instant solutions in Northern Ireland or in speed for the sake of speed. We have had—I use words that I have used recently—too many false dawns before. I hope, therefore, that any temptation which people may feel to rush to this or that deadline will be resisted. I am satisfied that there are no early deadlines which need prejudice the orderly progress of discussions.

It has been suggested that it would be technically possible to recall the Convention within the next couple of months. My view is that this would not be the right way to proceed. The Convention has met and completed its task. I do not see that we could turn the clock back.

The important thing is to make sure that the preparation of the ground is thorough and the spadework sure. Given this, I am sure that we can provide satisfactory ways of carrying forward an agreement that can command sufficiently widespread public support. Any agreement must, of course, be acceptable to this House, but my letter of 14th January to the Chairman—which was published a White Paper—set out many of the points to which the Government would attach importance. In particular, there can be no question of the Army being placed under the control of a devolved Administration.

For the present, however, direct rule will continue and the Government have been considering whether any changes should be made in the procedures. I have discussed this with a number of hon. Members, and there was a most useful debate on 10th June which touched on these matters, and in which a number of ideas were put forward, including suggestions by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The Government have taken these and other views into account in reaching our conclusions.

First, if the House agrees, the Government thought it would be right to remove the limitation in Standing Orders on the number of meetings of the Northern Ireland Committee which may be held in a Session, thus providing greater opportunity for debate on Northern Ireland matters.

I turn now to legislation. During the first period of direct rule, and again since July 1974, legislation dealing with matters which were devolved to the Northern Ireland Parliament and Assembly has been made by Order in Council. This must continue to be the main way of legislating for Northern Ireland. But I think that we can improve the opportunities for scrutiny and debating these Orders, of which there can be 20 or 30 in a Session, covering a very wide range of subjects.

Thus, for example, I shall be introducing this autumn Orders amending the Northern Ireland laws on compensation for injury to persons and damage to property. Compensation arrangements are steeped in the special features of Irish law and history. Incidentally, I have had inquiries on this and I have heard comment from time to time that they ought to be speeded up a bit to get it done. I repeat that they are steeped in the special features of Irish law and history. The changes must be based on this special legal background. It needs. Northern Ireland legislation, and I shall proceed by Order.

Northern Ireland Orders generally are published as proposals before they are formally laid in Parliament, thus allowing time for consultations to take place with interested parties in Northern Ireland, and Members are equally free to comment at that stage. I intend to ensure that, as a matter of routine, copies of these proposals are sent to each of the major political parties in Northern Ireland. Given the increased time available in the Northern Ireland Committee, it would be possible, if Members so wished, for some of the draft Orders to be discussed in that Committee as a preliminary stage before they were finalised and formally laid before Parliament.

The existing arrangements for the draft Orders once laid to be debated, either in Committee upstairs or on the Floor of the House, will of course continue. I hope that more advantage will be taken in future of the scope for holding longer debates in Committee than is normally possible on the Floor of the House. We shall, however, be willing to consider the possibility of an extended debate on the Floor of the House, such as that on the recent industrial relations Order, in a few cases where there seems to be special justification.

It has been suggested that we should more frequently apply Great Britain Bills to Northern Ireland. The Government are glad to accept this suggestion in principle. Where special adaptations are necessary for Northern Ireland in what would then be a United Kingdom Bill, we envisage that, where necessary, it would be a simple arrangement to provide for technical adaptation and amendments to previous Northern Ireland measures to be made by an Order subject to negative resolution.

These technical adaptations and amendments are important. They are not concerned with policy. They are the means by which we shall maintain the currently existing Northern Ireland statute book. This statute book is derived from the historic corpus of law relating to Ireland. It provided the law for devolved government. It is, therefore, important that we should maintain the Northern Ireland statute book for the devolved system of government in Northern Ireland that we hope to see in the future.

There are some areas of change in Northern Ireland which will require a full Bill in Parliament. The Fair Employment Bill provides an example of this. We shall continue to introduce legislation in this way when it concerns matters which have traditionally been dealt with by legislation in this House rather than by devolved legislation in Northern Ireland. I would hope, subject to the constraints of the parliamentary programme, to have a Northern Ireland Bill on the administration of justice in the next Session.

Overall, the Government will be looking closely at the need for legislation in fields which we have previously thought it appropriate to leave to a future devolved Government. In particular, we shall now consider whether to legislate to bring Northern Ireland law more closely into harmony with laws in other parts of the country. One example—it is only an example to illustrate the point—is the area of homosexuality and divorce. There are obvious difficulties about such subjects in Northern Ireland circumstances and it would be wrong to act precipitately. But I would welcome the views of people in Northern Ireland, including those of the Advisory Commission on Human Rights, on such subjects. In particular I would welcome the views of Northern Ireland Members.

There has been some comment by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments about Northern Ireland subordinate legislation. The Orders in Council made under the Northern Ireland Act 1974 are not, of course, strictly subordinate legislation They replace the Bills which would have been passed by a Northern Ireland Assembly and inevitably follow the shape of Bills. This is a point which I know the Committee understands. It gives rise, however, to a real difficulty for the Committee in carrying out its remit. There may be further points to be explored here and I shall be glad to discuss this with the Committee.

There has also been criticism by the Joint Committee of the absence of examination of Orders which were previously subject to negative resolution in a Northern Ireland Assembly. The Government will be glad to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Down, South that the Northern Ireland Committee should consider once a year the reports of the Northern Ireland Examiner of Statute Rules who looks at such orders.

Finally, among the procedural changes on which I would welcome the views of the House, it might be useful, if the chairmen and members thought it right, for existing Select Committees—for example, the Expenditure Sub-Committees and the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries—to include Northern Ireland services within the scope of their examinations, where appropriate. I welcome the scrutiny which the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster gives to the Northern Ireland Departments. The accounting officers of these Departments appear before the Public Accounts Committee on the same lines as those of Whitehall Departments. I am, moreover, arranging to lay before Parliament, and so bring within the purview of the PAC, the accounts of a number of Northern Ireland public bodies which by law have to be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly but which have not hitherto been laid at Westminster.

The question of Northern Ireland representation at Westminster continues to be raised. I accept that Northern Ireland is under-represented and that this becomes more apparent the longer that direct rule continues. I also have to accept that representation at Westminster from Northern Ireland has to be considered in the context of Northern Ireland itself with its divided community, and, indeed, its history. That is why I wrote in the terms that I did to the Chairman of the Constitutional Convention on 14th January when I said:—

"The Government does not feel able to recommend re-examination of the question of the number of Northern Ireland constituencies returning members to the United Kingdom Parliament in advance of an agreement on a system of government commanding the most widespread acceptance."

I have also to take into account the current talks between the official Unionist Party and the Social Democratic and Labour Party where, I understand, a range of possibilities concerning devolved government in Northern Ireland are being discussed which are germane to the whole subject of representation. My conclusion is that Northern Ireland representation is a serious matter, but I cannot today go further than to admit the deficiency and to repeat that the problem must be considered in the context of the wider issues of the future government in Northern Ireland.

I should like to say a word about administration under direct rule. The House may be interested to know that, on the appointment of Mr. Robert Kidd as the new Head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service with effect from yesterday, I have made some small organisational changes. The Department of Finance and the Civil Service Management Division have both become Departments in their own right with their own Permanent Secretaries, instead of being the direct responsibility of the Head of the Civil Service. This will free the Head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service from many of the day-to-day departmental responsibilities and give him the opportunity, working directly to me, to co-ordinate the activities of all the Northern Ireland Departments and the allocation of resources among them. This will not only assist me during the continuation of direct rule but will, I am sure, be an improvement in organisation, in the context of any form of future devolved government.

I have been talking primarily about procedural and administrative changes, but we must not forget the day-to-day problems with which we have to deal. There are two matters which dominate affairs in Northern Ireland—the economy and security. I shall say more on security later today, but I should now like to say something about the economy.

As the United Kingdom emerges from the present recession, there will be some beneficial effect to the economy in Northern Ireland—indeed, the seasonally-adjusted index of industrial production has risen for the last seven months. But the deep-seated structural weaknesses of the Northern Ireland economy, which is still largely reliant on a few older industries, will remain and the history of violence over the last few years does not encourage new investment. I cannot, therefore, be optimistic about the level of unemployment, which in some parts of the Province is very high indeed. However, the Government are doinng everything reasonably possible to preserve existing jobs and to attract investment to create new ones. The newly established Northern Ireland Development Agency has an important role to play in this.

Moreover, I am expecting very soon the results of the wide-ranging review of economic and industrial strategy. Remembering the need to contain the cost of any extra activity within existing public expenditure limits and that the resources available to Northern Ireland cannot be magically increased, I hope that the review will point to ways in which we can most profitably direct our efforts. There is no doubt, however, that the most significant single factor which would lead to increase in investment and reduction of unemployment would be for violence to cease in Northern Ireland.

Direct rule is necessary. We cannot opt out of our responsibilities for Northern Ireland, especially in view of the economic social and security problems of the Province. As a result of the Northern Ireland Act 1974, of which we are today proposing the renewal, I am directly responsible for the work of the Northern Ireland Government Departments as well as that of the Northern Ireland Office. With the assistance of the two Ministers of State and the two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, I am responsible to this House for the full range of government functions in Northern Ireland from health and social services to commerce and industry; from education to agriculture; from housing and local government to security policy and law and order. The Government have onerous responsibilities in Northern Ireland, and responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland. We will not neglect any of these. I commend the Order to the House.

We on this side agree with the Order, which will ensure that the interim period is extended from 16th July of this year. This is an area in which the official Opposition are basically in agreement with the Government, but I have a number of comments to make about the way in which Northern Ireland is at present governed under direct rule. We fully understand that there is no alternative to direct rule at present, and we regard it as necessary. We also think that it is a form of Government that should be ended as soon as possible. We believe that it should be positive direct rule, as the Secretary of State said, but also that it should be sensitive direct rule.

Let me explain what I mean by that phrase. We should like to see better communication between the Government in Northern Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland. I have suggested on more than one occasion how this could be done. I suggested an advisory forum, but that idea was coldly received by the Government. It is true that the Convention enabled people to talk, meet and discuss politics, and I do not suggest that it should be revived, but now that time has elapsed since the Convention the Secretary of State should re-examine my suggestion.

The purpose of the suggestion was to provide a group of people prominent in Northern Ireland life and widely acceptable on whose opinions the right hon. Gentleman might think fit to rely. I felt that this was especially important in the economic sphere with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt in the closing passages of his speech. This is a time of considerable economic danger, and there are difficulties in the process of obtaining new investment.

It was suggested that such a plan would cause political complications and would involve no executive powers. That is true, but it is surely not impossible to find such a body as a channel through which the ordinary citizen, without access to Ministers, could have his or her voice heard more effectively.

Leaving that point, I come to the question which the Secretary of State has been discussing of devolution and the representation of Ulster in this House.

We have an Economic Council which is representative in that way, and it meets frequently. We could not do it last week, because I had to cut it short in order to get back here to vote.

Possibly that difficulty will be overcome in the future. I need not refer to the past. As the right hon. Gentleman says, there is an Economic Council. But will he look more at my idea of an advisory forum covering other areas than economics which would represent the views of the ordinary citizen, so far as that is possible, and do what the Government and we want to do, which is to pave the way eventually for devolved government?

We agree with the Government about devolution. We remain in favour of devolved government for Northern Ireland. We do not at this stage wish to take up a doctrinaire position on the exact forms of the institutions to be set up, and it would not be helpful at a time when talks are taking place, as the right hon. Gentleman has described. We would be willing to discuss the question of structure when that was timely, should we be invited to do so by any of the parties. It would be preferable that similar consultations should take place with the right hon. Gentleman and the Government as well before a further constitutional plan, following the report of the Convention, becomes the subject of public debate in this House or anywhere else.

I am very much against a deadline. The right hon. Gentleman is right about that. What is more, as I said, I do not propose that the Convention should be recalled. What the official Opposition would like to see is the encouragement of gradual progress towards an agreed form of devolution. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there must be the right degree of public support for it. Coupled with this is the question of security, to which, I imagine, we shall all be referring in the discussion on the next Order. But a change would be needed from the policy of Mr. Micawber which is being followed on security matters at present. I hope to discuss that again.

I was glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said about the representation of Northern Ireland in this House. I agree very much with him. It has been widely recognised for some time that Ulster is under-represented here. The Conservative Party said so in its election manifesto in October 1974, and there were also the recommendations of the Kilbrandon Report which we have to take into account. We do not regard devolved government in Northern Ireland and increased representation here in this House as being in opposition to each other.

But the extent of increased representation of Northern Ireland in this House will have to be looked at in the context of devolution in the whole of the United Kingdom and, as I think the right hon. Gentleman said, in the context of the history of Northern Ireland itself. Until then, it would be wrong in our view to recommend any specific increase in the number of seats. We should confine ourselves to the view that Ulster has without doubt too few Members in this House. The present inter-party talks taking place in Northern Ireland certainly are germane to that view.

Will the hon. Gentleman make clear whether he is saying that progress on the representation of Northern Ireland in this House must wait until the discussion of new forms of devolved government has reached a conclusion in Northern Ireland, or that it must merely wait until devolution for the United Kingdom in general has been sorted out in the next Session of Parliament? There may be a difference between the two.

There is a difference between the two. I am speaking of the latter, in the context of devolution as a whole within the United Kingdom. I repeat, however, that in our view increased representation in this House and devolved government are not mutually exclusive. Both have to be considered.

If direct rule has to be endured by the people of Northern Ireland, the least that we owe to them is that the legislative procedure here is seen to be fair. The Secretary of State wrote to me about this on 24th June as a result of some private discussion. His first point was that, whenever possible, United Kingdom legislation should be extended to cover Northern Ireland, and he pointed out to me previously that there were bound to be limits in view of the separate Northern Ireland statute book. I think that we should maintain it.

The right hon. Gentleman's proposals need some further study. If we are to make progress towards a Northern Ireland Assembly, with its own Bills, clearly it would be undesirable to extend all Great Britain legislation in this way. We do not wish to be unreasonable, but we shall press for Bills rather than Orders on all major subjects. Many Orders, such as the one on industrial relations which we have already discussed and the housing Orders, are primary legislation, as the Joint Committee reported. The Secretary of State has mentioned compensation arrangements in this connection. That would seem to be a subject more suitable for a Bill rather than proceeding by Order. We welcome what the right hon Gentleman said this morning about a Bill on the administration of justice. We are glad to hear about that.

There are, of course, many Orders on subjects that cannot be dealt with by Bills because of the problem of time. But, although we are not altogether enthusiastic about the idea of a preliminary stage for an Order in the Northern Ireland Committee followed by a debate on the Floor of the House, we accept that that is one way, and we are glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to remove the limitations on the number of meetings of the Northern Ireland Committee.

This still leaves open the disadvantages of the procedure by Order in Council, which does not allow for the amendments which can be made when a Bill is introduced and goes through its various stages. No one should think that consultation is any substitute for legislation, and the Fair Employment Bill is a good example. We must approach this problem with caution and perhaps have mutual consultation about it.

For political reasons, many of these Orders are the method by which Socialism is being automatically applied to Northern Ireland. Some people are in favour of it. On this side of the House, most are not. There is not much opportunity for the ordinary citizen to contest moves towards additional Socialism in Northern Ireland, and this is one of the problems.

Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of the kind of Bill he has in mind? Is it, for example, the public ownership of Harland and Wolff?

I was not talking about that. I was talking about the industrial relations order which implements Socialist legislation. We discussed all this on 11th June. I need not go back over that ground. But clearly this is a Socialist Government, and Orders will reflect their point of view. I merely ask that the ordinary citizen in Northern Ireland should have as much opportunity as possible to contest and to amend any provisions of that kind.

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will make a little clearer what he is saying in the context of the Bill which he quoted as an example, where it would appear that the same opportunities have been available to those whom we represent as to those who are represented by right hon. and hon. Members in the rest of the House.

On 11th June we were discussing an Order which was primary legislation and which reflected industrial relations Bills passed by this House but did not provide the people of Northern Ireland with the same opportunities as we would have during the passing of a Bill. That was what I meant. We shall adopt an attitude of extreme watchfulness towards the instruments as they are published.

I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say that there were further matters to discuss. We, too, would welcome a method of considering statutory rules and orders which are not subject to the procedure at Westminster through the Northern Ireland Committee. We are glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's proposal that Select Committees should include Northern Ireland services in their considerations.

We welcome the Order.

I hope that the Secretary of State will understand if I do no more than record our satisfaction with the helpful points he made about the processing of legislation, because I hope that later my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. As the Secretary of State generously indicated, my right hon. Friend played a large and constructive part in putting forward suggestions for the betterment of processing Northern Ireland legislation through this House.

You, Mr. Speaker, will have heard in the past four years many complaints from this Bench about the inadequacies of the system of Orders in Council and the defects in the methods of handling such legislation. We are glad that we are moving into a period when more influence will be given to hon. Members, particularly those representing Northern Ireland. Although we do not suggest that what the Secretary of State said entirely satisfies our grievance—no doubt we shall put forward further suggestions—we are thankful for the fairly substantial concessions he has made regarding the points of view we have put forward over the years.

Most of my working life was spent in the printing industry, where we were well aware that a certain phrase, sentence or paragraph was likely to be used over and over again. The type was not dismantled and redistributed over the type cases as happened in other respects. In case hon. Members think that I may be getting at the Secretary of State, I point out that possibly the greatest offenders are the people in Fleet Street, who nowadays presumably operate on a much more sophisticated level than I did when I was in the printing industry, but I still think that they pursue the same technique. Certain phrases seem to be dropped in as sub-headings or bits to fill out a column. "The political vacuum" is a notable phrase. Another is "The collapse of the Convention".

Let us consider the phrase "political vacuum". This gem is used by a variety of people for a variety of reasons. It is used by people who seek to give the impression that Northern Ireland is bereft of any form of government. It paints a picture of Northern Ireland being a part of the United Kingdom which has no one at the helm. It is nothing to the people who use the phrase that Cornwall and Kent appear to be able to muddle through without a local assembly. The impression given is that Northern Ireland is isolated from any form of democratic process and that the voice of its elected representatives is not heard, still less listened to, in the United Kingdom Parliament.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in Cornwall and other countries in this country the powers given to local government are much more extensive than the powers given to local government in Northern Ireland?

If the hon. Member had been patient, he would have heard me deal with that matter, but I see no reason why I should not divert from what I was saying in order to reply to his question. The third point in the submissions which we have consistently made in this House and outside is that we de- sire for Northern Ireland roughly the same form of local government as that enjoyed by all the other regions and areas of the United Kingdom. We hope that the Government will be persuaded. I do not suggest that they destroyed it. It was destroyed largely as a result of the miscalculations of a former Unionist Prime Minister, who said to me on one occasion "I will not be deterred or delayed in producing my scheme just because outside my door there is a queue of self-appointed advisers such as yourself". If I had got to the head of the queue and gained admission, I might have been able to save them from the disastrous errors which they made.

The phrase "political vacuum" is used, in another sense, by people who would settle for a form of devolution, a structure which would be almost without visible means of support. Their attitude is that something is better than nothing. They would happily embark on yet another experiment and blindly ignore all the lessons of the past and all the lessons taught by the collapse of previous such experiments.

I come to the other phrase, "the collapse of the Convention", I should say in fairness that the Secretary of State did not use it today. I think he said that the Convention had failed to produce a certain type of recommendation. The plain fact is that the Convention did not collapse. It completed the task it was given and it produced its report. Certainly it did not agree, but it was not asked to agree.

It is irresponsible to put into people's heads the notion that the Convention was some kind of government and that when it failed, as it is said it failed, that system of government was wiped out and only then did we return to direct rule, because, as you well know, Mr. Speaker—not that I shall ask you to express a view—direct rule has been with us for the past four years except for one short experimental and disastrous period. There is, therefore, nothing new about it. Since 1972, Northern Ireland has been governed as a part of the United Kingdom. It would be a soothing influence on the minds of the people of Northern Ireland if that fact could be placed squarely before them.

It would perhaps be fair if at this point I were to put into perspective the talks between the Unionist Party and the SDLP. I feel that I have a duty to do what I can to put the facts straight. To date, the operation has been in the nature of a reconnaissance. I understand that roughly one stage of the exercise remains to be completed. When it has been completed, a judgment will be made on whether a basis exists for negotiations to begin, because those participating are not negotiating; they are engaged in an exploratory operation.

I concede that the negotiations at that point must involve a wider representation.

We must not encourage a false impression or lead our colleagues in this place to suppose that some dramatic development will just happen. The reconnaissance operation and the negotiations which may follow—the Secretary of State used the word "may" yesterday, and he will agree that there is a question-mark over the situation—are bound to be within the terms of the Convention deliberations, and the negotiations, if they begin, must be within those terms of reference.

I have little time for those in Ulster who tell use that we on this Bench should not co-operate with Her Majesty's Government in maintaining direct rule. They proclaim that they intend to end it, but do not say precisely how. Perhaps, if we are all patient, some day we shall be let into the secret and will learn what they propose to do. These critics are falling into the grave error of repudiating their British citizenship, and are even close to proclaiming the end of the Union itself.

The Unionists in 1912 did not corn-plain that they were then ruled by a foreign regime—they said the opposite. They said "We want to continue being governed in this way. We do not want any change. We certainly do not want any form of home rule which would endanger the Union." Therefore, to say now in 1976 that, because we have gone back roughly to the position of those days, they would prefer some kind of negotiated independence or some rather vague form of administration is to deny the Union and even to place a large question-mark over their right to call themselves Unionists.

We on this Bench have never suggested that the present system was without defects, but people have the evidence of their own eyes and ears of the steady improvements in the mechanism. We have advanced quite a long way along that road this morning. I do not pretend that those improvements are nearly sufficient to satisfy, for example, those who may have held office in the former Stormont Administration.

A former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland once said that the old system of Stormont provided what he called "close-contact government". One has to admit that, despite the very sincere and genuine efforts of the present Secretary of State and his Ministers, there is something in what has been said by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), speaking for the Conservative Opposition, that that element is perhaps still missing. If, however, the price for a return to such close-contact government is unacceptable, as it was to the majority of those who served in the Northern Ireland Convention and as it is to those of us on this Bench, the sensible thing to do is to use all the processes open to us in this place to secure further progress in our just demands.

There have again been suggestions that we should pack up and leave this place. We are told this by various people at times in Northern Ireland. They say "Come home and leave them to it. That will show them." No doubt the Patronage Secretary might be greatly obliged if we were to take that attitude, because it would simplify his calculations to a great extent. That, however, was not the purpose for which we were elected—to put it more crudely, not the purpose that we are being paid for.

In our view, we are far more likely to serve the interests of the people of Northern Ireland if we engage in the full processes of the machinery of this place. That is far more likely to serve the interests of Northern Ireland than if we were to engage in activities to obstruct the Secretary of State and his Ministers in carrying out the administration of affairs in Northern Ireland. I have repeatedly said to those who talk about such obstruction that even if they were very successful they might make things difficult for the Secretary of State; they might to sonic extent gum up the works. But that is the sum total of their potential achievement. They could not do what they say—bring down direct rule and return Stormont. They might make things difficult for the Secretary of State by illegal and other activities bordering on the illegal, but they could not, by that kind of action, bring back devolved government to Northern Ireland.

Today, we are making provision for the continuation not of direct rule but of government by the United Kingdom Parliament for another year. Beyond that, whether the period be long or short, temporary or permanent, the period ahead could be put to constructive use by all of us. I have given an indication—I hope that the Secretary of State accepts it—that it is our intention on this Bench to act in that context and to continue to act constructively here in the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

We must also encourage people at home in Northern Ireland to adopt a rather more mature attitude to politics—for that matter, a more mature attitude to each other. Without giving offence one might suggest that there could perhaps be fewer instant statements. That might to some extent reduce the temperature. It might enable people to have a breathing space in which to collect their thoughts and form a balanced judgment.

While we would be the first to concede that healthy political discussion is to be welcomed—and I hasten to add that we on this Bench do not, because we are the elected representatives of Northern Ireland here, claim a monopoly of the formation of policies—it can do nothing but harm to encourage a whole range of non-elected persons to regard themselves as some kind of alternative government in Northern Ireland. Whatever people may desire or wish, the reality is that the responsibility rests upon this House, and particularly heavily on the elected representatives of Northern Ireland in it. Well-meaning attempts to involve those who are not responsible in that respect—who are not responsible to the electorate—would merely add to the confusion. In the final analysis, those responsible to the electorate must not be undermined.

I for my part can assure the Secretary of State and the House that we will not fail to do our duty. I must, however, add that that duty could be much more effectively performed if the Government and Parliament could gradually move themselves into accepting the fact that Northern Ireland is under-represented in this House. If we had in this place the full representation to which we claim we are entitled—a claim that is becoming more and more accepted—the representation and the services which we try to give to the people of Northern Ireland would be all the more effective.

I would like to follow the remarks made by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) about instant statements. It seems to be particularly apposite in the affairs of Northern Ireland. Since I have been in this House it has come home to me that one of the great strengths and weaknesses of this place is the fact that in the process of accountability Ministers are drawn before this assembly and expected to make instant statements. They are expected to make initiatives and bring forward new plans to deal with situations that may be thrown up at a moment's notice.

The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that there was a healthy instinct in British political parties to take account of pressing issues and substantial opponents. I agree that it is a healthy instinct, but there is also a fundamentally damaging aspect of that proposition, in so far as it can lead to this place constantly seeking new initiatives and ways forward, when what may well be needed is a period of status quo or calm—a period in which there is no new initiative.

I believe that the Secretary of State is absolutely right in saying that there is no scope or need for a major new initiative in Northern Ireland politics at the present time. Of course he will run the risk of being labelled as an Asquithian "wait-and-see" politician. But it may be that the situation in Northern Ireland is so complex and tense that a major new initiative could create more damage than good. What is called for here is a clear statement of the continuation of direct rule.

When the Northern Ireland Convention ended, many people took the view that this could have certain consequences for Northern Ireland politics, some of which have emerged since as anticipated, and others of which have not. When the Convention ended, I assumed that people in this country would be placed in the front line and that the campaign of terror would be extended to this country. That has not happened—for a very good reason. The reign of terror that exists in Northern Ireland could not be extended here because the IRA saw that it would be counter-productive. That is because of the nature of the two societies.

In this country there is a vast volume of stable and moderate opinion which is capable of resisting attacks of terrorism. We saw this in the Birmingham bombings, where the net result was to produce a revulsion among ordinary people. In Northern Ireland the reverse would have been true. The creation of terrorism there, because of the smallness of the community, produces a counter-reaction, and counter-terrorist organisations spring up. It is in the nature and fabric of Northern Ireland politics that this happens, and this is all the more reason why difficult though it may be, the people of Northern Ireland should resist the temptation to create further para-military organisations outside the workings of the security forces in that country.

The other effect that I assumed would occur when the Convention ended was that politicians in Northern Ireland eventually would be driven to reconsider their position and ask basic questions about the sort of Government and society they wanted to see in Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for Antrim, South touched on the conflicts of Northern Ireland in terms of what loyalty means in that country—whether it means the pure and simple loyalty to the Government of the United Kingdom that exists among people in Yorkshire and Cornwall, or something more than that. The important historical view of Northern Ireland's situation is that inevitably and ultimately there will be a devolved Government in that country. Historically, Northern Ireland has always caused trouble to the rest of Ireland. It has always sought some independent rôle, and its colonisation from this country merely accentuated that fact.

The prime concern of the people of Northern Ireland is towards the creation of some form of devolved Government, and that is why I welcome the talks that are taking place between political parties in the North. I think that the solution to Northern Ireland's problems will come about through a system of devolved government.

The Secretary of State also said that if there is to be a system of devolved government in the North it has to be one that is acceptable to this House. This involves, as has been shown over and over again, some acceptance of power sharing. We cannot escape from that.

Within the context of devolved government, there is the matter of harmonisation of the law between the two countries. The Secretary of State mentioned homosexual and divorce law reform. The divorce laws in Northern Ireland date back to the mid-1930s but in Britain we have the Divorce Reform Act 1969. I am a lawyer and I recognise that the advent of that Act has certainly had a beneficial effect on the people of this country who have to go to court. In our courts, people are not faced with the same harrowing experiences as they were before. This is an area that could be considered seriously in Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State mentioned the problem of Northern Ireland's industry and investment. Of course he is right to say that the problem of terror must be counter-productive in attracting investment to Northern Ireland. But we would be mistaken to take the view that the existence of the terror campaign itself actually brought about the failure of increased investment in Northern Ireland. That country has economic problems which are similar to those of the regions of this country—the North-East Region, for example, and Scotland in the past. While the existence of the reign of terror obviously does not encourage industrialists to go there, the publication of the magazine Fortnight can do nothing to encourage international companies to invest in Northern Ireland.

The other evening I switched on the television and saw the Secretary of State handing over what I can only describe as one of the ugliest aeroplanes ever built. It was produced at Short's and I understand it has a very good chance of being a real winner in international terms.

Not all winners are good lookers.

In the Department of Commerce we have a new notice, which says "Ugly is good".

I gather from the Secretary of State's remarks that he anticipates that this aeroplane could be a winner, and provide substantial orders for the aircraft industry in Northern Ireland. I welcome that.

It is my privilege to serve on the Public Accounts Committee of this House. We have had officers from the Northern Ireland Office before us. They are treated in the same way as are officers of other Departments. As the Secretary of State has suggested, this is a process which should be extended if we are to encourage some form of positive direct rule over the course of the next year.

I wish to raise one matter that is not related to this debate, and which, since I shall be unable to be here later I shall be unable to discuss on the second Order. It relates to the problem of terrorism and Government in Northern Ireland. It is of the absolute essence that the Government's approach must be towards the creation and maintenance of a stable system in which the rule of law is respected. That, however, involves the acceptance of the view that criminals must be brought before the courts. That is why I have always firmly supported the principle that detention in that context cannot be tolerated—

Order. I noted that the hon. Gentleman said that he would not be here for the next Order, but the rest of us will be. In the contribution that he is now making perhaps he will confine himself to the first Order.

I shall do that, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State raised the question of terror, and I wanted to talk briefly about that. It is necessary to maintain the existence of some adherence to the principle of the rule of law. The Secretary of State has been entirely consistent in his approach to this matter. But some of my hon. Friends have had their doubts about talks that have gone on in Northern Ireland between the Government and certain organisations. I refer in particular to the talks with the Provisional Sinn Fein. It is very difficult to maintain the principle of supporting the rule of law when one talks with organisations that appear to have access to illegal bodies.

The approach throughout the application of this Order must be to try to take positive steps forward in the context of direct rule. This is not a period in which a major new initiative is called for. Instead, we must try to move forward by developing what we have. We do not need a fundamental reappraisal of the way in which we govern the Province at the present time.

I am glad that there seems to be no disagreement in the House that we should proceed on the basis indicated by the Secretary of State, which is that in a period of direct rule we do not delude ourselves that rabbits can be pulled out of hats and that magic solutions can be produced for Northern Ireland.

We use the term "direct rule" in strange ways in its application to Northern Ireland. There is nothing odd or improper in what we call direct rule. That is simply the rule of a part of the United Kingdom by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is not the best form of government for the United Kingdom, and there is ample scope and much desirability in having for Northern Ireland and for the other parts of the United Kingdom institutions of government which exercise power and responsibility on a more local and regional basis. The whole of the United Kingdom experiences direct rule, however, and there is nothing odd or improper about Northern Ireland being in that position. That position should be changed only when there is a clear basis for changing it in terms of a genuine and wide understanding in Northern Ireland.

By that same token, however, the period in which we have direct rule must not be a standstill period in all respects for the Province. I am pleased that the Secretary of State affirmed that this was not the Government's intention. The greatest mistake we could make in using direct rule would be to put various matters to one side to await some other form of government to deal with them. This House has the responsibility and it must exercise it and govern Northern Ireland. That applies to the industrial, commercial and social economic policies which must be pursued.

Northern Ireland Ministers have had to do a great deal on their own initiative with less recourse to this House that they themselves would have liked. The Secretary of State has rightly sought to find an answer to this problem. I am glad he has indicated that in a number of spheres the Government should no longer take the view that progress cannot be made because direct rule might shortly be ended.

I hope that, whatever views hon. Members take about a number of social issues, they will generally agree that we should now consider them. It is right that those who either favour or oppose changes in the law on divorce, homosexuality, abortion and other such issues should now agree that they should not be left out of account because of some possible future form of government for Northern Ireland. We should form a view in this House, and we should consider the situation in Northern Ireland and then come to conclusions. I am glad that the Secretary' of State sees no reason why we should not have the opportunity to do that.

I welcome also the right hon. Gentleman's desire that Select Committees should exercise a policy role for Northern Ireland, particularly in terms of the strange constitutional variety of nationalised industries which exists there. I am glad that he wants them embraced in a form in which they can be considered by Select Committees.

I have some reservations about the line adopted by the official Opposition about increasing the number of advisory bodies and the bodies which citizens feel will give them further representation on Northern Ireland matters. The danger—almost the curse—in Northern Ireland is that of representation without responsibility. I am a Liberal and I believe very strongly that as much power as possible should be left at local level. But power and responsibility must go together. The most dangerous situation is where the ability to pontificate, to demand and to assert, while claiming rights and powers, carries no responsibility for the consequences of that ability. It is for that reason that we talk about devolved government but we do not proceed until we have found a basis which, while giving power, imposes a responsibility in exercising that power.

There are dangers in allowing people in Northern Ireland to assume that they have a right and status which is not associated with a clear responsibility or with the prospect of being discharged by the electors if they do not exercise that responsibility. This leads to the vexed issue of Norther Ireland representation proper. Under direct rule that means representation in this House. The Secretary of State dealt with it at some length and he mentioned factors to which I think he attached a strange significance. First, he talked about the possibility of devolved government and the implications that it would have. But let us be clear about this. The Government are suggesting that if Scotland and Wales have extensive devolved government they will not lose any of the other representation—which is above a resonable quota—which they have in this House.

There are many hon. Members, certainly in my party, who will not support that aspect of the proposals and will want to see a general United Kingdom quota which gives the same level of representation to Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales. They do not see, if I may use the words of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), any incompatibility between devolved government and the same quota of representation in this House. We would not, however, tolerate any part of the United Kingdom being forcibly under-represented.

I assume that the most that is likely to happen, if my ambitions are achieved and I defeat the Government in this respect, is that the representation of Scotland with an Assembly will be reduced to the level of England. That is all I ask for and all that Northern Ireland seeks for itself. Devolved Government cannot be seen by the Government as any barrier to that if they are prepared to contemplate over-representation with devolved government.

The Secretary of State then mentioned the position of the two communities in Northern Ireland and the problems which that presents in terms of Northern Ireland. A smaller number of Northern Ireland representatives in this House means that it is harder to embrace within that representation the full spectrum of opinion in Northern Ireland. The smaller we keep the group of Northern Ireland representatives, the less representative it can be. We have differing views on the electoral system which operates throughout the United Kingdom. The fact that it is not very good at ensuring representation from both communities in Northern Ireland cannot be laid at the door of those who want more representatives from the Province. The fact that the Government may choose to maintain a ludicrously unrepresentative system is not our fault, and it is not an excuse for reducing the number of representatives from Northern Ireland.

The present system results in gross misrepresentation in many parts of the United Kingdom. But we should not say that there should be fewer hon. Members from the South of England because the Conservatives and Liberals are under-represented there or fewer hon. Members from the South-East where the Labour Party is under-represented. The remedy is to change the system so that no part of the United Kingdom is under-represented.

I was glad that the Secretary of State did not repeat today what he has hinted at in the past—that the record of abstentionism and disapproval of Westminster in some quarters should be taken into account in considering representation. I hope he will drop that hint of an argument. There is no reason why either community in Northern Ireland should have visited upon it a collective punishment for the fact that some people in the past have refrained from attending the House and have argued that others should also refrain from attending.

It would totally illogical if the Government said that we had to wait until a form of devolved government had been established in Northern Ireland before changing the system of representation. I was glad that the hon. Member for Abingdon made clear that the delay which he was envisaging went only as far as Scottish and Welsh devolution. Even if we have to wait a very long time for devolved government in Northern Ireland, there is no need to wait that long for fair representation.

I hope that the period of direct rule will result in constructive political developments and fruitful discussions in Northern Ireland. The door to devolved government may appear to be closed, but it can be opened if the broad mass of representatives of both communities put their shoulders to it. It will not open without that effort and a common support for a new form of devolved government.

In the meantime, Northern Ireland has to be governed as well as we can govern it. The ending of the anarchy which has prevailed in some parts of the Province, the restoration of the rule of law and the commercial and social development of Northern Ireland are the responsibilities for the time being of this Parliament. We must ensure that we are equipped to carry out these tasks and that Northern Ireland is made a better place for those who live there.

Whatever our views on this Order, we must accept that it had to be introduced. At present there is no alternative to this House being in full control of the affairs of Northern Ireland.

I welcome the improvements announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, though perhaps for reasons different from those of other hon. Members. There is no Stormont, and it may be a considerable time—though I hope not—before we get devolved government in Northern Ireland. That is why I accept the progressive measures announced today to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland are better governed in the meantime.

I suspect that some hon. Members from Northern Ireland will see these measures as a tentative step along the road to total integration. Their view might be that if we can introduce legislation here it might become acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland, who will then think that there is no need for devolved government. I shall never accept that view. I do not believe that Northern Ireland can be governed on the same lines as other parts of the United Kingdom.

It is an island, and has no land communication with other regions in the United Kingdom. It also has different cultures and backgrounds, and a totally different history, all of which drive one to the inescapable conclusion that however much we try we cannot look to the total integration of Northern Ireland with the United Kingdom.

I agree with the improvements announced by the Secretary of State, but I hope that he will not listen to hon. Members from Northern Ireland—particularly the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—who say that total integration is the answer. It is not.

I may be regarded as a reactionary by hon. Members on the Government side of the House if I say that I did not go all the way with the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). He stressed the need to bring Northern Ireland legislation into line with that of other parts of the United Kingdom, but I do not believe that the absence of abortion, homosexuality and divorce laws in Northern Ireland led to the present troubles.

Other legislation in force in the rest of the United Kingdom is far more important. For instance, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 does not apply to Northern Ireland. I should like to see that Act introduced in the Province tomorrow. It is a compassionate and humane measure and is far more important than the other legislation to which I have referred.

I agree with the Secretary of State that there are two views of justice in Northern Ireland—the majority view and the minority view. Throughout the 52 years of Unionist ascendancy government at Stormont it was believed, rightly or wrongly—some opinions were very wrong, others were justified—that the administration of justice meant the administration of Unionist justice. That is why there was such opposition to the police and security forces in Northern Ireland who were empowered to carry out that justice.

I believe that the community for which I claim to speak on certain occasions would have more faith in the administration of justice by this House than by any Unionist ascendancy government.

I hope that in future debates we shall be given the opportunity to express our views on the way in which justice has been administered in the past and how we think it should be administered in the future.

I know that there are different approaches to compensation in Northern Ireland. Some of the more Right-wing Members of the Conservative Party would seek to have compensation paid in a discriminatory way to those who are suspected of having shown or voiced opposition to certain authorities in Northern Ireland. They take the view that they should not be given the same compensation rights as others. I have a specific case in mind, but undoubtedly we shall have the opportunity to discuss others when certain matters come before the House.

How is Northern Ireland to be administered in the meantime? I did not agree with the devolved Parliament that had power for 52 years, but certain aspects of it helped the whole electorate. The people of Northern Ireland had ready access to their own Parliament, their own Cabinet and their own Ministers. In the absence of those facilities, responsibility now lies with my right hon. and hon. Friends who are Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.

Over the past few weeks especially, I do not think that the Opposition have been helpful in affording facilities to Northern Ireland Ministers to enable them to carry out their onerous responsibilities. I know how often they have had to fly to and from London. I know that last week one of my hon. Friends flew a record 4,000 miles, trying to be here for votes at the same time as he was trying to carry out his duties in Northern Ireland. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State—the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon)—had great experience of flying from Northern Ireland in a helicopter as a result of the close votes that were being held.

The Opposition cannot be hypocritical. If they want Northern Ireland to be governed from this House, they must afford whatever arrangements are possible through the usual channels to ensure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be readily accessible in Northern Ireland if and when they are needed. Past experience indicates that they are sometimes needed there 24 hours a day, every day.

Is it not a fact that the hon. Gentleman took great credit in Northern Ireland for advocating that a certain person should break his pair on one occasion? It was that that brought about the ructions.

I am not responsible for Press stories. We all know what Press stories are in Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) made what I consider to be a helpful contribution this morning. I hope that note will be taken of it in Northern Ireland. I understand that the hon. Gentleman was appealing to all sections of the Northern Ireland community to try to get together to see whether it is possible to find some means of reaching agreement. I think he expressed hopes that the present talks will be successful without expressing any guarantee that that will be the outcome.

If that is his attitude in making an appeal to the majority Protestant community and the minority Catholic community to try to resolve their difficulties by getting together, it must be contrasted with the attitude of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). Only last week or the week before, an article appeared in the Protestant Telegraph, of which I understand the hon. Gentleman is the editor, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), the former Prime Minister, was roundly castigated for having awarded an OBE to Mike Yarwood. That attitude was taken not because Mike Yarwood was not entitled to it but because my right hon. Friend awarded the honour to the arch-Fenian Mike Yarwood. The hon. Gentleman took the view that a Catholic should not have received an OBE. To say the least, I do not think that that is the best possible way to better community relations in Northern Ireland. Clearly people speak with two voices in this House and in Northern Ireland.

As my right hon. Friend said, we want a period of quiet in Northern Ireland—a period in which spokesmen—they are no longer elected representatives—can discuss the differences that divide us and ascertain whether it is possible to make recommendations to the Westminster Government to bring back devolved government to Northern Ireland.

On the other hand, we have the hon. Member for Antrim, North telling my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State "We do not agree with your security forces. We think they are inefficient. We do not think they are capable of doing the job that you say they are capable of doing. Therefore, we shall create a security force of our own." Fortunately that proposal fell flat on its face. It is to the credit of the Northern Ireland people that they did not fall for that one.

I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) was advocating the return of powers to local authorities. I should be bitterly opposed to that proposition. Throughout the whole of the Unionist ascendancy in Northern Ireland there was complete, total and bitter opposition to the way that local authorities were being run. On the involvement of the Westminster Government in the affairs of Northern Ireland, many inquiries were set up. Their reports are on record and are to be found in the Vote Office. They are so well known that it is not necessary for me to be armed with them. They prove beyond any possible doubt that certain local authorities in Northern Ireland were guilty of the most vicious form of discrimination.

It was because of the activities of those authorities that the Conservative Government and this Government were fully in agreement when it was decided to limit the powers of the authorities. The proposition that there should be an increase in the number of Northern Ireland seats at Westminster and a return of powers to local authorities in Northern Ireland is tantamount to recreating a Unionist ascendancy. We know what percentage of the population the majority community represents, and we know the history of the local authorities. To return powers to the authorities would be to take a step back. It would defeat every effort that successive Governments have made from 1969 onwards to try to reform society in Northern Ireland and to make it more democratic.

Without going into the rather sterile and negative argument about who discriminated against whom in the past—in fact, it was an act that was carried out in both directions—does the hon. Gentleman accept that when I was replying to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) I was not indicating, implying, suggesting or advocating a return of powers to existing local authorities? I was advocating, as I have done previously, the reconstruction of local government, so as to give the people a real say in the running of their affairs, as they have on this side of the water.

Whatever way I interpreted the argument was due to the remarks of my hon. Friend.

Certain local authorities abused their powers throughout the 52 years. In no circumstances would I advocate that housing powers be given back to local authorities in Northern Ireland, whether to the Catholic housing authority of Newry or the Protestant housing authority of Portadown. For better or worse, we have created the Housing Executive, and we have a points system. The Housing Executive has to overcome many obstacles, but over the years I believe that it will be accepted as an impartial housing authority, acting in the interests of all the homeless.

I have criticised the Housing Executive on some occasions, and I shall continue to do so when I consider that it is being inefficient in creating homes, but, having served on local authorities in Northern Ireland, I recognise that the removal of powers that local authorities formerly had has led to a falling-off in enthusiasm. People are not interested in attending meetings of local authorities. The best type of people are not attracted. That is far from saying that powers should be given back to local authorities on the basis that existed prior to the reform of local government.

At present there are 12 right hon. and hon. Members representing Irish constituencies. I do not believe that if we had in the House 16, 20, 30, 50 or 100 Members of Parliament representing Northern Ireland the Province would be better governed. We have to have a Government in Northern Ireland composed of the majority community and the minority community. The people will have to overcome their fears and suspicions and recognise that the majority community cannot live without the support of the minority community and that the minority community cannot live without the support of the majority community. This problem has been created by history, and there are many reasons why it cannot be solved in the short term.

There are members of my party and members of the official Unionist party including an Orangeman who organises parades—this may come ill from me today—who are generally interested in trying to create political institutions in Northern Ireland to help the whole community. Perhaps those talks will not be successful, but every Northern Ireland Member should do what he can to try to ensure success for those talks.

My ideas contrast vividly with those of the hon. Member for Antrim, North, who specifically said that he did not want these talks to be successful and that he did not want an agreement to emerge. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have no hesitation in stating that again today, having said it clearly in Northern Ireland. He cannot say one thing over there and another here, although he has many times attempted to do so.

The only future that the hon. Gentleman sees for Northern Ireland is with the majority party—the UUU Party. I am beginning to wonder how many Us there should be. The first one, standing for "United", should be dropped if there is a coalition in the House giving credit and support to my right hon. Friend when he says that he wants to create devolved government in Northern Ireland, because the Ulster Unionists are all speaking with different voices.

The hon. Member for Antrim, North does not want devolved government. He is so opposed to it that he has told his hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) that he will put him out at the next election because he belongs to a party that favours devolved government. Hon. Members are not fools, neither are the people of Northern Ireland. When real attitudes become known, the Northern Ireland people will be able to identify those who want to rebuild Northern Irish society, who want to end the violence at all costs, and are prepared to compromise and concede the doctrinaire positions that they have held in the past. Those people will receive the support of the community.

The hon. Member for Antrim, South said that at present there are local authority representatives in Northern Ireland and 12 Members of Parliament sitting in this House, and that they are the only elected representatives. I agree that in the past there seemed to be some form of isolation between the various groups in Northern Ireland that had a social conscience. There are now community groups, which do not represent anyone in any given district. If they do, it is at the point of a gun. That applies both to the minority community and the majority community. Both have been engaged in a campaign of intimidation. When they have effectively silenced the people—which is easy to anyone with a gun in his hand—they make representations to the Northern Ireland Office and other agencies claiming to represent certain areas and a certain number of people. It is dangerous to allow that trend to continue. Before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State engages in discussions with people of this type, the opinion of the Members of Parliament who represent those constituencies should be sought.

If the remarks that I have just made are reported in the Press in Northern Ireland tomorrow, there will be a host of letters to all the local newspapers saying that the elected representatives are afraid of the community groups, that we have neglected community groups in the past and that they are the people who are closely identified with the needs of the areas. We have heard all that before.

There are sincere and dedicated community workers who can readily be identified, but there are others in that position only because they have been able to wreak fear, havoc, intimidation and terrorism in certain areas. Many people who have their names on the community list have been defeated in past elections to the House, to local authorities and to the previous Stormont Parliament. At least we are entitled to question their motivation. Why, after being severely defeated at the polls, do they suddenly become community workers? I warn my right hon. Friend to consider carefully whom he is speaking to in Northern Ireland.

The talks that are now taking place in Northern Ireland between the SDLP and the official Unionist Party have given some little hope to the electorate. If the talks are unsuccessful they will prove that the official Unionist Party has at last found the courage to tell some of its coalition partners who are identified as wreckers that the official Unionist Party is a long-established political party, with its own political point of view.

The members of the official Unionist Party may not agree with all the views of their coalition partners. They should reserve to themselves the right to speak as a political party representing a political viewpoint. We must not allow political parties to be dominated and intimidated by personalities. I need not say to which personalities I refer. Some are not elected, and others are. We had not heard of some of them until the Convention elections last year. Now they would seem to arrogate to themselves the position of holders of the whole conscience of the Northern Ireland people. I believe that the talks are necessary. Perhaps they will not be a success initially, but at least there is this beginning of an attempt to talk to each other after so many years of avoiding each other, years of fear and suspicion of each other's viewpoints.

It is dangerous to be optimistic in Northern Ireland; the position is always so unpredictable. I hope that in the talks that are taking place, my right hon. Friend, although he is not directly involved, will say that the resolution of the Northern Ireland problem is a matter for both communities in Northern Ireland and that any efforts that they may be making to erase fears and to bring about devolved government in Northern Ireland will have his support. I hope that that support will be found to be necessary in the next 12 months and that at the end of that period, if not before, we shall have devolved government in Northern Ireland.

I had many things to say this morning, but since listening to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) I am compelled to say other things. That is generally the case. Once again, we have been treated to the usual bandwagon catalogue of 50 years of misrule and maladministration and 50 years discrimination. I am beginning to think that the hon. Gentleman will soon believe those things if he keeps on saying them as often as he does. Possibly the Hansard reporters could go away for a cup of tea in the middle of his speech and then pick it up verbatim from his last speech.

We are talking today about direct rule and its extension to Northern Ireland. I agree for once with something that the hon. Member for Belfast, West said but which is contrary to what the Secretary of State said some time ago: that the people of Northern Ireland welcomed direct rule and that all parts of the community were satisfied with it. I do not believe that is so. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, West that what we need as soon as possible in Northern Ireland is a return to devolved government.

The local government situation has been mentioned. At the moment it is nothing short of farcical. Four large area boards have been created with appointed members who have no elective responsibility. While we have been pressing for a return to meaningful local government, we are not asking for a return to the old system of local councils and urban councils weighted according to the kind of people who serve on them. What we want is a meaningful local government which will be responsible to the local population.

The present situation is farcical. Some time ago a constituent of mine approached me with a drainage problem. Instead of going to his own local councillor, as he would have done in former days, he came to me, because I am the only elected representative who can speak on his behalf to the Ministries. I had to contact a Minister based in Whitehall in order to get the man's drain cleared. In the old days, when there was local government and a responsible engineer, one could lift the telephone and eat the head off the engineer and tell him to clear the drain. Now we have to go through this other ridiculous process. There is a great need for a return to meaningful elected local government with elective responsibility.

The hon. Member for Belfast, West mentioned power-sharing once again. We had a wonderful example of this in Magharafelt District Council, where there is an even balance of Republicans and Unionists. The chairman is an SDLP man. There was a sort of gentleman's agreement when the council was elected that the chairmanship would alternate between the chairman and the vice-chairman. For three years now the chairman of the council, Mr. Paddy Herron, has elected himself by his own casting vote. This is a prime example of power-sharing. It is a fine example of how the SDLP carries out power-sharing.

We have had 50 years of this so-called maladministration and discrimination. It has been brought to an end. I notice in the Official Report of the Secretary of State's speech last year that he mentioned this bold experiment between "two communities"—the setting-up of the Northern Ireland Executive. I disagree with the expression "two communities". There is only one community in Northern Ireland, one community of people. They may have divergent political views, but there is only one community.

I feel that the continued description of "two communities" does nothing but polarise the situation and exacerbate the feeling between what may be two political communities. I am inclined to quote what my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneux) said on one occasion: that the crucial point is not the altar at which a man worships but the nation to which he belongs. That is, indeed, the problem in Northern Ireland. No Unionist has said that he will not have Catholics in government. What we have said, and what we still say, is that we will not have Republicans in government because, as Unionists, we believe in the union of Northern Ireland and the rest of the country. We believe in the United Kingdom and the Six Counties of Northern Ireland under Her Majesty the Queen. Therefore, we resist any suggestion that we should have Republicans in government, no matter what their religious belief may be.

The Executive which failed so dramatically over a year ago was the most peculiar set-up that ever appeared in any democratic country. We had four key Ministries in that Administration. There was the deputy leadership beld by the hon. Member for Belfast, West, who has now left the Chamber. That was tantamount to being Deputy-Prime Minister in this House. There was the Portfolio of Commerce. There was the Department of Housing and Local Government, and there was the Department of Health and Social Security. Those four key Ministries, which ran the country, were given over to members of a political party who gained less than 22 per cent. of the local vote. How anyone can call that democracy is more than I can understand. That was democracy stood on its head.

In this Parliament we have a Government who gained 39 per cent. of the total vote of the country and they are running this country. Time and again in Northern Ireland the people have gone to the polls and have returned Members to Parliament with anything from 52 per cent. to 56 per cent. of the vote. Yet that verdict of the ballot box has been continually disregarded and thrust to one side, with an insistence upon a form of government which is totally undemocratic and unreal.

The hon. Member for Belfast, West talked about a single-party Government running the country for 50 years. No doubt he is aware that there is a Government running Sweden today which has been in office for 42 years—a single-party Government, and a Socialist Government at that. There is no dissident minority there clamouring for places in the Government and perhaps backing up their claim by militant armed activity, with bombings, burnings and shootings. The minority in Sweden accepts its position as a minority, and the majority rules.

One cannot help but ask what the essential difference is between majority rule in Rhodesia and majority rule in Northern Ireland. The Government here fiercely insist on majority rule in Rhodesia, backing up their policy with intense political and economic pressure, and, allied to it, the not inconsiderable diplomatic pressure of the United States through the person of Dr. Kissinger. They insist on democratic majority rule in Rhodesia, yet just as fiercely they withhold it from the people of Northern Ireland.

There is a minority in Northern Ireland, but there are minorities in other countries. The hon. Member for Belfast, West said that it was a single island and the Six Counties were in that island. But that makes no sense whatever. The Isle of Wight is separated from the mainland of England by the Solent, and the Channel Islands are further from England than they are from France, yet all are part of the United Kingdom. It is a stupid and unrealistic idea that the strip of water between Northern Ireland and Scotland, which has been swum across, somehow means that Northern Ireland should be treated as unique and that the minority should be treated as a unique minority. We cannot understand it.

The same standards of democracy as obtain in this House and Parliament, the Mother of all Parliaments, should be applied to Northern Ireland, and the minority there should be willing to accept whatever form of government is brought about by the majority vote of the people, being content to live under a form of British Government adopting and applying British standards, which are the best in the world.

That is why the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland is determined to stay in that position. People have often blamed the politicians of Northern Ireland for the stance of the people. On the contrary. The Unionist people of Northern Ireland are loyal to the Throne, to Her Majesty the Queen and to the constitution of the United Kingdom. That is their instinct. It is part of their nature. I have gone into a little humble home in the mountains of Tyrone, a home where there is not much evidence of this world's goods, yet I have seen in pride of place on the main wall of the living room a picture of Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, surrounded by expressions of loyalty to the Queen and the Throne.

That instinct will never be eliminated from the Unionist people of Northern Ireland. No political party and no legislation will eliminate that feeling, that instinct, which is part of their nature and which leads them to wish to stay British at any cost.

At Question Time on 29th April, when he was asked about direct rule, the Secretary of State spoke of keeping the people informed, referring to

"additional facilities for keeping Members and the public informed."—[Official Report, 29th April 1976; Vol. 910, c. 541.]

One aspect of his many contacts on which we have sought more information is his contacts and conversations with Provisional Sinn Fein. This has been emphasised also from the official Opposition Front Bench, and it has been mentioned many times.

We cannot understand why the only elected representatives of over 1 million people in Northern Ireland are not informed of talks which the Secretary of State has with Provisional Sinn Fein. Some time ago the right hon. Gentleman accorded to that organisation the status of political party and declared it to be legal. Yet when the opportunity arose, as it has done many times, for these people to put themselves before the electorate, to accept and to align themselves with the verdict of the people through the ballot box, they refused to do so. They have never come out to face the people whom they claim to represent. They would rather rely on the politics of the bomb, the bullet and the fire. That seems to be their policy, for they have consistently refused to face the verdict of the people.

When Mrs. Maire Drumm and Kevin Agnew, among others, stand on a public platform and hurl defiance at the British Government and British authority in Northern Ireland, preaching sedition in the open, inciting people to violence—which is an offence nowadays—no action is taken against them. We have heard the bloodcurdling threats of Mrs. Drumm and Kevin Agnew that they will send every British soldier back to Britain in a box, and one is reminded of the threat of Mr. Khrushchev at the United Nations when he said "We will bury you." Perhaps there is some affinity of political outlook between them.

We all look for and desire the return of meaningful devolved government in Northern Ireland. The Convention Report presented to Her Majesty's Government, I make so bold as to say, was a realistic and factual document, giving the most generous terms of participation in legislation and government to be found in any administration in the British Commonwealth or, indeed, in the whole of the civilised Western world. It gave an opportunity for the minority to have a meaningful part in the running of the country. But that document has been largely rejected by the British Government. Could it be that the Government had made up their mind to reject it?

Once again, the verdict of the ballot box has been rejected, and I believe that an opportunity should be given to the people of Northern Ireland once more to record their decision and their desire through the ballot box. This Government and Parliament, the Mother of Parliaments, should accept the verdict of the ballot box, a verdict showing that the two-thirds majority of people Northern Ireland desire meaningful and democratic government according to British standards. It is our hope and desire that this opportunity will soon be accorded.

I shall not take up in detail the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop), save to comment upon what he said about Northern Ireland's strong desire to remain within the United Kingdom.

I believe that today's debate has been of great importance for the future of Northern reland. In my view, the Secretary of State's statement marks what one might dare to call a turning point in the thinking of the Westminster Government—I use that term because I do not wish to be partisan in what I say—about the future government of Northern Ireland.

I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's statements about the way in which legislation might be handled in the future were not only interesting but revolutionary—dare I say? How many of us, indeed, would welcome the thought that legislation in this place might go to a Committee before coming to the Floor of the House and being debated in the form of a Bill? I can think of at least one group of Members in a Select Committee who feel that, if they had a chance to look at some of the legislation which the Government presented to Parliament, that legislation would have been better thought out and probably more effective when it became the law of the land. In my view, that suggestion, so far as it applies to Northern Ireland, must be regarded as a major step forward, which should guarantee a greater measure of agreement and, therefore, of effectiveness in legislation when it ultimately comes into force.

I was greatly interested also in the Secretary of State's suggestion that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries might look at some of the industries in Northern Ireland. As a member of that Select Committee, I shall have something more to say about that at the end of my speech.

The final matter that I take up from the Secretary of State's speech concerns his new thinking about the represeentation of Northern Ireland in the House of Commons. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said, and I appreciate some of his doubts, but I cannot see how anybody can believe that a greater representation of the people of Northern Ireland in the Chamber can be anything but helpful to the cause of Northern Ireland. The more voices from Northern Ireland that can be heard, the clearer will be the understanding of the problems of the parts of Northern Ireland. Also, any hon. Member faced with the task of representing too many constituents is likely to find that task beyond his physical capacity. Therefore, to have more Members can only be helpful to the individual in Northern Ireland. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Belfast, West found something sinister in that suggestion. Indeed it was no more than a suggestion, because the Secretary of State did not say when the increase was proposed or whether there would be a Boundary Commission to examine the matter.

But if direct elections to a European Parliament take place, no doubt Northern Ireland will have its representation. It would be slightly invidious if a Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland were sent to Europe while Northern Ireland and its people were not properly represented here. I hope that that paradoxical situation will not be allowed to occur. I take great heart from what the Secretary of State said.

I am somewhat timorous about saying too much about the political situation. If we talk of the 50 years of Northern Ireland Stormont Parliament in a pejorative way, should we not also add that those years were years of neglect of Northern Ireland by the Westminster Parliament? Should we not in future see that that situation is never again allowed to exist and that there is a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whose voice will be heard in the United Kingdom Government? And should not that Secretary of State speak for all Northern Ireland, so that no one in the Province will feel forgotten, discriminted against or neglected? I pay tribute to the present Secretary of State, because he has a new grasp of Northern Ireland, which makes me feel slightly optimistic about the future. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Belfast, West said about being cautious about optimism, because situations change so quickly, yet I cannot help feeling optimistic and I welcome what the Secretary of State said.

I turn now to the economic situation. The Secretary of State touched upon the subject in his speech. The economic strategy for the Province is close to the Government's heart at present and the Secretary of State said that there will soon be a statement about the Government's thinking.

I was particularly struck when the Secretary of State said that he felt that any survey of the economy of Northern Ireland should seek to find a way of seeing that it is not totally reliant on old industries. Even if one wished to endorse that, it would be easier said than done, with the Province facing 50,000 or more unemployed. That is one of the highest rates, if not the highest rate, of unemployment in the United Kingdom. It is difficult to see how any new industry could pick up that unemployed mass of people in the short term. For some time to come, the existing industrial scene will have to have within it two salient features—the shipyard and the aircraft company.

I do not wish to encroach on the constituency of the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), but I have something to say about these industries because I was on the Standing Committee on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill and the matter came up then, as it will on Report. A few months ago I was privileged to go round Harland and Wolff's shipyard and I met the chairman, Sir Brian Morton, and the managing director, Mr. Punt. They told me that about 9,000 people are employed in the yard. They said that for every person employed in that yard, three others are employed in the Province on sub-contract work connected with the yard. There are, therefore, 27,000 people in the Province who are employed in work connected with Harland and Wolff.

One must wonder about the Government's approach to the shipyard and its future. A number of stories have appeared in national newspapers about this being Harland and Wolff's last chance. There has been speculation about whether the Government will give the company more money, and rumours that the present money is running out more quickly than expected. One must wonder about the Government's intentions for the yard and whether they are convinced that it will be best to leave it in its present individual status, outside what looks like becoming British Shipbuilders. If they do leave it out, will the yard be forgotten when orders come into the United Kingdom? I make that point not because I am attempting to drag Harland and Wolff into the organisation but because I believe that it is in the interests of the economy of Northern Ireland and of its future employment situation. It would not be rational to allow the company to go bust and be forgotten.

The SD330, which has been referred to, may not be the prettiest of our aircraft but it is remarkable that its first customer is an American firm The workers at Short Brothers and Harland can throw out their chests with pride, and the company deserves a pat on the back for success with that aircraft.

When I worked for Short Brothers and Harland in the 1950s I remember a conversation about the future of the company and the economy of Northern Ireland. The then chairman, Sir Matthew Slattery, said that one of the problems was that when Northern Ireland sold its goods it had to carry heavy transport costs which no other region in the United Kingdom had to bear. He said that the two products which Northern Ireland could most successfully sell were ships and aircraft, because no transport costs are involved. With every other product one had to consider the additional transport cost, which would push up the price to the consumer. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) stressed the importance of transport links between the Province and the mainland in a speech some time ago. More emphasis should be given to that problem.

In planning the economy of Northern Ireland. I think we should ask whether we are thinking of a purely provincial economy—if that could be viable, and I am not sure that it could—whether we should be thinking of it as part of the economy of the island of Ireland as a whole. I am not sure that that makes much sense, but it make more sense than thinking of it in provincial terms or whether we should plan the economy of Northern Ireland within a United Kingdom context. That brings me back to the situation of Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers and Harland being left outside the new groupings. I appeal to the Minister to share his thoughts with us on those questions.

I should very much like to share my thoughts, but the Secretary of State will be winding up the debate.

I am grateful for the guidance of the Minister.

I then go on to the point that the Secretary of State made—namely, that he thought that there might be quite a lot to be said for the nationalised industries in Northern Ireland coming within the ægis of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. If, as I understand Harland and Wolff is the property of the Ministry of Commerce in Northern Ireland, does the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries at Westminster have any right to demand from the Ministry of Commerce in Northern Ireland that it should be able to investigate the affairs of Harland and Wolff or, for that matter, Short Brothers and Harland?

My second question is, how does the Ministry of Commerce in Northern Ireland tie in with the Department of Industry or the Department of Trade in Whitehall? I have never been quite able to work out the relationship between the Ministry of Commerce and the Westminster Ministries. I am not sure about the financing arrangements which control how much aid the Ministry can give to individual companies, or whether, for instance, the Ministry of Commerce could invoke the Industry Act, or whether a special order is required for that to happen. I am not sure how much liaison there is between the Whitehall Ministries and that Ministry in Northern Ireland.

I shall stay on that point in concluding my remarks. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the organs of industrial regeneration—which the present Government so often like to tell us about, including the National Enterprise Board, and so on—extend to Northern Ireland in such a way that they can be made operable? I think I am right in saying that if Short Brothers and Harland wants to develop a new project it can still use the Civil Aviation Act 1949 to raise finances.

But what of Harland and Wolff? If it sought money for research and development, from where would it seek it? If it is the Ministry of Commerce is there a limitation on the amount, or would the Ministry of Commerce, in turn, ask the Department of Industry for assistance?

Finally—and I have already touched on the question of unemployment—as one who has believed in the Keynesian concept of public spending at times of high unemployment, although that may now be totally unfashionable and, indeed, archaic in some senses, I suppose that one must be struck by the thought that there are so many people unemployed in the Province when there is so much to be done, if only in terms of public buildings and works. Everyone is aware that there is far too much bad housing in Belfast—housing that desperately needs to be cleared away, even though much is being cleared away. At a time when the Government are faced with the problem of cutting public expenditure, is there still not a way by which some form of public works programme can be devised to mop up some of the unemployment, thus making the Province and some of its cities better places than they have been, so that when the recession passes those who are now drawing unemployment benefit will have played a part in making the Province altogether a better and more pleasant place to be in than it is at present?

I think that most of us will appreciate the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). He spoke very much along the same vein of thought as occupies my mind.

I find today's legislation, if one can call it legislation, a sad milestone. It is recording our inability to make progress as to how Ulster may be best governed. I think that we must realistically recognise today that, while we now have no alternative but to continue what is rather inaptly called direct rule, it is not a system of government that will bring back law and order to Northern Ireland, it will not end the conflict that exists within Northern Ireland, and it will not create the proper basis for economic expansion.

We have had this system of government for some four and a half years, apart from one brief interlude. If one takes a cold assessment of the present situation, one finds that it is quite frightening. The law and order situation is as bad as, if not worse than, it has been for a very long time. One of the tests of the Government fails in Northern Ireland because they cannot truly say that they maintain the rule of law in every part of the Province—and they are a very long way from doing so. Indeed, as they approach law and order they have to indulge in diplomacy in expressing themselves. Sometimes we are given very strong declarations that we are working towards the primacy of the police—a very right and laudable objective—but, if pressure is launched on the police and quite a number of police die, we then start to look at the language that has been used, and it is modified.

However, what concerns me most of all is the employment opportunities in Northern Ireland. We have had some pretty bad times in Northern reland. I can remember them as a young boy. The 'thirties hit Ulster just as badly as they hit any part of the United Kingdom, perhaps worse; yet I can see the same spectre arising today. We have already had our attention drawn to the importance of industries such as Harland and Wolff, which is of massive importance to the local social and economic community. If anything happens there, the repercussions are widespread. Of course, that happens in other parts of the kingdom when old industries have to face the changing needs of the world markets. However, in Northern Ireland I think it has already been admitted today that the chances of attracting new industries are very remote. Very few people will invest in Northern Ireland as long as its future is one of lawlessness and political and constitutional instability. Even Ulstermen are very reluctant today to invest heavily in the future of Northern Ireland.

The facts of life cannot be ignored. What we must try to do this afternoon as we debate this problem is to realise that what, has been put forward is essentially interim. It would be entirely wrong if we were to feel that this sort of Government in Northern Ireland could continue indefinitely. We are renewing it today for one year. However, let us recognise that we have a duty to try to keep that period as short as possible.

I listened with some interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), who did not see any failure in the Ulster Convention. I thought that it was a most disappointing failure, because the people of Northern Ireland were given a privileged opportunity to advise the Government and this Parliament as to how they saw an end to the conflict in Ulster and how the new institutions of government worked out. Unhappily, we did not succeed in bringing to this Parliament proposals that would have resulted in devolution and some hope of ending the conflict.

Perhaps the Secretary of State is right to say that it is better to forget about the Convention. Certainly I agree with him that we should not have a deadline of that sort hanging around our necks when dealing with such a difficult problem. However, if one lets that sort of mechanism fail or lapse, how does one continue to involve the people of Northern Ireland in working out an agreement that can lead to devolved institutions?

I do not think that the 1973 Act, which is still on the statute book, provides us with any great opportunity to work out devolution. If we are to be excluded from the general examination of devolution in United Kingdom terms, how does the Secretary of State, after the Convention legislation elapses, see this process continuing in Northern Ireland? It is too large a burden for 12 Members representing the Province in this Parliament to undertake. While we may not see an opportunity now for a fresh initiative, I hope that the people of the Province of Northern Ireland will know that it is the Government's major priority to seek an initiative at the earliest possible time that will lead to a satisfactory form of devolution. Most people in Northern Ireland cannot see any way forward which does not include worthwhile devolution.

That raises some awkward points in the interim period. How are we to deal with Harland and Wolff and with Short Bros. if we recognise that sooner or later—and preferably sooner—there must be a worthwhile measure of devolution? The viability or otherwise of Harland and Wolff will be important for those charged with the administration of Northern Ireland in Northern Irish terms.

I doubt whether anybody in this Parliament would disagree with the argument that, whatever happens to the British shipbuilding industry, we can safely conclude that it will not be as large as it is at present. What is to be the basis for rationalising the British shipbuilding industry? Will it provide for such special situations as Northern Ireland, where the industry has a tremendous social importance, assuming that one can discharge that social obligation within reasonable terms of economic viability?

Knowing the great need for devolution, I should be reluctant to see Harland and Wolff dealt with in such a way that it would be beyond the decision-taking process in Northern Ireland. Yet I am anxious and nervous that in the interim period many things could happen to Harland and Wolff which in the long-term might be damaging. I support what was said by the hon. Member for Newbury, who assumed that it would not be denied sufficient research facilities. That is vital if we are to maintain the hope of industry in Belfast so that in turn it can maintain confidence outside. That argument can also be used in relation to Short Bros.

I wish to refer to social legislation. We must look at some of these contentious proposals on the assumption that one day devolution will take place. I believe that much social legislation in Northern Ireland is way behind community needs. I wonder what right we in this Parliament have to try to make up that leeway. When I stood before the electorate, I did not say that I was coming to this Parliament to support or oppose changes in the law on homosexuality, nor did I say that I envisaged a modernisation of the divorce laws. It has been obvious to me this afternoon, when some of these matters were mentioned on both sides of the House, that there is already a serious conflict of opinion about whether we should handle such controversial issues. It is easy to say that of such emotive matters as divorce. The same situation could arise once we begin to tackle the administrative system of Northern Ireland in matters such as health, welfare and education.

The Secretary of State said that we shall shortly receive a consultative document on the reorganisation of education. No doubt we, as Members of Parliament, and other interested people will be very concerned about the contents of that document. We shall appreciate and value an opportunity to convey our views to the Government—but we can do nothing more than convey our views. We cannot convey them with any sense of having a mandate, to do so. It worries me that massive changes could take place in our education structure or in our hospital services that will not reflect accurately the feelings of the people of Northern Ireland, who for years have had an opportunity to say in what way they would like to see those services developed. This might be a subject on which a devolved Parliament and Government would feel that changes could be brought about within a month of their coming into being. It is a difficult matter, but we cannot continue to let it drift.

We need to hasten the process of tackling difficulties that lie in the way of achieving agreed institutions of government. We should not rush too speedily into issues on which there is no clear mandate or test of opinion in Northern Ireland. If that were to happen, it would increase pressures that already exist to see an end to the Union. There is no elected representative on this side of the House who wants to see the integrity of the United Kingdom in any way impaired. We would be misleading the House if we were not to say that, apart from the IRA pressures, there are also pressures from what would normally be regarded as a willingness in the community to think in terms of a changed relationship with the rest of the kingdom. In my opinion, that feeling is growing because of the general dissatisfaction with the way in which the Province is being governed across a whole area of activity.

I am not criticising the Secretary of State or his Ministers. It is the system that has created this situation. People are unhappy about law and order and economic decisions. Pressures arise out of a faulty system to the disadvantage of the need to maintain the Union.

Undoubtedly much more will be said later on the subject of law and order, but today's Order is not without its importance to that very important need. I personally believe that the most effective way to re-establish the primacy of the police in effective enforcement of the law is to act through agreed institutions of government in such a way that we rob the terrorist of achieving the ends of his violence. That is imperative.

This is an interim Order, as the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, of the United Kingdom as a whole realise. Let us all realise that we have a specific duty to see that an initiative is taken to bring about a more permanent form of government as soon as possible.

When we look at the present situation in Northern Ireland, with a murder a day, where bombs are a regular feature of life, where intimidation is rife and where the terrorists are many, and then we listen to the Secretary of State proclaiming the successes of the security forces in terms of those who are charged and imprisoned, we have to tell him that such proclamations do not cut much ice with ordinary people in Northern Ireland—certainly they do not with me.

The Secretary of State forgets that these crimes are the result of Government failure. They are the end result of failed policies. They are nothing of which to be proud. If this House in years past had pursued reasonable policies, these crimes would not be committed today and the successes that the right hon. Gentleman lauds would not be a necessary part of our life. The crimes that are solved are simply like putting vaseline on a boil. They ignore the root cause of the problem. Until we consider seriously the root cause, the results that have sprung from it will continue and we shall have more and more excuses, no matter how they are masked, in the days to come.

In the course of our debate last year, the Secretary of State drew attention, not for the first time and certainly not for the last, to the fact that the administration of law and order was in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman should know that the people of Northern Ireland do not believe that those hands have been effective in the administration of law and order over the years.

The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) said that a vast number of moderate people in this country were prepared to assist the police and that therefore the terrorist could not succeed. I remind him that there are a vast number of moderate and reasonable men and women in Northern Ireland, but that when they assist the police their fear is that they will get a bomb or a knee-capping and that, if they do it a second time or in the wrong area, the bullet will not be in the knee but 3 feet higher. If the ordinary moderate men and women in this country were confronted with the same choice, they would behave precisely as many of the moderate and reasonable decent people in Northern Ireland behave. They would be very happy to keep their mouths shut.

It is no defence of the people of this country, who are free from terror and who can speak in safety, to say that the people of Northern Ireland should do the same. The people of Northern Ireland cannot do the same. The people of Northern Ireland pay with their lives, their liberty and their limbs, and with the lives of their children and friends, if they are prepared to stand up against the terrorists.

I say that the people of Northern Ireland have no confidence in the hands that look after their security. They have no confidence in them, because they believe that those hands belong to a Government who have neither the will no the moral courage to win in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) drew attention to this when he said that there was a good case for laws in Northern Ireland being different in some respects from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. I go along with him in that view. I believe that the laws of Northern Ireland in respect of terrorism and the maintenance of law and order can and should be different, until such time as law and order are restored and the terrorist is defeated.

We should never forget—the people of Northern Ireland never have forgotten—that it was this House which tore down the former compromise that existed from 1920. It was this House which, by its foolishness or its evil—and I know which of the descriptions is used in Northern Ireland—created the conditions that allowed the terrorists to flourish. It was this House that surrendered, not us. I believe that this House, having made a mistake, will never have the guts to rectify its mistake in any meaningful way until it is forced to do so by events in Ulster.

These events have grown out of the barrel of the terrorist gun. It is a brutal fact of life that the terrorist has won in Northern Ireland to date, and is continuing to win in the minds and hearts of the people, because the people believe that this Government are being defeated. Therefore, in the long run, it is up to this House to do that which is necessary to restore the confidence of the people there.

When the hon. Member for Belfast, West said that he supported the idea of a period of quiet, I felt that it was a great pity that he had not considered that a period of quiet was needed in 1969, when he was calling the mobs of West Belfast on to the street to take the pressure off the mobs stoning the police in Londonderry. The hon. Gentleman has a lot to answer for, as has his party, in respect of the present situation in Ulster.

As the Secretary of State said, this House asked the people of Northern Ireland how the Province should be governed. In effect, this House asked Lord O'Neill's original question, "What kind of Ulster do you want?" and the people of Northern Ireland gave a very clear answer. Only those who are physically blind and deaf or wilfully blind and deaf can refuse to recognise the clarity of that answer and to recognise precisely what the people of Northern Ireland wanted a year ago and what htey want and expect from this House today.

The Secretary of State said that the Convention Report would not work. How does he know? He has not tried it. He talked about achieving the right degree of public support, but he did not tell us what that was. I can tell him what Ulster believes. Ulster believes that it is capable of running its own affairs and that the right hon. Gentleman is not to be trusted. He may not like this—

I do not care what the hon. Gentleman says.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not care what I say. That is what is wrong. He has never cared what the people of Northern Ireland said. He has never listened to them. He has been blind and deaf to what has been said by responsible people in Northern Ireland. Therefore, he cannot succeed.

Ulster does not believe that this Secretary of State has the will to win or that the alternatives who sit on the Opposition Front Bench have the will to win, either. This House refuses to face the fact that its "love thine enemy" policy in Northern Ireland over the past few years has failed. It has failed because the enemy does not want to be loved. This enemy wants to win. This enemy does not care what it has to do to win. It wants to attain its political objective of destroying the United Kingdom.

The right hon. Gentleman said in this House that Northern Ireland wanted direct rule to continue. However, whenever I have asked him how many letters he has received in support of this contention, he has been unable to tell me. He has made some wild claims about the Royal Ulster Constabulary not operating in certain parts of Northern Ireland for 50 years. However, when I put further questions to him, he retreated from these claims. The people of Northern Ireland remember that in its early days the UDR was lauded as the force that would bridge the sectarian gap. Now we are told that it is not accepted by a large section of the community. I am told that in areas amounting to one-third of my constituency the UDR is not allowed to operate, yet, strangely enough, the RUC still operates in those areas.

Perhaps I may ask, in passing, whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the number of weapons that the RUC has. I believe that there are many areas in Northern Ireland in which the police would like a few more weapons, so as to be able to do their job properly and have a margin of safety, rather than work on a threadbare policy.

The plain fact is that the terrorists whom we face cannot go before the community, because they know they will not be supported there. They fear the ballot box. We do not fear it. That is why we are here. We prefer to go before the people with our solution, which is the same as that which emerged from the Convention Report, and we support it. The right hon. Gentleman should dust it off and take another hard, long look at it if he wants to do something for which the people will work and vote.

The plain truth is that votes have been cast aside. The terrorist has been allowed to dictate policy. The longer terror is allowed to flourish, the deeper its roots will grow. We have seen what it has done to ordinary men and women and we know how dishonest and wicked it has made many people. We know how it has twisted hearts and minds and has destroyed Ulster. The longer terrorism is allowed not only to send down its roots but to spread its vile foliage of violence, pillage and death, the harder it will be to tear it out. It has lasted for seven years—seven years too long.

The Secretary of State has spoken in the House about the penumbra of Northern Ireland politics. We in Northern Ireland politics have often walked in that half shadow. But the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the umbra—the very heart of the shadow of politics and life in Northern Ireland. What is going on in the shadows? That is the question which the right hon. Gentleman has never fully answered. If he wants to take away that sunspot, that shadow over Northern Ireland politics, and to let the sunlight come in again, he must stop talking to para-military people behind closed doors. He will say that it is his officials who talk. I do not care: he must have sent his officials to talk.

What is going on in the heart of the shadow between the Secretary of State and non-elected people of all types in Northern Ireland? That is where the real darkness in Northern Ireland lies. Deals are suspected of being made. I do not say that they are being made; I simply say that it is suspected that they are made. The people in Northern Ireland believe that these things are going on, and whenever people believe something it does not matter whether it is true or not; they will act upon what they believe. I ask the Secretary of State to take away the shadow and to talk plainly in the House to the people. We, alone, have been sent to speak for the people of Ulster. If other people to whom the Secretary of State or his officials have talked want to be in a position to talk fully, clearly and openly, let them come to this House and speak here. Then all the world will know what is going on.

We are told that this is temporary legislation. Temporary legislation creates uncertainty in the minds and hearts of the people. It gives comfort to terrorism. It gives hope to those who wish to bring about change. We do not want anything that is temporary. We want a permanent solution. We want certainty, before uncertainty brings an even more desperate destruction upon us. Will the Secretary of State propose some thing next year that is permanent, without carrying out an experiment? Will he present something that will work and will grow out of that which has gone before?

I agree with what the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) said about restructuring education in Northern Ireland. We have a slightly different system of education from that of the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a system that has grown up. It has been an experimenting system in many parts of the country. Some of the experiments have worked, and some certainly have not, but at least we have been willing to try. I should hate to think that we might be faced with a single system imposed upon us without due consultation.

As education is a matter that cuts across party political lines and the sectarian divide—it concerns all parents in Northern Ireland and indeed, many of the older pupils—I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that sufficient time is devoted to it. We do not want anything to be done hastily. We want the matter to be quietly and carefully considered without people taking up fixed positions. If people take up fixed positions in this matter they have to defend them, and often the defence is not sensible or logical.

Before the Secretary of State starts altering the hospital service in Northern Ireland, and specifically the facilities for the mentally handicapped, particularly in the western part of the country, I ask him to consider the work being done at the Stradreagh Hospital, in Londonderry, where a splendid system is coming under attack by some departmental heads in Belfast and, for all I know, the Secretary of State. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to go along to see what is being done for the mentally handicapped in the western part of Northern Ireland and carefully to compare the system that exists there with the new system operating in the rest of the country. I ask him to consider whether the system could be improved elsewhere by going back a step, rather than by destroying what exists in the West and bringing it down to the level in the rest of Northern Ireland.

I could say a great deal more on this subject, but we have had a long debate, and many other hon. Members wish to speak. I trust that the Secretary of State will take account of what is said today and will try to meet us at least on some points.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), I found much to welcome in the speech of the Secretary of State. I welcomed the tone in which he discussed the question of the representation of Northern Ireland in this House. I welcomed also his reference to the fact—I hope it is a fact—that there will be legislation early in the next Session dealing with the matter of compensation. He said that there had been delay because this subject was steeped in Irish history and Irish law. However, I do not understand why more than 15 months should elapse before legislation is introduced. I am glad we have had a firm assurance that at last legislation will be introduced.

I welcomed, too, what the Secretary of State said about the extension of British legislation to Northern Ireland. Earlier this year I took part briefly in a debate on an Order which extended to Northern Ireland the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971. I had the privilege of introducing that measure. I could not understand then, as I cannot understand now, why that legislation could not automatically apply to Northern Ireland.

I last took part in a Friday debate in the House when we were discussing the non-controversial Dangerous Wild Animals Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) that there is good reason for saying that legislation dealing with the control of dangerous men should be different in Northern Ireland from what it is in the rest of the United Kingdom, but I cannot understand why legislation controlling dangerous animals should be different in Belfast from what it is in Beckenham or why there should be different rules governing the control of tigers in London from those in Londonderry.

Clearly there is a substantial case in many instances for extending British legislation to Northern Ireland. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us a little more about the criteria that will be used in deciding which measures should apply to Northern Ireland. I am not sure that I entirely agree with what he said about the extension to Northern Ireland of previous legislation for Great Britain. He referred to divorce law and homosexual law reform, and he could have mentioned abortion as well. That is another knotty social problem.

But how are we to proceed in these things? As the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) said, the Members from Northern Ireland have not really discussed these matters on the election hustings. The Secretary of State said that he intended to consult widely with public opinion in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether he has considered consulting all the people in Northern Ireland. Some time ago, the Secretary of State for Energy said in a pamphlet that such measures as divorce, homosexual law reform and abortion law were precisely the sort of matters that lent themselves to a referendum. In the past, Northern Ireland has taken the lead with referenda in the United Kingdom.

I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would say that, next time there is a General Election in Northern Ireland, a referendum will be held at the same time in which the electorate will be asked to say whether they wish the British laws on those three specific subjects to apply to Northern Ireland. It would be a simple question to put, and I see no reason why the electorate of Northern Ireland should not be competent to answer it. One thing is clearly underlined by this debate. We have not yet got a proper answer to the whole problem of how the opinion of the people of Northern Ireland can be heard in this House.

I shall be putting it mildly if I say that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have no motive for opposing the Order. There is certainly a compelling negative reason for that, because if the Order were not to come into effect in the middle of this month, the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 would revive. If I dared, I would say that there is at any rate one subject regarding the governance of Northern Ireland on which I have detected no hint of disagreement whatever. That is that the 1973 Act belongs to the past and not to the future, that it was unworkable, and that it entailed disasters upon that Province. I have refreshed my memory of the roll of honour of 24th May 1973—the nine Members who said as much before the event, and who sealed it with their votes. I shall only recall a few words of my own, where I said:

"we are not devolving responsibility to an Assembly or a Government in Northern Ireland; we are creating the maximum incentive to dissent and not to acquiescence and cooperation; and we are not establishing responsible organs of representation or Government."—[Official Report, 24th May 1973; Vol. 857, c. 720.]

So it has proved to be, and none of us wishes to see that legislation back—a reflection which perhaps ought to commend a certain humility to those still in this House who supported the Act and to those who introduced it.

Of course, the measure which, as it were, suppresses the 1973 Act, and which by renewing we enable to continue to suppress it, is itself, by its very nature, interim. However devoted one might be to French proverbs about nothing lasting except what is provisional, there is no mistaking that the form of governance of Northern Ireland under the 1974 Act, which we are renewing, is not a permanent system of government suitable for any part of the United Kingdom. From the point of view of those who live under it in Northern Ireland as citizens of the United Kingdom, as inhabitants of what the Government themselves in their factual document a year or two ago described as an integral part of the United Kingdom, there are four major respects in which they are at a disadvantage as compared with the rest of their fellow subjects, four kinds of inequity and injustice under which they suffer and which our own presence on this Bench is the expression of their demand to see remedied.

These four defects are as follows. First, the laws under which we live in Northern Ireland are not made as they are made for the rest of the United Kingdom. Secondly, we are not represented in this House as the inhabitants of the rest of the United Kingdom are represented. Thirdly, we do not enjoy local government—in the old-fashioned sense of the term—in Northern Ireland, as our fellow citizens elsewhere enjoy it. Fourthly, we have not been conceded, to put it at its lowest, the right to devolved government or devolved legislative power which is busily being devised for other parts of the United Kingdom, parts which, by their situation or traditions, have certainly no greater claim than we have to such a measure of devolution.

I want to examine the state of affairs today and the effect of this Order in the light of those four remonstrances which we present in this House on behalf of those who sent us here.

The first is that we are not legislated for as our fellow citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom are. The right hon. Gentleman put before the House today, in introducing the Order, a very substantial package of proposals for the amelioration of law-making under the 1974 Act. I believe that the more they are studied—they are detailed and numerous—the larger the improvement, taken as a whole, will be seen to have been. When I say that every item in that package has been proposed and pressed upon the Government, not once but many times, by the representatives of Northern Ireland in this House, I am in no way seeking to derogate from the credit due to the Secretary of State. Indeed, I am adding to it by saying that he has done what he should have done so far as he has gone—he has listened to what has been said to him by the representatives of Northern Ireland in this House.

Although I am exaggerating, I am I believe not greatly exaggerating when I say that today is the first occasion since before 1922 when the representatives of Northern Ireland, the elected representatives of Northern Ireland, have succeeded in influencing and moulding according to the wishes of those they represent, to however limited an extent, the form of constitution under which they live.

The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is enjoying one of his absences from the Chamber; but had he been present he would have noted that I referred without party qualification to the elected representatives of Northern Ireland. In this matter, as in a number of others, the hon. Member for Belfast, West, like the rest of us, has been a representative of those who sent him here, and is entitled to join in whatever we can claim as a result of our activities and representations.

I will not weary the House by running through all the items which the Secretary of State has put forward and which we shall be exploring in practice. I want to emphasise two points only. First, the prospect, where there is still to be substantial legislation by order, of being able to consider draft proposals, then debate them in the Northern Ireland Committee, and then finally deal with them as Orders on the Floor of the House, is no mean improvement, and no mean approximation, within the available limits, to the equivalent of legislation by means of Bill. With good will on both sides of the House, and the openness of mind which the Secretary of State and his Ministers have often shown, we have here a means of doing what we have been hitherto denied, namely making amendments to proposals before they take the form of law. This is one of the measures mentioned this afternoon which we shall practice, sharpen, and develop.

My second point is that we must not be too mesmerised by the concept of a Northern Ireland statute book, the existence of which somehow limits the extent to which the people of Northern Ireland can have their law made as the people of the rest of the United Kingdom have their law made.

The law applying to Northern Ireland can be divided into three categories. First, it is the law which applies to the rest of the United Kingdom, as made by this House. Secondly, it is the law which applies peculiarly to Northern Ireland, as made by this House both before 1922 and since, though between 1922 and 1972 it was confined in a more limited sphere. Thirdly, it is the law made by the Parliament of Northern Ireland in the 50 years from 1922 to 1972.

This is not a single corpus of law or a sacrosanct statute book. The Parliament of Northern Ireland inherited a statute book which was the creation of this Parliament; it made its own additions and, within certain limits, its own amendments to it; and all the time this House added to the statute book of Northern Ireland. A future devolved Parliament of Northern Ireland, if there is to be one, will be in no way inhibited by the fact that it will become responsible for this or that part of the law which has been made by Order, or by United Kingdom Act of Parliament.

Of course there are great technical difficulties due to the fact that so much has already been enacted for Great Britain which has been, or is to be, repeated by Order under the 1974 Act—certainly for some time to come. There are laws applied to us by Order, which would have been better dealt with by Bills. There is also the necessity to take account of special and different conditions which apply in Northern Ireland, though there is nothing which prevents or has prevented this Parliament from enacting by means of Bill legislation which operates differently in different parts of the United Kingdom.

In general, however, I hope we shall find that, given the principles which the Secretary of State enunciated today, more and more of the law by which the people of Northern Ireland are to be bound will be made in the same way as the law is made for the rest of their fellow citizens, with the same opportunities for public discussion and criticism, for amendment and for debate in this House. Thus we shall have moved a considerable stage further today, now that substantial note has been taken of this grievance, and substantial steps have been attempted towards the removal of it.

I now come to representation in this House. As has been mentioned by several hon. Members who have spoken, the Government have today recognised much more frankly than any Government in office had previously recognised the fact of the under-representation of Northern Ireland in Parliament. To recognise a fact like that is in the House of Commons the formula necessary for remedying it; for it cannot be right that a population is deliberately under-represented here.

True, there is all the history, going back far before 1922, which shows how many heads were broken in the effort to discover some way whereby Ireland could be part, and yet not part, of the United Kingdom. There are all the contortions that were gone through by one generation after another in an effort to discover the right formula for adjusting representation within this House to a particular state and stage of self-government. That is history; but it is past history, because we are now approaching the debates of the coming Session on the great question of devolution in the United Kingdom with the assurance that devolution is irrelevant to representation in this House. We have been assured—even before the system of devolved government for Scotland and Wales is seriously debated; nay, before the Government's proposals on the subject have been unveiled—that the representation of Scotland and Wales in the House will not be interfered with. So no one can say "Ah, but if Parliament were to recognise this inequity and put it right, that would be slamming the door upon devolved government in Northern Ireland". We now know that the two matters are quite separate.

The Secretary of State will be greatly mistaken if he thinks that, once he has acknowledged the unfairness, or the deficiency, as he called it, this subject will ever again be silenced until it is dealt with. He is mistaken if he thinks it will be possible to pass the whole year between this Order and the next Order, to debate devolution and the future constitution of the United Kingdom, and yet allow this matter to sleep. I do assure him that to be seen to desire to achieve equity and remove this admitted injustice to the people of Northern Ireland, is a great element in securing the consent of the people of Northern Ireland to the form of government we are continuing by this Order. I am not saying that a people can always be governed by justice. I am saying that a people can not be governed when there is acknowledged injustice. Under-representation of Northern Ireland is now acknowledged injustice, and as such, I say—in the one place where that statement can be made and not denied—it will not endure.

Thirdly, I come to local government. Again, we lack Banquo: the hon. Member for Belfast, West is not here. [Laughter.] Of course one must think of all possible misconstructions that can be put upon one's words. I do not wish to cast myself in the rôle of Macbeth to the hon. Member's Banquo. One should consider what might come to mind all too readily in the circumstances of Northern Ireland today.

If he were here, I would repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said to him, that we are speaking about the necessity of the people of Northern Ireland having proper local government in the ordinary sense. We are not seeking to go back—I do not believe that there is any going back in this life, in politics or anywhere else—but we do want to see organisations like the Housing Executive and other bureaucratic boards—I do not use "bureaucratic" as a term of abuse—subordinated to a control more intimately local, more directly localised, than the democratic control which admittedly is exercised by this House through the medium of the Secretary of State and his colleagues.

Because this topic is for the moment not at the forefront, it should not be supposed that real grievance is not felt by ordinary men and women in Northern Ireland when they find that the simplest matters of inconvenience in their daily lives and in their places of residence can be dealt with only through bureaucratic bodies, often involving the intercession of their inadequate number of Members of Parliament.

I come then to devolution itself. By that I mean legislative devolution, the right of subordinate bodies within the United Kingdom to make law for their respective areas or provinces. In this context I will offer the Secretary of State another warning. Let him not imagine that devolved government can be debated or enacted for Scotland and Wales and that Northern Ireland and its just claim and demand will not be present at the feast. Nor let him imagine that as that debate proceeds it will be possible to continue to pretend that in Northern Ireland devolution depends upon the fulfilment of conditions that would be repudiated out of hand if they were offered to any other part of the kingdom.

We are told that Northern Ireland is a divided community, a community of which one part does and one part does not identify with the United Kingdom. We are told that therefore some special structure, some not merely undemocratic but anti-democratic structure, will have to be devised, and that unless we can devise and agree upon it, the answer will be "No' to us when it is "Yes" to everybody else. Yet in Scotland there is a substantial and increasing minority which "wants out" of the United Kingdom. The hon. Members of the Scottish National Party in their every speech repudiate membership of the United Kingdom as the future for Scotland. There is no concealing that. Why then are they not told: "You cannot have devolution in Scotland, where part of the electorate 'wants in' and part 'wants out', unless you accept some contrived constitution which will bring together into power-sharing those people who believe that Scotland should be an independent country and those who believe that it should be an integral part of the United Kingdom."?

I warn the right hon. Gentleman that he will not have got very far through those debates in the next Session before the untenability of the conditions which have been invented to keep Northern Ireland out of the picture has become so evident that they can no longer be maintained.

I want to refer to one other speech in the debate today, and I apologise to the Secretary of State for detaining him a moment or two longer. That speech was by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). The Secretary of State did not enjoy that speech. I did not enjoy it, either. But it was right that it should have been made. Here we are, all of us, accepting an Order for continuing what is called direct rule for the next 12 months. Here are we in this House, with the powers committed to us, giving our consent to it. Yet being Members of Parliament, we are the intermediaries between Parliament and Government on the one hand and the people on the other, and when we return to those who sent us here, it is not in the language that is spoken in this House, with its nuances, its suggestions, its hints and its gradualism, that we find ourselves addressed. The people who suffer and who live in fear speak to us as my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry spoke to the House, and we should be in danger of underestimating what we are attempting if he had not reminded us. The Secretary of State, in working out in the next 12 months that to which he has set his hand in his statement today, must never for one moment leave out of his mind the realities to which my hon. Friend recalled the House.

The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) used the word "evolution". Everything which is good about this country, everything that Parliament has done which has lasted, has evolved. And so I believe that the future of Northern Ireland and future government for Northern Ireland will evolve and not be made dramatically or drastically, and certainly not forcibly. I take the risks of hope and optimism when I say that I believe we have accomplished one stage in that evolution by the Secretary of State's speech. But if evolution there is to be, the implication is that this is a starting-point, not a finishing-point, and that from here we and he shall go on, in this House and in Northern Ireland, building month by month upon the new foundation that we have laid.

Responding to the exhortation of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I express the hope that everybody will approach the terrible problem of Northern Ireland with humility. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the well-known French saying about the durability of the provisional. I hope that in this case it will be disproved.

The Secretary of State looks on direct rule as being positive. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) wants it to be made more sensitive, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who at least listens to his own speeches, said that there was no alternative, and the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) said that it was a sad milestone. I regard direct rule as necessary and unavoidable but also as regrettable, and I trust that it will be a temporary expedient.

The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made the point that Northern Ireland was not in the same position, within the realm, as England, Scotland or Wales because its institutions were not adapted to the absence of executive government and a legislative assembly. However we judge the Macrory reform of local government, it was made on the assumption that there was a Northern Ireland Parliament and Government. The reforms drastically curtailed the scope of representative local authorities.

The 26 district councils are sometimes described as mere emptiers of dustbins. That is an exaggeration. Besides cleansing functions, they have duties in connection with such matters as consumer protection, environmental health and licensing. However, it is true that major civic and local services have been taken away from them, and their rôle in education, the library service, health and personal social services, drainage, the supply of electricity and the fire service is confined to nominating local representatives to statutory boards. I endorse the remarks of the right hon. Member for Down, South on this subject.

Not only is there no Northern Ireland legislature, but the Province's parliamentary representation is numerically insufficient and there is not adequate time or arrangements for discussing Northern Ireland business in this House. I therefore join with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) in rejoicing at the conversion of the Secretary of State to the principle of increased representation at Westminster, though I noted that the hon. Member for Belfast, West did not share in the rejoicing. We also appreciate the efforts of the Government and hon. Members in all parts of the House to improve our procedures for dealing with Northern Ireland matters.

The system which is to be extended by the Order is unavoidably and unquestionably bureaucratic. Like the right hon. Member for Down, South, I use the word "bureacratic" in as neutral a way as possible. The system will necessarily be remote from a public which, in the past, has been accustomed to easy access to legislators, Ministers and officials. The hon. Member for Belfast, West seemed nostalgic for Stormont, where there was easy access to the rulers. It is the nature of the system, rather than the men and women concerned, which leads to this result, although the man in Stormont, like the man in Whitehall, is tempted to believe that he knows best.

The Secretary of State chided and even taunted my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon for objecting to the application, under direct rule, of Socialist measures to Northern Ireland. But the right hon. Gentleman did not mention our support on Harland and Wolff, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) spoke with such knowledge, and Short Brothers.

The right hon. Member for Belfast, East mentioned the consultative document on secondary education. This is already causing concern in places of learning and in various sections of the community. I beg the Government to be prudent and not to introduce elements of denominational and ideological conflict. There is enough of that already.

The hon. Member for Belfast, West was voicing the views not only of Roman Catholics when he said that Northern Ireland should not be considered benighted because of its divergence on such matters as divorce and abortion.

The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) welcomed what the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) preferred to call the reconnaissance between representatives of the two main political tendencies. Nearly everyone who has spoken today has cautioned us against being too optimistic. Certainly we must not expect too much too soon. However, if such talks result in agreement on new institutions of regional self-government within the United Kingdom, it may be that the labours of the Constitutional Convention, which those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies have commended, will not have been wasted. If agreement is reached, I hope that the Government will be able to give their blessing and their backing.

I agree with the last point made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), but how one is able to agree, and at what pitch one is able to agree, not just with a sentiment but with the detail, takes us back to the comments of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave). Timing is not only for the politicians in Northern Ireland; it is for all of us. I feel that we have to wait a while yet to see what is to emerge.

My purpose in winding up the debate is not to be long. I have said what I have to say about the 1974 Act and the new procedures, which have been generally welcomed. I must make it clear that the system of Orders that we have operated for four years, even with the changes that I announced this morning, will still be the main way in which we get legislation through the House in the foreseeable future.

The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke about the Northern Ireland statute book. It is true that Westminster and Stormont legislated for Northern Ireland, but, except on rare occasions, only Stormont legislated on transferred matters. It is that body of separate Northern Ireland law that constitutes what we call the Northern Ireland statute book. If there is to be devolved government again, its task will be much easier if it is able to identify separately the body of legislation for which it is responsible—namely, transferred legislation.

The hon. Member for Abingdon spoke about an advisory body system, of which I am not in favour. The advisory body system under the previous Administration was composed of admirable gentlemen. Indeed, I was once invited to attend—[Interruption.] I was not saying that for amusing purposes. They were admirable gentlemen, but I do not believe that the system worked. I am not speaking against the individuals, whom I shall meet again very shortly in Northern Ireland.

My responsibility must be to the House, and a problem arises when economic cuts are made. Consideration is being given to the terms of reference of the Economic Council, and I should like to change them. The problem is that an advisory body wants to spend money, but my responsibility is to the Cabinet and to the House. I gather that the Opposition want to cut public expenditure to a vast degree. If that is so, I should not care to be in the hon. Gentleman's shoes if he meets an advisory body in Northern Ireland.

The members of advisory bodies do not come bearing gifts but requests for public expenditure—[Interruption.] No, I did not say begging. Quite properly they want to do what is right, but only when one has responsibility for expenditure can one decide the priorities that should be used. The same situation arose in respect of defence expenditure in Northern Ireland.

Hon. Members have spoken about advice and easy access. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has returned to the Chamber. Perhaps I should tell him that his absence has been noted by a number of hon. Members. My hon. Friend said that there was ease of access at Stormont. That is true.

I occupy the former Northern Ireland Prime Minister's office, and I gather that people used to ring up directly to the outer office about matters of great importance to them which would not be considered to be of great importance here. That practice would come back with a devolved administration. Until I went to Northern Ireland I had not realised how easy it was for people to get round and about. There is easier access to Ministers in Northern Ireland than there is in the rest of the United Kingdom. That sometimes also applies in the House. People do not always realise how much time is taken up in this way in Northern Ireland.

I happen to be meeting Ministers in Northern Ireland about an industry in which 350 jobs are at stake.

That is why I brought my hon. Friend into the discussion.

I am sorry that I missed the speech made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). He raised several matters concerned with the economy. As he is not in the Chamber now, I shall write to him.

The question of representation I find difficult. It is not a matter of logic, or of a strict relationship between representation here and in another assembly. The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) referred to legislaion about which he had not spoken to his constituents before he was elected. Most of the legislation that I mentioned, on homosexuality and divorce, I did not mention to my constituents. We cannot be held to pieces of paper that we put out at election time referring to matters about which we feel strongly. When we come to the House there are 634 other Members and we are subsumed within a wider arena, and we have to make a judgment.

I have been in Northern Ireland long enough to understand that, whatever was the feeling in 1922, there is now a feeling that is not so much anti-direct rule as a wish to return to devolved administration. Some people have a strong feeling that they want to be part of the United Kingdom, but on their own terms. They do not wish to take the parts of the United Kingdom legislation that they do not like. The strict logic of being part of the United Kingdom is that if there is a law on homosexuality in the Untied Kingdom that law should apply also in Northern Ireland. That is what being part of the United Kingdom means. I am not offering my personal view on the homosexuality law; I am just saying that that is the logic of being part of the United Kingdom Parliament. Those who want extra representation in the United Kingdom Parliament cannot move away from that logic. Extra representation merely means that the 16, 18 or 20 Members are subsumed within the other 640, or whatever may be the total figure.

The right hon. Gentleman said that we shall have interesting debates later this year and next year on devolution. They will not just be on constitutional matters; they will encompass what the United Kingdom is all about, not just in constitutional terms, a subject about which we have not thought for approximately 260 years.

When I referred to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and said that I did not care, I was not being rude. I said that if he wanted to be rude to me I did not care, which is a different thing.

Northern Ireland is different, and it is in the nature of that difference that one day it must have a devolved Administration.

If I may break the rules for a moment, I should like to announce that Mr. Deputy Speaker who will relieve me—the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton)—has this day been sworn in as a Privy Councillor. I thought the House would like to know.

Hear, hear.

I am grateful for your intervention, Mr. Speaker. I have with me a note to remind me to say that very thing when he arrives.

I beg to move,

That the Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th May, be approved.

On 14th June I gave to the House an account of the current security situation in Northern Ireland. As I made clear to the House, the most important security need is to make a direct contribution to reducing the level of violence in the Province. This is the touchstone by which the ordinary citizen will judge the policy as a whole.

In the debate on 14th June I gave the Government's view on security. I explained that, in my view, we were facing a long haul. I said that violence was currently high. We have seen in recent months an upsurge both of bomb attacks on commercial property and of murderous assaults on the security forces, particularly the police. This year six members of the Regular Army, seven members of the UDR and 15 members of the RUC have been killed; and 148 civilians have died as a result of the security situation, compared with 196 last year. This is a serious situation, as grave as the Province has faced since the troubles started.

We are nevertheless dealing with a changing situation. As I told the House on 14th June, there is at present less organised street violence than formerly, though it has not been entirely eliminated; and the number of shooting incidents has remained at the lower level established during 1975. I can assure the House that, in these circumstances, the security forces are not pulling their punches or operating under any form of political restraint. On the contrary, the level of activity of the security forces has, in fact, become more intense to meet the terrorist threat. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will say something later about charges and convictions. As another example of security force activity, over 12 tons of explosive material has been recovered or neutralised this year, compared with just under 10 tons in the whole of 1975.

I also made clear on 14th June that we were awaiting the final proposals of the Ministerial Committee on Law and Order, of which I am the Chairman, into the nature of the foreseeable threat; on the forces and measures that are required to deal with it and to achieve the rule of law; and on the way in which successful action will depend upon interdependence and co-operation between the Army, the police and other locally recruited forces. At the same time, I made clear that the studies my advisers have carried out for the Ministerial Committee have already begun to inform practical action and that movement and change have begun.

I should like to save time and, therefore, I shall briefly recall the three points I made a fortnight ago, because they are the basis of the further changes I want to announce today. The Chief Constable is setting up three regional crime squads. He is establishing units at headquarters and in support of the regional crime squads to collate resources and intelligence to secure convictions, and he is extending and strengthening specialised units dealing with forensic and similar technical work. That is already being done.

I must emphasise that the Ministerial Committee has been concerned with longterm issues. It has taken a cool, hard look at what the long-term situation demands. The committee's work has not been designed to produce a detailed blueprint. It has been concerned with a framework for the future—a framework, moreover, that allows action to be adapted to immediate and changing circumstances. The Ministerial Committee has now completed its work. I would have liked to publish its results, but by their nature it woud not be in the public interest to disclose the details. I shall, however, describe in broad terms its findings.

First, the committee assessed the threat of violence. It is not always appreciated how many different kinds there are. I shall list the principal ones for the House because they are the basis on which one must work to analyse the means of dealing with the situation. They are as follows: horrifying assassinations of leading figures; senseless sectarian violence, attacks on individuals, expulsion of enclaves of the other community, demonstrations and provocative marches; attacks on the Army and RUC; explosive and incendiary attacks on commercial, economic and prestige targets; armed robbery and other crimes for personal gain; vandalism; violence in prisons; civil disobedience; and resistance to the administration of normal provisions of the law. When one adds up the number of people in the wider security forces which are needed for every eventuality, one finds that it is staggering.

Moreover, irrespective of terrorist crime there will be a major problem over the next few years with serious crime, such as protection rackets and a high level of crime committed by juveniles, much of which has arisen as an offshoot of terrorism. There is, too, an erosion of values and standards which manifests itself in the repudiation of debts and the evasion of payments for services. These illegalities are often justified by reference to some ideal or political aim which their commission is alleged to support. May I add that when I was looking at these matters this week, totting up the large sums of money which ought to be coming into Exchequer funds to help pay for so much of what is going on, again I found the result staggering.

The committee recognised that there was no instant solution and no way of ridding the Province of violence overnight. The Army provides, and will continue to provide, the basic security buttress, and I have made clear that cooperation between the security forces is already good and will continue to develop in the new circumstances. The only way forward is the way in which law and order has always been established in this country—by the police working to the law and securing its effective administra- tion. Every other way of introducing law and order will always alienate one or other section or group of the community, who will come to feel that they have been unfairly dealt with. Alienation will grow and lawlessness will increase.

At the heart of the committee's conclusions is, therefore, the idea of securing police acceptance and effectiveness. By securing police effectiveness is meant the integration and acceptance of the police in the community to enable them to administer law and order effectively. It does not mean a return to the past. This is a particularly difficult and challenging task because of the legacy of Irish history. There is a traditional sensitivity and antipathy to the police. This stems from the history of the island over the last seven centuries, and particularly from the enactments of the eighteenth century. We have to recognise that the police are not acceptable in all areas of Northern Ireland today. The police will consequently have to overcome the legacy of the past as well as of the experience of the last seven years.

To increase the effectiveness of the police, the committee's main conclusions for the measures and forces required are as follows. For the RUC, the first requirement recognised is an increase in the size of the force; and second, the continuing introduction of further specialist investigation teams as appropriate, for example, murder squads and fraud squads. In some cases, recruitment for and training in new skills will be needed; in others, the present specialist capacity will be expanded to meet requirements.

Next, improved arrangements are needed for collecting and collating criminal intelligence, focusing on presenting information quickly and accurately in the form relevant to the specific police activity. In that connection, about which, I confess, I know little but to which I have been putting my mind recently, I stress the importance of having the procedures to use the information which is collected. That is vital.

The next item is flexible use of resources to concentrate on serious crime and preventive policing. These resources will be expanded to serve in each RUC division. They will as a whole also constitute a mobile force for deployment outside their divisions.

Next, special effort will be needed to make the RUC more representative. The percentage of Catholics has declined in recent years, but there has been an improvement over the last six months, which may, or may not be related to the ending of detention. But this will depend to some extent upon political factors and the opinion leaders in the minority community speaking up more frequently for the RUC. I am here using the words of the report. The next requirement is expanded training arrangements. Where appropriate, use would be made of universities.

Next, greater use should be made of the RUC Reserve to reduce the regular police and the Army where appropriate. There obviously can be greater use of the RUC Reserve to take over tasks which do not require the depth of training required for the RUC itself.

The final item relating to the RUC is further development of the scheme for local police centres, which I approved in September 1974, whereby local centres to provide a police presence, to provide advice and guidance, and for immediate access to police resources are provided in areas where a full-time police station is not justifiable. These centres also aim to encourage the minority community to help by supporting the police in their own areas.

To implement these measures for the RUC will, of course, require an increase in the number of its personnel. At the moment, the strength of the RUC is working up to the establishment laid down in September 1974. The regular RUC now totals 5,050 of an establishment of 6,500. The full-time reserve has reached over 700 out of a total of 1,400. We shall take energetic steps to recruit up to these establishment figures—that is the first task—and we shall raise the establishment to meet the developing requirements implicit in this programme. But first let us get up to establishment.

The committee also paid considerable attention to public relations and drew attention to the need to emphasise and demonstrate the effectiveness and impartiality of the security forces, to increase further and improve the link between the RUC and local authorities, community organisations and so on by increasing the number of liaison committees and community relations teams, and to promote understanding of the role of the Police Authority.

It was also concluded that the RUC programme of community relations development should be vigorously pursued, but this is not a matter for the police alone. There are many authorities, both public and private, which have a vital contribution in the development and improvement of the community. There is an interdependence between these activities and improvements in law and order. It is wrong to think of community relations work simply as a buttress for law and order. If it is done for that motive alone, it will surely fail. But by increasing people's interest, concern and involvement in the peaceful and lawful development of their communities a most significant contribution is made to the achievement of the rule of law. This is one of the wider dimensions of security of which we must never lose sight.

The committee also considered the strength and rôle of the Army and the UDR. The committee recognised that the manner and strength in which the Army would need to be deployed would, as always, have to depend on the security situation at any particular time and the progress made in restoring the rule of law.

It concluded that there should be increased use of the UDR in such duties as relieving regular units of tasks such as the manning of permanent vehicle checkpoints. There are at the moment a number of full-time UDR soldiers in each battalion who provide the necessary services to enable the part-time members to operate efficiently. Whilst the overall strength of the UDR is below current establishment, the full-time members are now practically up to their establishment of 1,600. The committee is agreed on the need for an increase in the establishment of the permanent cadre. The details and arrangements for this increase are now being worked out. The permanent cadre would take part in the full range of UDR duties but, as I explained on 14th June, there will be no change in the rôle and basic character of the UDR.

Can the Secretary of State give any indication, however general, of the sort of scale of increase in the cadre which he has in mind? I appreciate that the details are not yet settled, but can he help to that extent?

I considered that but I felt that it would not be fair to the House. We had the report two nights ago and I knew in general what was coming, but we need to discuss this with the Ministry of Defence. Rather than give a figure now, I should like to get the correct figure and I shall do that as soon as I can.

These are the main conclusions of the committee. I repeat they are guidelines for the future. I must make it clear, however, that the proposals are all interrelated. They are dependent on each other. No doubt there will be some—there always are—who will distort them by pretending to confuse the part with the whole and who will coin slogans such as "Army withdrawal". The truth is, however, that the committee's conclusions, taken as a whole, show how efficient forces can be built up for the long term while ensuring that in the short and medium term an adequate number of soldiers remain in the Province to ensure that the security situation does not get out of hand. The conclusions are long-term and are not intended to be applied rigidly. They do not affect the number of soldiers, which will depend on the security situation.

I emphasise again that the Army will stay in Northern Ireland as long as it is required. Its rôle at present is a vital one; the way in which it carries it out deserves the highest tribute. Similar praise should be given to the valuable work of the UDR and police.

The way forward is through the rule of law administered by the police. The community, however, has a vital rôle. Policing can be effective only with support from the community, and in Northern Ireland this means both parts of the community. I am in no doubt that since the ending of detention that support has increased considerably. But if the fight against terrorism is to continue to improve, the security forces need even more co-operation against the terrorist, whatever his sectarian label.

At this point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to congratulate you on behalf of the House. I understand that today you have been to the Palace and are now the right hon. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I offer congratulations on behalf of us all.

Perhaps at this point I might briefly comment on the Police Authority. The terms of office of members of the Police Authority expired on 28th June and new appointments have been made. I have already announced the appointment of Mr. Myles Humphreys and Mr. Eiver Canavan as the new chairman and vice-chairman. In addition, and in accordance with Schedule 1 to the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970, I have appointed 17 further members of whom five are elected representatives from district councils and eight are representative of the other interests specified in the Act.

As the Government said in the White Paper of January 1976, we see a continuing rôle for an independent Police Authority with significant powers. Consistent with that view, I intend that the Police Authority should exercise to the full its responsibilities to the police and to the community, and I propose to hold regular meetings with the new authority both to seek its views on the needs and wishes of the community in regard to policing and to provide a forum for discussion on policing matters generally.

Northern Ireland responsibility straddles a great deal. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has a great deal of responsibility for the police and spends a great deal of his time with them, with the Police Authority and with the other parts of the panoply of police organisation in Northern Ireland.

As I have explained to the House on previous occasions, I am constantly reviewing the law relating to offences in the light of the changing security situation to discover whether any changes in the law should be made in order to assist the security forces in their task of bringing terrorists before the courts. This is a matter with which the Attorney-General is much concerned and on which there have been discussions with the Chief Constable and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I would emphasise that in looking at offences once must always have in mind the possibility of evidence being obtained on the basis of which a prosecution can proceed. Without evidence, there can be no prosecution.

The Gardiner Committee undertook a comprehensive review of the subject in 1974 and most of its recommendations were implemented by the 1975 Act. In the light of experience and study since then, we have some further small, but I think useful changes in mind. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be able to intervene and talk about them later in the debate. I shall be seeking an early opportunity for such legislation as will be necessary to introduce them.

I have today outlined the long-term security plans of the Government. They are an attempt to avoid repeating past history. As a consequence, there is no question of setting up a Para-military police force, of policemen replacing soldiers overnight or of the premature forcing of the police into difficult areas. There will be no precipitate Army withdrawal. What we have is a flexible plan for achieving the rule of law by effective police work, developing over time, enhanced by increased co-operation with the Irish Republic, and always backed when necessary by the Army. But in setting the guidelines for the future we must not forget the present. That is why we seek the renewal of the present range of emergency provisions.

The Act of 1973 contains the powers essential for the security forces in the present emergency, special provisions for trials, including the procedure for a single judge without a jury to try scheduled offences, and the powers of proscription. The Act of 1975 clarifies and extends certain powers of the security forces and provides for a system of detention, placing the sole responsibility for making detention orders with the Secretary of State.

The Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act 1974 enables me to give a direction in the case of a young person remanded or committed for trial for his custody in a prison or such other place as may be specified, where I am satisfied that this is necessary in order to prevent the young person's escape, or to secure his safety or that of other persons. In the present circumstances, the provisions of the 1974 Act are still necessary.

Because of the continuing emergency, I seek the renewal of these emergency powers. As I have said, the killings are continuing. In some ways the situation is as bad as the situation in 1972. It would be irresponsible of me to give up the existing emergency provisions. All of them might have to be used if the circumstances call for them, detention included.

There have been occasions in the last seven years when the men of violence have misjudged the mood of the majority in the Province, the mood of this House and the mood of successive Governments. Perhaps we have sometimes misjudged theirs. With all humility, I do not think we misjudge it today. We see them still as far away as they have ever been from their declared objectives. We see them faced with increased war weariness and disillusion with their bestial methods by the overwhelming majority of thinking people in both communities in Northern Ireland.

The achievement of a peaceful society through the progressive development of the rule of law is the most realistic way forward in Northern Ireland. It is the only policy that neither puts back the clock to the past nor leaves the present policy set in a static mould.

The speed with which a peaceful society can be attained depends upon resources and the support of the people. The Government will provide the necessary resources, but the will and action needed for their successful employment depends upon the people of the Province. With their wholehearted support and co-operation, it will be possible for the agencies of government to restore a peaceful society through the rule of law.

I therefore commend the Order for the support of the House.

I join with the Secretary of State in congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the distinction that was conferred upon you this morning. It will cause a great deal of pleasure to all hon. Members.

We agree with this Order and with the renewal of the necessary emergency powers, especially when the Secretary of State tells the House that in some ways the situation is as bad as it was in 1972. We must look to methods by which this situation can be reduced and brought to a peaceful conclusion. The debate enables me to make some comments on behalf of the official Opposition on the Government's handling of the emergency to which this Order applies. We shall need to examine the long-term security plans of the Government at some leisure and we should like time to consider that aspect. The Secretary of State's remarks about the police were extremely important and I shall be referring to them later in my short speech. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman's comments on the UDR are extremely important, and parts of them are welcomed.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the debate on security held on 14th June. I shall not go over that ground in detail, except to quote one or two remarks made by the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman said:

"The overall pattern has changed. There is less of a planned campaign, less civil rights violence with mass confrontations on the streets. … This is something that the security forces have to take into account."—[Official Report, 14th June 1976; Vol. 913, c. 44.]

The Secretary of State said that we were faced with a long haul. I am not clear about the strategy for dealing with this new situation. Does this matter appear in the recommendations of the committee mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman? Will it still be a containing operation, or will the security forces go over to a more offensive rôle?

The Secretary of State said that the level of activity of the armed forces had increased. I do not think that any clear strategy has yet emerged. If we knew that it would be likely to succeed, we should know whether to give it our support. That is our position, and in due course we should like to know more about the strategy.

We were also told by the Secretary of State that since the ending of detention there had been increased co-operation from the communities. I am prepared to accept that statement if the right hon. Gentleman can produce evidence that this has led to reduced violence. Has it led to an increased number of convictions? The figures for 1975–76 are not easy to follow, and I do not know whether they support the right hon. Gentleman's argument. They appear to be much the same as before. It appears that in general the level of violence so far in 1976 has been greater. We dealt with security at some length on 14th June, so I do not intend to go back over that ground. Since the Attorney- General is present, I should like instead to deal with some of the legal aspects.

Through my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), we have proposed the offence of committing an act of terrorism. My hon. and learned Friend is unable to be here today. But it is our view that there should be such a change in the law. As my hon. and learned Friend said in our debate on 25th March this year:

"It should be an offence that is common to the whole of the United Kingdom."

Thus, it would help those fighting terrorism over here as well as in Belfast. Without such an offence, the law is not strong enough, in our view. Not only are there those who stand behind the gunmen, sometimes openly walking about the streets unmolested by the security forces but, to quote my hon. and learned Friend again,

"if a bomb factory is discovered … and no connection with an actual explosion can be satisfactorily proved … the only prosecution that can succeed is one under the Explosive Substances Act. The maximum in that case is 14 years … in the present climate of terrorism that maximum is quite inadequate."—[Official Report, 25th March 1976; Vol. 908, c. 705.]

Far heavier penalties should result in consequence of any reform of the law.

I note from what the right hon. Gentleman said, that the committee assessed the different forms of violence that constituted terrorism, and we shall continue to advocate this change in the law, making terrorism, by its different component parts such as bombing, shooting, kidnapping, incitement and possessing explosives, a single offence. As the Secretary of State pointed out, it would not deal with some offshoots, like protection rackets. It could not cover that. But it would deal essentially in one indictment with a single offence.

Mention of incitement recalls certain speeches made by members of Provisional Sinn Fein in recent times, and I do not need to refer again to the question of talks. But I wish to refer to the question of incitement, which could be included in the offence proposed.

The other matter to which I wish to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention is that of the protection of witnesses. He will be aware that there was a recent debate about this in the other place on the Second Reading of a Bill introduced by Lord Brookeborough. Witness protection is a long-standing problem in Northern Ireland, and this was an attempt to deal with it. The Bill was withdrawn, but there was an interesting debate.

Ever since 1972, when Lord Diplock considered the question of intimidation, and, in fact, even before that, people have been trying to find a solution to the problem of witnesses. The Gardiner Report referred to 482 known cases of intimidation between 1st January 1972 and 31st August 1974 in which civilian witnesses to murder were too afraid to give evidence in court. Lord Gardiner commented that the prevalence of murder and knee-capping made this only too easy to understand.

As we know, by Christmas 1975 the right hon. Gentleman had ended detention, and I do not advocate a return of it, although we had a number of criticisms to make at the time. The right hon. Gentleman did that for two reasons. He said that there was a ceasefire, calling for a response, and that there were more convictions in the courts.

This is really the nub of the question central to the Government's problem. In 1976 there have been a higher number of killings than in any year since 1972 at the present rate, as my noble Friend Lord Belstead pointed out in the debate in the other place. It was central to the Government's position on ending detention that more information was becoming available which would lead to more charges. That is why the question of witness protection is extremely important, and why there must be some solution found to it. Having removed detention, can the Government find an alternative means of convicting the organisers of terrorism within the present judicial system?

Lord Donaldson claimed that the improvement in the conviction rate for murder and attempted murder was continuing, and he said that we were getting better information than was the case under the old system. But what is being done to ensure that witnesses are found to bring about convictions? As Lord Donaldson said, the problem of witnesses is at least half the problem of Northern Ireland. Those words ring true.

We were interested in what the Secretary of State said on the question of police effectiveness, and his view that it was not a matter of returning to the past, but that the police would have to overcome many problems. We were interested to hear that the committee had proposed an increase in the size of the police force and in training the police in new skills. We on the Opposition side have been interested in this matter recently and have advocated the appropriate use of universities and the RUC Reserve. We shall need time to consider what is to be done. We hope to have an opportunity very shortly of discussing that with the Chief Constable.

The committee said that use of the UDR in releasing regular units from various duties should be increased. That would be very welcome. We are also glad to hear that the number of full-time members is to be increased. We should like to have more details about that.

It has been difficult to discover what the Government consider to be the appropriate role of the Army in Northern Ireland, but we have had some enlightenment today through the report of the committee. That will create a better impression. We were pleased to hear of increased activity by the security forces at a time when many people are extremely anxious about the future. It is vitally important that all parties in the House should be entirely consistent on the need to maintain the security forces in Northern Ireland, and that they should remain in strength while they are required and until the question about the police to which the Secretary of State is committed is resolved.

The respective rôles of the Army and the police are at all times extremely difficult, when in some areas soldiers must act as policemen. However, there can be little doubt that the Army will have to stay in Northern Ireland for some time to come. I join the Secretary of State in his praise for the courage and patience of the Army, the police and the UDR in the present difficult circumstances.

On behalf of my colleagues, I join in the congratulations which have been offered to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by other hon. Members.

The Secretary of State, in introducing the Order, rightly spoke of the gravity of the situation in Northern Ireland. The intense gravity of the situation has not perhaps been fully grasped by people on this side of the water. I should like to illustrate the depth of that gravity.

In my area, a young man having served a nine-year stint, was discharged from the Royal Air Force. Two hours after his return home he had a visit from the RUC, who said that he had better leave Belfast and return to the mainland. That graphically illustrates that many people in Northern Ireland are under serious threat. The other day a business man had to be escorted to Aldergrove and put on a flight to London, and had to go into hiding in this city.

It is vitally important that steps should be taken as soon as possible to show that the powers-that-be are making headway against a deterioration in the security situation. Until that is done, the confidence of the people will continue to be undermined, and when the confidence of the people is undermined then, with a sense of frustration and of disillusionment that the security forces can no longer protect them, a situation of a more serious nature could arrive.

An hon. Member opposite said earlier that in this country the moderate people were so revolted by attacks of terrorism that the terrorists saw that there was no fertile ground in this part of the United Kingdom for terrorism to flourish. I suggest that terrorism has not flourished on this side of the water because the forces of the Crown have been most successful in dealing with the situation, and have been able to do so with full power, full vigour and full strength. Immediately there was an upsurge of IRA terrorism in the cities of Great Britain, this House swung into action and legislation was brought forward very quickly to deal with it.

It is easy in a debate like this to make points, and it is not my intention so to do, but the Secretary of State himself raised the all-important point that until the security forces have an intelligence index and are able to go into a neighbourhood with that intelligence available to them, they will never be able to deal with the problem.

This House had better know that the intelligence that was at the disposal of the RUC was completely destroyed when the RUC itself was completely demoralised as a result of the troubles. For instance, this included the lines of communication that the police, over the years, had established into the Northern Ireland underworld. I have talked to senior police officers. We know how the police operate. We know that when a dastardly deed is done they have their contacts, they know who are missing, and they are able to piece the jigsaw together and act effectively. But that position in the RUC was destroyed.

It is rather amusing that even the IRA has recently called for the RUC. In South Armagh there was a case where a nest of evil men was pinned down by the security forces, with great skill—those responsible should be praised in this House. Because a case may come before the courts, I must be careful not to say too much. Suffice to say that the security forces pinned down these men and took action against them. When the men saw that they were in danger of paying for their misdeeds and resistance, they actually telephoned the RUC and asked its members to come and bring them out.

The RUC has been severely criticised and condemned in Northern Ireland, but I think it can rightly be said that it is very hard for anyone to doubt its complete impartiality when IRA terrorists are prepared to appeal to it to bring them out of such a situation. The time has come for every elected Member in Northern Ireland—and we have been told that elected Members are decreasing, even although some people still feel that their mandate stands—to seek every opportunity to encourage their communities to support the efforts of the RUC.

I want to deal with a very important issue—the detention of young people, which is a particularly important part of the whole detention system. I ask the Secretary of State what machinery he has for reviewing the sentences of young people, because certain young people are detained during the pleasure of the Secretary of State. Those of us who have constituents with children or young people detained during the pleasure of the Secretary of State are anxious know more about the system.

When a person is of a particular age group, certain procedures are gone through in regard to appeals, petitions and the removing of part of the sentence. But with young people it would be the general view of the House that they should be rehabilitated as soon as possible, and that there should be some way in which they should know how this particular detention is going to work, and what its length may be.

I ask the Secretary of State what progress is being made in providing cellular accommodation in prisons. Compound imprisonment has led to serious implications for the running of prisons, and order within prisons.

There is one particular case that I mentioned a year ago, which I raise again now. It is the case of Frank Newell, which has been widely discussed in Northern Ireland. This man is doing an eight-year sentence. On appeal, his sentence was doubled, but he maintains that he is innocent. The UVF issued a statement saying that they were responsible for the deed for which Newell was sentenced, and it could be that there was a case of mistaken identity. I do not know whether the Secretary of State is in a position to make any comment on the case, but it seems from the evidence presented that there has been a miscarriage of justice. I know that a number of representations have been made to the Secretary of State about this matter.

On the previous occasion when we discussed the standing of the police in the community we discussed also the matter of bail when members of the RUC are charged with scheduled offences. I have looked up Hansard on this matter, and I understand that representations have been made to the Secretary of State by the police representative body. Is the Secretary of State in a position to comment on this today? If we are to establish the primacy of the police, the members of the RUC should be given the same protection as is afforded to the members of the British Army. I am well aware that there are difficulties on this matter, which is keenly felt in Northern Ireland and which when we are renewing these provisions, should be considered and commented upon.

I welcome some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made as a result of his working party. There is a need for an increase in the RUC and the RUC Reserve. I am sure that the Minister is well aware that Northern Ireland Members have made representations from time to time about applicants who have been turned down by the RUC Reserve. There seem to have been quite a number of these. We would be glad of an explanation on this point. I have in mind the case of a young man whose brother is a full-time member of the RUC. He was urged by his brother to become a member of the reserve. He passed his test, and his medical test but he was rejected. He lives under the same roof as his brother, and as far as I know there is nothing against him. He has no previous convictions. There are a lot of these cases, however, and we have made representations about them especially to the Chief Constable.

In view of the establishment figure for the RUC, the reserve and the UDR, I would have thought that they needed to recruit as many people as applied. I know that there are rules to be followed, and criteria to be met. It is, however, a disillusionment for a Member of Parliament who advises his constituents to join these bodies to find that their applications have been turned down. One young man was a corporal in the Green Howards. He finished his time and was discharged, but he was turned down by the UDR. He had a good discharge from the Army. These events disturb us when we are trying to encourage people to join up.

I am glad that the Secretary of State is to have regular meetings with the police authority. A great shadow fell over Northern Ireland the other day, when a former member of the authority was gunned down. I think that these regular meetings will be most helpful.

My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) referred in the earlier debate to the supply of weapons to the RUC. I have been approached about this situation in my area. Some police stations appear to have inadequate weaponry to deal with the sophisticated arms that are available to the IRA in their area. I do not want to pinpoint the area I am thinking of, because it might not be good for the policemen concerned. I have made representations to the Secretary of State and I hope that he can tell us what progress has been made on the supply of weapons to the RUC.

In some parts of Belfast, I have seen policemen carrying bolt-action rifles while travelling in Land Rovers. These weapons are obsolete compared with those used by the terrorists, and the length of the barrel of a bolt action rifle can make it very difficult to manoeuvre in certain circumstances. It is problems such as this that are causing considerable concern to our policemen who risk their lives for the community.

I have made representations to the police authority, which tells me that it has made representations to the Secretary of State. Some say that it is a matter for the police authority and others claim that the Chief Constable is responsible. I am not interested in who is responsible. I want modern weapons made available to the police, and the regular meetings which the Secretary of State is to have with the police authority may help.

Obviously, representations will be made to the Police Authority by the policemen concerned. As I said earlier, I do not want to pinpoint the police stations to which I have referred, but I shall be glad to give the information to the Secretary of State.

I do not know whether the right hon Gentleman intends to have a recruitment campaign for the Crown forces, but I was interested in his remark that there may be a relationship between the end of detention and increasing enrolment by members of the minority community in the RUC. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to enlarge on that interesting comment. If the end of detention had that result, we should all be very happy.

The threats that have been made to business men are one of the most serious aspects of the current situation in Northern Ireland, because it is almost impossible for the forces of law and order to give protection to these key people in industry. Industry has already taken a terrible hammering in Northern Ireland, and one dreads to think of the repercussions of the slaying of more industrialists.

There have been salutory speeches by a number of hon. Members, particularly the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), about the economic situation and the House should be aware of how serious the situation could become if the campaign against business men continues. It is all very well saying what people should or should not do, but if the Government cannot give adequate protection to citizens, they are entitled to give themselves what protection they can. That is what it amounts to in Northern Ireland at present.

I understnd that the Attorney-General will be speaking in this debate. Perhaps he will tell us that some new crimes will be made liable to the procedures of the law. Whatever is done in this realm is important, but many may feel that some of these things are coming a bit late in the day. One always hopes that whatever steps are taken will help in this vital matter.

The all-important feature of the thinking in Northern Ireland is not, strange to relate, whether we should have some machinery for devolved government but how to live and to carry out ordinary duties. The people in Northern Ireland are interested in going to and from their places of work and taking their children to school and bringing them home. Those are the all-impelling motives that lie behind the thinking of the people. Uppermost in the minds of decent people in both communities is the taking of measures to keep alive. I trust that measures will be taken that will help the people to have some confidence restored.

It would be wrong to pretend that the confidence of the people is in the forces of the Crown being able to protect them. They are facing the fact that there are situations that make it totally impossible for those forces to give them protection. Most people are coming to terms with the appalling fact that they must seek to help themselves. I trust that the House will be able to help them as they seek to help themselves.

This is the first time that I have spoken in a Northern Ireland debate. I do so with the greatest of hesitation, but I think the House will agree that it would be a sorry day if the debate were totally dominated by Northern Ireland Members.

I address my remarks first to some of the long-term implications. It has been said that no clear strategy appears to be emerging. Maybe I am in a more optimistic mood, but I see a strategy emerging that seems to make great sense in an immensely complicated situation. Those of us who supported from the beginning the rôle of the Army in Northern Ireland understood that with the passage of time a number of fundamental questions would be raised about the future rôle of the Army as a peacekeeper and the rôle of the RUC.

One of the paradoxes of the whole situation is that the Army went in to assist the police seven years ago as they were unable to contain the situation, and seven years later we are talking about the rôle of the police and the recrudescence of confidence within the RUC. I think the House will agree that a great deal has happened in the past seven years. I believe that the policy being pursued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in what is called the primacy of the police is absolutely right. However, that does not in any way imply that those of us who supported the use of the Army are now saying that the end is in sight—far from it. It would seem to be a long time before we shall see the withdrawal of the British Army. Indeed, that is something that my right hon. Friend has emphasised. Nevertheless, the policy of trying to get the RUC accepted as the community police force is the crux of the matter.

Although progress has been made, it seems to have been rather slow. I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend had to say about the police perfoming more police-like duties and moving away from what appeared to many observers to be the rôle of a para-military force. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend refer to the building up of the regional crime squad. I look forward to the time when the police in Northern Ireland are dressed like the "Bobbies" in this country, but that is a small point.

My right hon. Friend is right to stress the potential use of the RUC Reserve in a specialised way—he referred to the protection of police stations. It is unfortunate that most police stations in Northern Ireland have to be protected by the Army. It would be far better if the special reserve of the RUC could be used for this purpose.

That raises the question of the future of the Ulster Defence Regiment. This is a controversial matter, but again it is the right policy to pursue. By building up the cadre of the UDR we may gradually help to restore confidence in Northern Ireland in the rôle of the UDR. No one would deny that there are still great difficulties in that respect.

For a long time to come the Army will carry the weight of peacekeeping. That raises profound questions because the British Army, in spite of its long colonial experience, has not primarily been built up for this kind of rôle. What effect does it have on the Army? This is not a defence debate, so I shall not pursue that beyond saying that it imposes an immense strain on the British Army, and we do not know what social effect the performance of a whole range of ordinary police duties has on the soldiers. In a democratic society, that throws up profound implications for us all. When I recently made a short visit to Northern Ireland, mainly to see the troops, I formed the firm impression that, in spite of the difficulties with which they were faced, they were getting increasing co-operation from the community and working closely with the RUC.

The question came up—not in a strikingly strident way—about co-operation in respect of the border, where there are still some delicate difficulties involved with the SAS. I shall not press my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on that matter apart from saying that it raises the question of co-operation on the border. I understand that arrangements between the Garda and the RUC are very close and that co-operation is good. Nevertheless, on the odd occasion the best intentions in Dublin, as elsewhere, are not always realised on the spot and there are sometimes difficulties on the border. However, I know that my right hon. Friend is dealing closely with that matter.

Speaking from an English constituency point of view, it seems to me that the Army has a continuing rôle to play in Northern Ireland but that, nevertheless, the policy of the primacy of the police is the right approach, so that normal conditions, perhaps in the not-too distant future, can return to Northern Ireland. In spite of all the bad news that comes in almost daily from the Province, at most we are talking about a few hundred terrorists, and in the end I am sure that with good political will on both sides we shall triumph over the gunmen.

I want to take up the question of security, because we are looking back over a six-months period and recognise that the security situation has changed in two ways. We no longer believe that the ceasefire, if it ever existed, has any relevance. We also recognise that the concept of incident centres cannot be further pursued.

Having recognised those changes, we are also faced with a security situation which is materially different from that of 1972 in that, as the Secretary of State has said, the violence is of a different kind, more personalised, more skilfully devised, with the intention of giving the impression that the Province is basically ungovernable and not susceptible to law and order.

Indeed, one could describe terrorism in the Province in the same way as war has been described: that it is politics pursued in a different way from the normal approach. That terrorism has a political objective remains clear to us all. I listened to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams) with great interest. He spoke about the primacy of the police. We would all like to believe that Northern Ireland could revert to the peaceful Province that I knew when I was there in 1955. We have to recognise, however, that in the seven years of this violence we have seen terrorism, murder and mayhem, bombings and shootings on a scale which in the United Kingdom one would never have believed possible 10 years ago. We have, alongside that, the political confusion which has stemmed from and has been created by the violence. In that situation, the police cannot be expected within the foreseeable future to become the security force of the community.

Having said that, I want to concentrate my remarks on two factors which are interconnected. However, before doing so I should like to welcome the statement by the Secretary of State because it seemed to suggest that the Government's thinking about security matters is very far-reaching, looking to new frontiers, and I am sure that we all welcome it. But we are faced with the question of acceptability and, interrelated with it, the rôle of the police and the Army together.

In the debate on security I asked the Secretary of State whether acceptability had a historic context. What I would have wished to ask him had I chosen my words more carefully was whether people could not put their trust in the police as their protectors and guardians simply because the police are not there to protect and guard them in certain housing estates, areas of cities and so on, or whether it is an historic refusal to recognise the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and that therefore one has to change attitudes which are embedded in Irish tradition.

I mention this point because the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) talked about the way that security in this country had stamped out the IRA bombings and violence. He implied that it was the excellence of the police force here which was largely responsible for that success. I suggest that, although the police are excellent, it was the fact that the community overall were against the terrorists that allowed the police to be so successful. It is the fact that the community overall in Northern Ireland cannot give the police that support which allows the sort of violence that the hon. Gentleman talked about to continue from one month to the next. If I am right, may I ask how that acceptability is to be gained unless the police can make their presence felt in areas which hitherto appear for months or years or even decades to have known little or nothing of regular policing?

Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that even in areas where the community totally support the police these terrible and atrocious murders are taking place? One cannot draw an absolute parallel. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but even in areas where the police have absolute support these terrible atrocities continue.

I take what the hon. Gentleman says, and I confess to feeling somewhat rash in daring to talk about problems of security in Northern Ireland since they are so different from anything we know on this side of the Irish Channel. But I make the point because, until the community can place its trust in the police and look to the police for protection, people will not be willing to give the acceptability which we know to be vital. Moreover, while intimidation can continue as it does, there will be a lack of desire to help the police as much as possible.

On the other hand, the police themselves must not be too timorous about going into areas where hitherto they have not gone. I say that because on a visit to Londonderry I was impressed by something which one of the soldiers told me about the Creggan and Bogside and the Rosemount police station. He told me that the police station was manned by one RUC policeman, but said, "The chap spends most of his life looking at the television". That will not be a police presence to create acceptability. Sooner or later, somebody will have to do something about sending not that man but somebody else out into the community.

That leads one to the question, prickly and dangerous though it may be, of how one can bring the community to give its acceptance to the police. The answer surely must be by taking from the community itself a measure of support, perhaps in terms of drawing from particular communities particular persons into the RUC Reserve, which could thereby provide more of a local police presence.

Having said that, I come to the question of co-ordination between the Army and the police. Last week, I was privileged to hear Inspector Milligan of the Police Federation discussing the rôle of the police in Northern Ireland. One of the points he made, which has worried me, was that in his view there was a serious lack of co-ordination between the Army and the police. We believe that the Army is in Northern Ireland in aid of the civil power, which implies that the civil power has the primacy. Indeed, if we use the expression "the primacy of the police", we are saying that the police should be No. 1, and those with other security rôles should act in assistance of the police.

However, it appears from what the inspector said and what others have told me that the police do not have that pri- macy and that the Army acts very much on its own. There is a measure of communication and co-operation, but the police do not necessarily know what the Army is doing and the Army does not necessarily know what the police are doing.

I know Inspector Milligan well, but he is not an authority on the operational control of the RUC and the link with the Army, although that does not mean that he should not say what he wants to say; that is another matter. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that in the hard areas where the Army is present with a battalion of soldiers there are very few policemen, and where they are escorted in to do a task the Army takes the lead. It must be so. There is no other way. In other areas that is not the case.

Moreover, there are other elements in co-operation which would not be generally seen by the policeman doing his daily work, such as the intelligence side, daily talks between those in charge, and so on. I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that in the hard areas it is the Army which takes the lead, and that will be so for some time.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but he appears to imply that in what one might call the soft areas the police have primacy and the Army acts in what the police may say is the right rôle.

Exactly, yes.

I am grateful for that clarification.

I come now to two other points. On a previous occasion I asked by Question what the rôle of the Territorial Army was in Northern Ireland. I was amazed, as I always am, by the answer that the Territorial Army plays no rôle whatever in the security situation. I should have thought that those who join the Territorial Army join with the intention of playing a part in security operations somewhere, and, since their own Province is so desperately in need of every man it can find, there must be a strong case for involving the Territorial Army in the security forces of the province.

Finally, on the subject of young offenders, can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Purdysburn centre is completed or nearing completion, or, if not, how long it will be before it is?

I am sure that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) will forgive me if I leave his questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to whom I am sure they were addressed. In March, during the last debate on Northern Ireland in which I intervened, the principal question at issue within my responsibility was whether the running down of the system of detention had resulted in gaps in the law which could be filled only by the creation of new offences. I said that we were considering the possibility of new offences where gaps were shown to exist, but I emphasised that we were not satisfied that there were such gaps in the law. I warned that we should not delude ourselves into the belief that changes in the law alone could destroy terrorism.

There are two ways in which gaps in the law can become apparent. One is by deduction from criminal statistics, which show that offences are committed and that convictions are not obtained. The other is by observation of particular situations which discloses that conduct which should be punishable cannot be fitted into the existing framework of offences.

That violence in Northern Ireland remains at an unacceptable level cannot be doubted, but the statistics that are available do not indicate a need for panic measures. They do not show that the courts are unable to deal with those who are caught and charged with offences of terrorism. The conviction rates are high. In the first six months of 1976, 562 people appeared for trial on indictment charged with scheduled offences. Of those, 477 were convicted. The figures include 46 people who had been charged with scheduled murder. Of those, 36 were convicted of murder and five of lesser offences. That represents a 78 per cent. conviction rate for persons charged with and convicted of murder, and an 84 per cent. conviction rate in respect of offences other than murder.

The figures show that year by year, since the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, the percentage conviction rate of persons charged with scheduled murder has increased. The most recent figures available are for those charged in 1975 and tried last year or so far this year. They show a conviction rate for some offences of 85 per cent. That could be due to any one of a number of causes, but at least it is clear that it reflects the effectiveness of the prosecution process as a whole.

It is only too easy to be misled by figures. We know that there are cases that cannot be pursued because witnesses refuse to give evidence. We know that the ringleaders who plot and plan but carefully avoid becoming incriminated themselves are too often able to evade the consequences of crimes for which the actual perpetrators are caught and punished. Some people who assist in crimes escape conviction because they are able to satisfy the courts that they have no knowledge of the intended crime, although they know that some crime was intended. I give as an example the man who drives a motor car to the scene of an explosion, which is carried out by men in a car that follows. When arrested the driver of the lead car will say that he knew something was going on, because he was told to drive to a particular place. But he will add that he knew nothing about the reason for going there. In such a case the circumstantial evidence may be strong enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the man knew the intended crime. But if it is not so strong, he may escape penalty, even though the court is satisfied that he was well aware that he was assisting in some kind of terrorist activity. The question then is what, if anything, can be done—not, as I have said, by panic measures but either by better use of the existing law or by minor changes in the law—to catch those who at present evade prosecution or conviction.

On that I should like to comment first on the offence of conspiracy. I do so because it is sometimes said that in Northern Ireland the charge of conspiracy is less acceptable to courts than it is in England and Wales. Because that is sometimes said, I have, since the last debate, thoroughly examined the question whether there is any substance in that idea. I am quite satisfied that there is none.

I want to make it abundantly clear that where a conspiracy charge is a proper charge, there is no bar to its use in Northern Ireland courts and no reluctance to use it. I say that particularly because of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said about the future rôle and method of the police. The offence of conspiracy is often misunderstood and its use at all is attacked because sometimes it has been used improperly.

It is entirely proper, for example, to use the law of conspiracy in order to deal with an agreement to commit a crime or to achieve the objective of the conspirators by criminal methods. That is true in particular when the intended crime is not in fact committed—where, for example, the police are able to make arrests so as to prevent the murderous attack that was the object of the conspiracy. If there is clear evidence of the intended crime, conspiracy to commit it may be the only proper offence—and it is certainly a proper one. If there has been any doubt about that, whether in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, that doubt should now be dispelled. If the evidence is sufficient, charges will be brought against all the conspirators.

Again, that is very relevant to the question I was asked by the hon. Member for Abington (Mr. Neave) about a general offence of terrorism, because I think that he would agree, as certainly would the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), that what I have said covers a very large part of that field. Where a substantive offence has been committed—a shooting, or an explosion, for example—and there is evidence against those who participated, the proper charge to bring would be the substantive offence. In that case, those who aid, abet or plan the offcence should, if there is evidence against them, be charged as principals, together with the actual perpetrators, so that in those circumstances, conspiracy charges should be unnecessary—just as any new offence of terrorism would be unnecessary. However, there may be cases in which those who plan in the background, out of sight and, as they hope, out of danger, cannot be charged as principals, but the evidence may be sufficient to secure their conviction as conspirators, and where it is there will be no hesitation whatever about bringing such charges.

However, in all those cases—in saying this I am only underlining the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—prosecutions cannot be brought without evidence. That is why I particularly welcome everything that my right hon. Friend said about the police, because it is through the obtaining of evidence, and obtaining evidence in areas in which we may not have been able to do so before, that we shall get our convictions.

The offence of conspiracy is not a substitute for evidence. It requires evidence. In my experience in dealing with one of the main questions that I have to decide in the course of my ministerial responsibilities—that is, whether the case is one for the Diplock procedures—I have been struck by the success with which in very many cases evidence has been produced. I do not say, unfortunately, that it has been produced with great success against the people who keep in the background, but against those who perpetrate there has been considerable success—not always at once but certainly often as time goes on, and when it has been produced the conviction rate, as I have shown, is high.

Those who commit these foul offences must be brought to realise, as police efficiency grows, that the police will and do pursue the criminals relentlessly and that the passage of time will not make those criminals more secure. Therefore, the changes in police procedure to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred should make their influence felt in reaching out at those who may consider themselves safe. Those changes will succeed not through any change in the law but by securing evidence against those who previously thought themselves to be safe from the securing of that evidence.

It is far better, if possible, to obtain evidence to support charges in the existing law than to alter the existing law simply to enable charges to be brought on evidence that is less than satisfactory. This is true, whether one is thinking of the actual perpetrators of these crimes, of those who play some peripheral part in the offences, or of those who plan and organise in the background—the spiders in the web, who are often the most dangerous men of all, and against whom in the past it has often been impossible to bring sufficient evidence before the courts. Greater success in obtaining evidence to support charges based on the existing law to enable that law to he rigorously enforced as it will be is far more important than creating a new law to cover the gaps—particularly if the new law erodes the fundamental safeguards for the innocent which are part of our democratic heritage.

Nevertheless, as promised, we have scrutinised the law to see what gaps exist which could be closed by changes in the law. Frankly, I must tell the House that they are limited. We have given the most searching scrutiny to all the ideas put forward, whether in debates in this House or from outside the House. That scrutiny has shown again and again that the weakness is lack of evidence rather lack of offences.

That is why we must tighten up—and indeed, are tightening up—the methods of obtaining evidence and of ensuring that it can be brought before the courts without danger to witnesses. This point has already been made in this debate. The question of danger to witnesses has often been raised, and rightly so. Because of that fact, I made a study of the way in which the courts in Northern Ireland operate to deal with that problem. If a person who is a witness to an offence believes that he is in danger and for that reason is unwilling to place himself as a witness, he will not make a statement if he has not the courage to risk what otherwise might happen to him. Whatever safeguards are provided in the courts, we cannot provide safeguards for people who are not prepared even to make a statement to the police.

None the less, a study of the way in which the courts in Northern Ireland exercise powers to protect witnesses who fear vengeance makes it clear that the protection has operated for more widely in Northern Ireland than has been necessary or customary in the courts of Great Britain. I do not want to go in detail into the ways in which this is done, because I understand that in small communities whatever we may do may not be effective. None the less, I have heard of methods that have been adopted in the courts of Northern Ireland for this purpose which, frankly, greatly surprise me, having my experience of the courts in this country, and I am satisfied that the law cannot go further in that direction without a real danger of destroying the credibility of the courts and the credibility of the judicial system. That is certainly a situation that neither we here nor the judges in Northern Ireland will accept.

There is no room for complacency here, but there is no complacency. In my view, we have rightly avoided methods of proof that would be seen simply as reproducing detention under another name and asking the courts to exercise an executive function as an arm of Government rather than their true judicial function.

I want now to refer briefly to other changes in the law that we have in mind. I mentioned earlier the gap in the law that exists in cases where a serious offence is committed and a person participates in it—for example, by driving the lead car—and the court is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he knew the precise or even the general nature of the intended offence but is satisfied that he knew that some unlawful purpose was intended. In those circumstances, the only possible result of a trial as the law stands must be an acquittal.

It is a gap not only in Northern Ireland law but, indeed, in the law on this side of the Irish Channel. There are not many such cases, but they exist, and, although I am bound to say that a court either here or there would probably view with scepticism such a defence, it is true, none the less, that a person who simply does what he is told and asks no questions may escape conviction as a result—and there are such people.

There are two possible ways of dealing with cases of that kind, which I have to say are peripheral. One is to legislate so that, in the circumstance given, a presumption would arise by statute that the defendant knew the true purpose of the enterprise. An analogy to such a presumption is that which arises under Section 7 of the 1973 Act, when a weapon or explosive is found on premises where more than one person is present. In that case, the court may accept the facts proved as sufficient evidence of possession and, if relevant, knowledge. At the end of the evidence, however, the burden of proof returns to the prosecution. A similar presumption could arise if legislation to that effect were passed in this situation.

Another possibility would be to confine any new offence to the activities of a proscribed organisation. Section 19 of the 1973 Act contains offences of this character. The 1975 Act added the offence of soliciting or inviting any person to carry out orders, directions or requests on behalf of a proscribed organisation, but, perhaps oddly, it did not make it an offence for a person to carry out those orders, directions or requests. Furthermore, Section 19(7) uses, admittedly in a different context, the expression

"takes part in any activities of the organisation."

Where it is proved that the substantive offence—the use of explosives or firearms—was an activity of a proscribed organisation, there seems to be room for an offence of carrying out orders, directions or requests made on behalf of the proscribed organisation or of taking part in such an activity.

Those two possibilities are not necessarily alternatives. I am afraid that I cannot announce today that they will be added to the law, but I can and do undertake that we shall study them further to see whether the draftsman can give effect to the suggestions that I have put before the House, in the light, of course, of any debate that there may be upon them.

I come now to the next three changes that the Government are taking steps to make in the law. The first is to apply to Northern Ireland the provisions of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, which does not at present extend to Northern Ireland. I know that for some time there has been controversy about whether it should so extend.

The 1971 Act simplifies the law of criminal damage and reduces to manageable proportions the number of possible offences. That was one of the points made by the hon. Member for Abingdon when he was advocating a law of terrorism. The pre-1971 law, which applies with a 1969 modification, is complex and does not adequately cover all the gaps. A particular gap that is left open is that of the hoax bombers and other similar people, who have made so many threats of violence. They can be dealt with only for the common law offence of creating a public nuisance, yet plainly in a situation of violence they can seriously disrupt the activity of the security forces. The 1971 Act creates an offence with a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. That change—introducing the Criminal Damage Act into the law—will be effected by Order in Council.

Secondly, in Northern Ireland the Judges' Rules relating to the admissibility of statements by people accused before the courts differ from the rules for England and Wales. This is not a matter of such great moment as it might seem to be in the context of terrorist offences, because that problem is dealt with by Section 6 of the 1973 Act. However, it has been agreed and decided to assimilate the Northern Ireland rules to those for England and Wales, and the necessary steps to that end will be taken.

I come to another aspect of the changes in the law mentioned by the hon. Member for Abingdon in advocating the terrorism offence. The Government accept that the time has come for an increase in some of the penalties prescribed by various statutes—first, the Firearms Act 1969, secondly, the 1973 Act, and possibly other legislation. Section 17 of the Firearms Act Provides a penalty of five years' imprisonment for carrying a firearm in a public place. We think that that is quite inadequate, and we propose to double it to a maximum of 10 years.

One of the main reasons why we think that that should be done is that if a person is found to be carrying in a public place a firearm of modern type, perhaps of Libyan origin, ready for immediate action and perhaps showing signs of having been used, it is plain that the court would wish, if it could, to pass a greater sentence than the present maximum allows. The same is true of the offence under Section 19A, of possessing firearms or ammunition in suspicious circumstances, which we think should similarly increase from five to 10 years on conviction on indictment. There are other instances in the 1969 Act where increases in the penalties may be appropriate and which we shall consider.

All that can be effected by Order in Council. In terms of the 1973 Act we consider that there is a case, particularly in the context of what I said earlier about possible new offences, and particularly since the end of detention, for increasing from five years the maximum penalty for membership of a proscribed organisation and other activities under Section 19. That, however, will require legislation. Other possible increases in penalties are under investigation, and where we think some to be appropriate, the Government will give effect to them.

The dilemma of the Northern Ireland situation is all too clear. There are few who would disagree that detention became counter-productive. It gave to the common criminal, the murderer and the gunman the wholly false glamour of the prisoner of war. The "special category" status added to that illusion. But inevitably the ending of detention throws a heavier burden on the ordinary judicial processes. These processes can be made more effective rather by better police methods, greater police recruitment, and by filling in as far as possible the few gaps in the law than by making any really fundamental change in the law.

If those remedies do not succeed, I agree that we shall have to think hard and painfully about the steps that need to be taken. What we cannot do is to turn the courts and the judicial system into an executive machine for locking up suspects. Methods of that kind we have recently seen and deplored in other countries, under different systems. They are not and cannot be part of ours.

I shall not seek to intervene again, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down he would kindly tell me and the House what is the result of his study of the memorandum on preventive justice, which the Miinster of State has given to his office. No one would wish to turn the courts into the instrument of the Executive, but the Attorney-General will remember that in 1974 some suspects—not all Republicans—were released from Long Kesh and Armagh gaol on sureties of a total sum of £10,000. Could not the power of magistrates' courts to bind over to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour be more extensively used, particularly against incitement?

That point, which the hon. Gentleman has been good enough to mention to me, does not fall within my jurisdiction—although I agree that I have been talking about matters that also do not fall entirely within it. It is a matter either for the courts or, if the law has to be improved in order to enable what the hon. Gentleman suggests to take place, for the House of Commons. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer he seeks now, but he has drawn it to my attention for the first time and I shall make it my business to consider it and give him an answer by letter as soon as I can.

I want to address my initial remarks to the effectiveness of the RUC, with particular reference to its weaponry. Most of us in the House accept that this is a period of transition for the police in Northern Ireland in terms of defining their rôle in the present situation. This is the case not because the police themselves have accepted the vilification and propaganda spewed out by the SDLP in Northern Ireland but because they are prepared to rethink and define their rôle in the present situation because they want to function as any other police force in this part of the United Kingdom functions.

The police are realistic enough to appreciate that if they are to be afforded this opportunity—indeed privilege—there must be an effective anti-terrorist force, which of necessity must be a local force. Therefore, many members of the RUC now join up not because they want to become militarists in the full sense of that word but because they are realistic enough to believe that someone must encounter the gunmen, particularly if there is any reduction at all in the number of Army personnel in Northern Ireland.

The RUC also appreciates that if the primacy of the police is to be a meaningful concept at all, it must involve the ability of the RUC to encounter, to intercept and to destroy the IRA wherever and whenever possible. We are not talking in unrealistic terms; we are talking in terms of the police force being present in areas which they know best—in parts of the Province with which they are familiar. Therefore, these men and this force must be equipped to meet the immediate problem for which perhaps no other expression of law and order is equipped to meet in terms of intimacy with the situation. This point has already been touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).

It is increasingly our lot to receive indications direct from the RUC that it has not the weaponry it requires to carry out its functions, particularly in rural areas of the Province. We welcome the indications given by the Secretary of State that an ongoing strategy is evolving in relation to the RUC, and we genuinely received this information with a degree of joy. We know that at the end of the day the IRA must be beaten by the more successful collection of information and the more successful application of investigation.

We realise that the bodies outlined by the Secretary of State will help very much in that respect. Nevertheless, we have to talk in terms of blunt realities, of men and women being killed and of property being destroyed at the most alarming rate. The RUC finds itself, whether it likes it or not, and whether this House likes it or not, in the forefront of the war against the IRA.

I turn now to the deployment of the UDR. In December 1975 the Secretary of State said that there were 14,000 members of Her Majesty's Forces in Northern Ireland. It would be interesting to know precisely how many members of the security forces—how many soldiers—are actively involved in the streets and lanes of Northern Ireland for the sole purpose of eradicating the IRA.

Those whose function it is to service the Army inform us that there is substantial proof that there are not nearly as many members of the security forces present in Northern Ireland as there were heretofore. They are quite prepared to submit this proof, not in a condemnatory spirit but in one of society concern. Some of the proof offered to me has been considerable and convincing. If the Army is being gradually reduced—perhaps for the best of motives—other forces must take its place.

We have touched on this transitional period for the RUC, and to a certain extent there may be some ambiguity about its role in the present situation. But there can be no ambiguity about the role of the Ulster Defence Regiment. There is no reluctance on the part of the regiment to accept its rôle as a spearhead against IRA terrorism. The UDR appears, however, to have two difficulties. First, it must try to cope with the situation while being under strength. Secondly, it is encouraged to adopt a more full-time role to facilitate in some way the planned withdrawal of the Army. Yet there seems to be a reluctance on the part of Parliament to afford it every opportunity to increase the full-time strength to the kind of numbers required.

We hear with interest that the full-time strength of the UDR is about 16,000 men. We believe, and those who are responsible for increasing these numbers should believe, that another 1,000 full-time members are required urgently in Northern Ireland. I return, however, to the first difficulty. It is incredible to receive letters from constituents protesting at being rejected after having offered their services.

I refer to the particularly important case of a man who served in the RAF and became an NCO. He also served in the Territorial Army and attained the rank of sergeant. He also holds an important position in one of the public services in Northern Ireland. Every member of his family has served in the Armed Forces, and two of them, including his son, are in the UDR. He was told that an interview had been fixed and that he should attend on a certain date. He was then told that he would not be required on that date, and he was rejected.

Thousands of pounds are spent on advertising the importance of the role of the UDR, and thousands of men are led to believe that when they volunteer for this service they will be thrown into combat with the IRA in a planned strategic manner, even though their role is one of defence of the Province. For these people to have their applications thrown back in their faces without adequate explanation undermines not only their confidence in the State but our position as upholders of law and order and of the status quo in defence.

The second problem is that of the full-time companies within the battalions. The strategy of the enemy is to kill and destroy not in the evenings when it is easy to put extra forces on the street. These devils strike in the morning when men are going to work and during normal commercial hours during the day. They bring down one business after the other when part-time members of the UDR are in their normal places of work. It is desperately urgent that we should have enough full-time members, particularly in places which are susceptible to attacks by these IRA demons. We should need men with knowledge of the local geography because this is essential effectively to combat the IRA. There must also be a command structure which facilitates the immediate countering and interception of the IRA.

I want to give the Secretary of State an opportunity to clarify a point on which there has been much confusion. We were told before the wholesale release of internees that there had to be a genuine cessation of violence. There was then great euphoria at the right hon. Gentlemen's announcement that 1,200 people had been convicted in the courts. Whether intended or not, that statement created the impression that the vast majority of those people were members of the IRA, and this is manifestly not the case.

It is not our brief to argue the case of those who have been convicted, what-ever their political or religious opinions. Everyone who breaks the law should be convicted. However, we have not been able to convince the people of Northern Ireland that a death blow is being struck at the heart of the IRA by the normal processes of law and through convictions in the courts. I hope the Secretary of State will make clear that only a relatively small number of those 1,200 people are members of the IRA and that its most dangerous and destructive members are still at large. We wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his efforts to bring those people to court. It is incumbent upon him to prove, through arrests and convictions, that the IRA can be defeated by the normal processes of the law.

We must give the security forces more assistance. Identity cards with photographs, and perhaps fingerprints, would be much more reliable and less open to exploitation than driving licences or bank cards in establishing identity. It should be compulsory to carry such cards, and provision should be made for the security forces to satisfy themselves—however long it takes—of the identity of a person without a card.

Such a system would have side benefits. It would help to remove the nonsense to which Northern Ireland people are subjected at airports when they try to enter Great Britain. We have to fill out a card which anyone could complete in any old way. It is a useless and futile system. Identity cards could be submitted when entering or leaving the mainland. This would be far more effective and would be conducive to a much more pleasant relationship between travellers and the police.

Identity cards could also be used to establish identity when a person collected benefits. Money has been misappropriated in Northern Ireland. I understand that under the existing law it is not necessary to prove one's identity when collecting benefits of less than £15. That is wrong. The Province lost £133,000 last year through misappropriated benefits, and that sum has been reduced by only one-third this year. Identity cards could play an important part in the reduction of that misappropriation.

Young offenders in prisons are causing great anxiety to those who are concerned for their future well-being and rehabilitation. It was a moving experience for me to listen to someone who could be described as a mature and hardened criminal. He poured out concern for some of the young people who shared a cell with him or who were close to him. He said "There is no redemption for me, but there is for some of the young people if you can get them out of this den".

I address that argument to the Secretary of State. What is the state of accommodation for young terrorist offenders? They may be dangerous, they may have dreadful potential, but what provision is made for their accommodation? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us at an early stage, bearing in mind the number of young offenders who are now in the Crumlin Road prison.

First, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment as a Privy Councillor. I do so with great sincerity.

Debates on security in Northern Ireland are normally inconclusive, but I was hoping to be able to say—I should have done so if I had been called earlier—that this one seemed to be rather more constructive than others, especially when taking into account the contribution of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) was called before me. The tone and tenor of his contribution will not lead to helpful attitudes being adopted in this debate or in Northern Ireland.

Anyone with no knowledge of Northern Ireland would be inclined to believe, not knowing the facts, that there is only one band of terrorists in Northern Ireland, namely, the Irish Republican Army. Four or five times throughout his speech the hon. Gentleman referred to the terrorists of the Irish Republican Army.

Seven times.

He then defeated his own argument. Shortly before he sat down he sought to condemn my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for some of the statements he has made in the past. He said that one of the reasons my right hon. Friend put forward to justify the ending of internment was his statement that 1,200 people had been convicted before the courts for terrorist offences. He then said that only a small number were IRA men. If that is true, the majority of the 1,200 who were convicted of terrorist offences must have been Loyalist extremists. That is the full impact of the hon. Gentleman's argument. He condemns my right hon. Friend for saying that 1,200 people were convicted of terrorist offences and that therefore he could end internment, but he says that only a small number were IRA men.

The Secretary of State stated that he could release internees, the vast majority of whom were IRA men, only if there were a genuine cessation of all violence. He changed his terms of reference and used the numbers convicted in the courts. The reason that there are not more IRA men before the courts is that the police cannot serve notices and charges in hard-line IRA areas.

That does not in any way detract from my analysis of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. If only a small number of the 1,200 were IRA terrorists, the logic is that the majority must have been Loyalist extremists. It is not fair, helpful or constructive for the hon. Gentleman to try to place all the blame on one band of terrorists for all the terrorism, murders, and assassinations. There are quite a number of terrorists in Northern Ireland, many of whom have been brought before the courts.

Every weekend there are three, four, five or six assassinations. On some weekends the majority are Catholics, on some weekends the majority are Protestants, and sometimes the figures are equal. Every weekend half a dozen people lose their lives. I am firmly of the belief that those who are responsible for these murders have deliberately designed their campaign to ensure that no political progress shall be made at the inter-party talks between the official Unionist Party and the SDLP. It is readily understood that progress at those talks will ultimately lead to the defeat of the terrorists.

I am no expert in security matters, but certain things should be said to my right hon. Friend to make him aware of events that may lead to a fall-off in support for the security forces. On many occasions hon. Members who do not support my political philosophy have criticised the role of certain members of the security forces. I know that it does not make for popularity to say anything in the House about the rôle of the British Army, the RUC or the security forces. Every country supports its army wholeheartedly. But anyone who is realistic realises that the Army is not composed of angels. Armies can make and have made mistakes. If mistakes have been made, they should be freely admitted. If people get the idea that cover-ups are being employed for the Army or the police there will be a fall-off in support for the security forces.

Recently in Northern Ireland a vicious and brutal campaign was waged against members of the RUC and many innocent members lost their lives, including a young woman. The whole community stood back in revulsion against these crimes. When a policeman lost his life in brutal circumstances during an incident at the Royal Victoria Hospital people in the surrounding area, which is largely nationalist, were aghast. The RUC brought in people to be interrogated about the murder, including members of the Republican Clubs. I am no defender of the Republican Clubs and I disagree with many aspects of their philosophy, but three members were brought in and, if we are to believe what they said—I would not throw their evidence completely away—they were subjected to rigorous and unlawful intimidation by members of the RUC.

I am not a Provisional IRA propagandist, nor am I a propagandist of any description, but that interrogation gives me cause for concern that there are still members of the RUC who use brutal mehods. Members of the Provisional IRA have no hesitation in shooting policemen, soldiers, civilians and innocent people, but it is accepted now, although it might not have been accepted in the past, that members of the Republican Clubs are engaged in political agitation and are not involved in a murder campaign. If I thought they were, I would not be saying anything in defence of those three men who were interrogated at the Springfield Road police station.

These allegations having been made, I think it is the bounden duty of the Secretary of State to inquire into them and to ascertain whether they are true. If the Secretary of State can convince me that those allegations are untrue and were made for propaganda reasons, I shall have no hesitation in standing up in this House or anywhere in Northern Ireland and telling those people that they are liars and that I am not prepared to be associated with their propaganda. At the moment, however, I am not convinced that the allegations are untrue.

I have noticed in the past few weeks, particularly in the local Press in Northern Ireland, many statements emanating from the Provisional Sinn Fein making allegations against the Army. I am not quite sure how truthful they are. I am inclined to have doubts about many of them. I am inclined to think that many are related to a propaganda campaign against the British Army. But there have been one or two instances when I have felt that there has been intimidation and harassment of innocent people.

In this situation I think it is the duty of the Minister to isolate the cases in which there has been active harassment and intimidation by the Army, so that we shall know that the majority of allegations are merely propaganda efforts by the Provisional IRA. But it is not good enough for people to say "We support every action carried out by the RUC, by the UDR and the British Army", because there are people in those three forces who can be guilty of misconduct.

The hon. Member for Belfast, South would say that every member of the UDR is an angel and he would support the UDR 100 per cent. But that is not right. Many members of the UDR have been brought before the courts and been charged with terrorist offences, and some of them have even been charged with the heinous crime of murder. The fact that such people have been charged with such crimes in the courts does not instil confidence in the majority of the population of Northern Ireland.

I have misgivings about some members of the UDR. Contrary to the attitude expressed today, I believe that is right for the people in control of the Ulster Defence Regiment to make the most searching inquiries into the background and character of every applicant for membership of the UDR. If there is any suspicion that people with criminal records or political leanings are being freely invited into the regiment, and that those political leanings would tend to make them act in a way in which they should not act as members of an impartial regiment of the British Army, they should be prohibited from joining.

I am not advising my right hon. Friend on security. I am not an expert. I am happy to accept that the majority of the security forces in Northern Ireland are doing a very difficult job in very difficult circumstances. I am, however, saying that there are things they should not do, and it is those things which they should not do which lead to a falling-off in support for the security forces in Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for Belfast, South would seem to want the House to believe that it is only in so-called Republican areas that the police are not accepted and the primacy of the police is not ensured. I believe that the phrase "the primacy of the police" is unfortunate. We know what it means. It means that we want to create a society in which it will be unnecessary to have the British Army and in which we have a normally acceptable police force. But the way in which this Civil Service term was pumped out in statement after statement gave the terrorists in Northern Ireland the impression that the RUC would be armed with all sorts of sophisticated weapons, would go into all the Catholic areas in Northern Ireland and would shoot everybody who did not agree with them. The fact that that phrase was coined had something to do with the killing of innocent policemen.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to raise in an Adjournment debate the question of Civil Service pay and pensions. Over the past few months I have asked the Minister a number of Questions on this subject, to which he has always replied with unfailing courtesy, but this is a complicated matter not well suited to discussion within the framework of Questions and supplementary questions, and an Adjournment debate gives us the chance to go into it in rather more detail.

Anyone who asks a lot of Questions on this touchy and complex subject may be suspected of conducting a vendetta against the Civil Service. If that charge were levelled against me, I should wish to say straight away that I do not believe myself to be guilty of it. I greatly admire our Civil Service. I have no doubt that far and away the great majority of those who work in it work extremely hard, and until 1971 their pay, and thus their earnings-related pensions, were below comparable levels in the private sector.

The Minister may then ask why on earth I ask so many Questions, and my answer lies in that there are two matters about which I am greatly concerned. The first is the unfairness which now exists in favour of civil servants and the public sector generally, where there is inflation-proofing of occupational pensions, as opposed to the private sector, in which inflation-proofing as of right simply does not exist. Second, in inflationary times my concern is at the great burden of cost which we are laying on future generations of taxpayers in having to pay for these inflation-proof pensions.

All of us would be delighted if we were to have inflation-proof occupational pensions. It could be said to be a prime objective in applying for a job if one could look for such a pension. In this connection, let us come straight out into the open and say that, as Members of Parliament, we enjoy this right at present. In an ideal world, I think that we should all have inflation-proof pensions, because we should then be able fully to cope with rises in the cost of living after retirement at a time when we were not otherwise able to increase our income.

Nevertheless, when public resources are so desperately short I must question whether it is right for the public sector to enjoy this privilege when it is simply not available and cannot be afforded in the private sector. In an important matter such as this, I believe that social justice demands equality of treatment. Otherwise resentment grows, and I fear that such resentment is now growing between the private and public sectors.

In this respect, the Civil Service normally acts as pace-setter for the public sector. The civil servant's pension is noncontributory, it is not funded, and since the Pensions Act 1971 it is inflation-proof after retirement, without any ceiling, and it is paid for by the taxpayer.

In the private sector there are no pension funds which can afford to give that sort of treatment. When employees ask for comparable treatment, as some are now doing, the employer has to say that the profits of his business cannot possibly support such a cost. Some modern private funds inflation-proof up to a ceiling of 2½per cent. or 3 per cent. per annum. Many dipped into their reserves on a discretionary basis in order to give increases to existing pensioners over the past few years. Two of them, ICI and Unilever, were pretty well able to match their payments to pensioners to increases in the cost of living. That was done at the expense of using up past fruits earned from good investment decisions.

All those major private funds have had to warn their existing pensioners that they are not likely to be able to go on giving discretionary increases at the same level in future years. None of them can give inflation-proofing without a ceiling as of right.

Thus, in the words of the editorial of December 1975 in Pensions World, which is the official organ of the National Association of Pension Funds:

"The Civil Service, and other public sector employees, have thus been placed in the invidious position of occupying a favoured place in the community."

My second concern is the cost of Civil Service pensions. In 1971–72 they cost the taxpayer £107 million. As the Minister said in a recent answer to a parliamentary Question, the outturn cost in 1975–76 had risen to an estimated £256 million. The net estimate for the current year is £267 million. Assuming inflation in the retail price index at the rate of 15 per cent., that £276 million will be increased by a further £10½ million, giving a total figure of £286 million. That will become the base line for the operation of next year's increases of 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. The cost of Civil Service pensions alone has thus increased from £107 million to around £286 million in seven years—nearly a threefold increase.

Public service pensions cost £730 million in the last year and went up by the large sum of £180 million to £910 million in the current year. None of the Civil Service pensions and relatively few of the public service pensions are funded, and we are, therefore, placing an awesome burden on the willingness of future taxpayers to honour the commitment entered into now. Many of us fear that if this commitment becomes too great, and if the discrepancy between the private and the public sector becomes too large, it is questionable whether future generations will be willing to meet it.

I have stated the problems and it is only fair that I should state what I believe to be the solution. The job of the Pay Research Unit is to investigate and to ensure that the pay, pension, holiday and general working conditions within the Civil Service are comparable to those within commercial firms. But the staff of the PRU is entirely made up of civil servants, who are inevitably interested parties. I suggest that the character of the PRU should be changed so that it acts as an independent commission. Its members should be drawn from both the public and the private sector, from the actuarial professions, industry, pension funds, and so forth so that it becomes an independent unit with an impartial chairman. There should be more open disclosures of the unit's findings, and how they are arrived at. The new unit could then look at the cost of civil service pensions.

Also there is real confusion. It was recently said that the cost of Civil Service pensions was only 10·5 per cent. of the payroll, which compared favourably with industry. But this is trying to compare chalk with cheese. Ten and a half per cent. of civil servants' pay is the current cost for payment in one year, whereas occupational schemes have to fund fully every year the total liability. If one day the future taxpayer were to refuse to pay, all civil servants' pensions would cease, whereas the occupational pensioners would be secured for all pensions accruing to the date of cessation.

In The Times of 24th May there appeared a letter from Mr. John Dryden, the Secretary General of the Civil Service National Whitley Council, in which he referred to deductions directly related to Civil Service pension arrangements. I quote:

"In the first place, pay rates have been abated in a percentage figure equivalent to the contribution rate in the outside field of comparison, that is, 5 to 6 per cent. Secondly, a further abatement of 1¾ per cent, is made to take account of differences in overall benefits."

As I have repeatedly pointed out to the Minister, there is a great deal of controversy surrounding that second figure of 1¾ per cent., and the general view from the outside professions, actuaries and pension funds is that it is very inadequate. I have asked actuaries and life insurance companies for the cost of inflation-proofing for private occupational schemes. They have advised me that, on a typical model scheme similar to that of the Civil Service, if one assumes a 9 per cent. investment return and 8 per cent. salary increases, thus giving a 1 per cent. positive yield, an additional 14 per cent. of current salary should be required to produce 10 per cent. increases in future pensions. If 15 per cent. increases are required—that is, 15 per cent. Inflation-proofing—that 14 per cent. of current salary rises alarmingly to 40 per cent. If nil yield on returns is anticipated rather than a 1 per cent. positive yield, the 14 per cent. of salary for the 10 per cent. inflation-proofing becomes 17 per cent., and the 40 per cent. becomes 52 per cent.

One can therefore see here a range of from 14 per cent. to 17 per cent. of salary for 10 per cent. inflation-proofing, and deductions as high as 40 per cent. to 52 per cent. of salary for 15 per cent. pension inflation-proofing.

It is against that background that I suggest to the Minister—I know that this is a highly complicated subject—that the 11 per cent. currently deducted is grossly inadequate. I should like to suggest that he considers the following: that the Pay Research Unit, having been reshaped, as I suggest, under an independent chairman, should then take exhaustive advice from the National Association of Pension Funds and Life Offices. It would then be in a position every year, after the increase in the Retail Price Index had been announced, to advise the Whitley Council, based on the current rate of inflation and the likely trend, that the deduction from gross salary for total inflation-proofing should in its judgment be, let us say, 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. or indeed, if inflation is down to nothing, nil per cent.

However, it would then be optional to members of the Civil Service whether or not they accepted that deduction. If inflation were too high and, therefore, the suggested rate of deduction was in their judgment too great for any individual member to bear, he could opt out and opt instead for the basic pension without inflation-proofing. In this case he would receive his salary without deduction for inflation-proofing. The fact of having this option would, of course, be of considerable benefit to members of the Civil Service.

My only caveat would be that once having opted out of inflation-proofing and having received a higher salary and, in consequence, a higher take-home pay, it would not be possible to come in again and pay for an inflation-proofed pension in later years.

I have absolutely no doubt that the Minister, civil servants themselves and the Whitley Council wish their treatment to be fair in pay, pensions, holidays and all other benefits. It should not only be fair but be seen to be so.

I fear that the confidence of the outside world needs to be re-established in the work of the Pay Research Unit. I believe that this confidence is lacking at present, but I hope that the solutions which I have suggested will be taken on board by the Minister and examined seriously. I believe that my proposals would create the confidence that I wish to see.

I was impressed by the reasonable manner in which the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) expressed his concern on the subject of Civil Service pay and pensions. I wish to exonerate the hon. Gentleman from any vendetta against the Civil Service generally, and I was pleased to hear him express his admiration in regard to the contribution made by the Civil Service.

Having said that, I am to some extent distressed that, once again, we have seen an attempt to single out the Civil Service as the target for criticism in terms of pay and pensions. It has been suggested today, and indeed on a number of occasions, that in some way the Civil Service has contrived to secure special privileges for itself in pay and pensions. I submit that this is fantasy rather than fact. But as the facts in this case do not always seem to speak for themselves, I am grateful for this further opportunity to set the record straight.

I wish to make plain from the outset that I cannot accept that there is any substance in the idea that civil servants are over-generously provided for as compared with the rest of the community in respect of their pay and pensions.

The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that the principles relating to civil servants' pay were laid down 20 years ago after a thorough and most searching review of the issues involved in settling Civil Service pay by a Royal Commission chaired by Sir Raymond Priestley, and they have been applied by Governments of both parties since that time. The Commission recognised that it would be wrong for the Government to set a lead in the rates paid to their employees but that, in fairness to those employees and to ensure that the service was staffed by suitable recruits, pay for the Civil Service should be comparable with the pay enjoyed by those performing broadly similar work in the private sector. That is the basis of fair comparison.

I turn to the main argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman, who referred to the inflation-proofing provisions that exist for the Civil Service and for public service pensioners. The hon. Gentleman said that social justice demanded equality, which was a moving comment. I hope to justify the arguments that the provisions implemented for the Civil Service represent that equality.

I wish to comment on the arrangements for inflation-proofing of public service and Civil Service pensions under the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 introduced by the then Conservative Government. I know that the hon. Gentleman, who has a deep interest in this subject, will have studied the words of his party's spokesman during the passage of that Act. He will be aware of his party's views that the Act was a

"far-reaching and overdue reform"— [Official Report, 25th May 1971; Vol. 818, c. 239.]

It set out to put on a fair basis arrangements for maintaining the purchasing power of the pensions of those for whom central and local government had a particular responsibility.

That description does not cease to be true merely because the burdens that inflation would otherwise inflict on these pensioners have turned out to be far more onerous than anyone at that time could foresee. However, as I have said on several occasions, no group of pensioners can expect that the real value of their pensions will necessarily be protected at all costs, whatever the economic circumstances of the country.

Much has been made of the suggestion that the private sector employee is at a serious disadvantage compared with the public sector employee in this matter. The hon. Gentleman has reinforced this view again today. It is a view that I do not share. I do not think it is possible to generalise in this way without gross oversimplification. Certainly many private sector pensioners have done at least as well as the Civil Service and public service pensioner. The hon. Gentleman quoted the cases of the retired employees of ICI and Unilever. When it comes to the better-off pensioners in the private sector, let us not forget that in many cases, particularly where selective use is made of the options available to pension scheme managers, private sector pensions can be very much higher than the highest pension in the public sector.

Those cases apart, it should not be forgotten that, for the Civil Service at least, comparative benefits and contributions are taken into account by the fair comparisons process, and I want to deal with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Civil Service and public service pensioners make no contribution to their pension.

On the comparative cost of public service schemes, it should be remembered that no attempt is made to fund a pensions increase; the cost is met as it arises. No guarantee is given for the future and, if the cost becomes unreasonably high, the whole arrangement can be reconsidered at any time. At present, the annual cost to the nation is very much less than many uninformed critics have suggested.

The hon. Gentleman said that the whole arrangement could be reviewed or changed at any time. Does he agree that the suggestions that I made could be implemented without legislation?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall give very serious consideration to the many points that he made during his speech. As regards the arrangements for modifications, I remind him that the 1971 Act contains certain provisions under which the whole scheme can be re-examined and that these provisions are the subject of a review which is being conducted at present.

As I was saying, the annual cost to the nation is very much less than many uninformed critics have suggested. Indeed, at the present time, working on a pay-as-you-go basis, the fact of the matter is that, after account is taken of staff pension contributions of some 7 per cent. through adjustment of salary and direct contribution, the net cost to the taxpayer of Civil Service pension benefits, including inflation-proofing, does not exceed some 3·5 per cent. of the salary bill. By no standards of comparison with private sector schemes can that be held to be excessive.

These are but some of the complex considerations that need to be taken into account in arriving at the decision about the increase due on public service pensions this year, a decision that I hope we shall be in a position to announce within the next few weeks.

The hon. Gentleman indicated his concern about the way in which Civil Service pension arrangements are taken into account in determining pay. Let me try once again to clear up some of the confusions that still seem to exist. First, the role of the Pay Research Unit needs to be clarified. As I indicated earlier, the unit is essentially a fact-finding organisation, so it does not itself become involved in the adjustment of rates to take account of the differences between the Civil Service pension scheme and outside schemes. This is done by the negotiators within the rules set out in the 1974 pay agreement negotiated by the Official and Staff Sides of the National Whitley Council.

Secondly, arrangements for dealing with the comparative value of pension provisions need to be understood. Briefly, they provide for the outside pay rates used in making comparisons to be reduced to take account both of the fact that an outside scheme may be contributory and of any advantage in benefits of the Civil Service scheme over those avail-able elsewhere. Thus, for example, if the outside comparable rate of pay is £3,000 and a 5 per cent. contribution is paid for personal benefits, the Civil Service equivalent is taken as £2,850. A further adjustment is made to take account of differences in benefits of comparable schemes.

The 1974 agreement provides for the second adjustment to be made by deduction of a single figure of 1·75 per cent. The hon. Gentleman referred to that as being a matter of some controversy. but this figure was negotiated on the basis of the Government Actuary's advice for surveys completed before the agreement was made.

The agreement also provides for the figure to be reviewed after each annual pay research round on the basis of the advice of the Government Actuary. But the system of fair comparisons is in suspension, as is the pay research system. Therefore, the figure of 1·75 per cent. will not be reviewed because of the suspension. It has been suggested by the hon. Gentleman that 1·75 per cent. is inadequate to cover the advantage to the Civil Service of inflation-proofing. As I indicated, I accept that the figure may be a little out of date, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are dealing with a long-term assessment in which unusually high rates of inflation in particular years have less significance than the long-term trend.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to put himself in the position of a clerical officer aged 18 who will not receive his pension until well into the next century. Would he not rightly be suspicious of an over-reaction to one year's inflation on an adjustment that affects his pay now? The figure of 1·75 per cent. could not at the time of negotiation have taken account of the exceptionally high inflation by 1975, but when economic circumstances and pay policy permit a return to fair comparisons the gure will be reviewed and will take full account of the situation at that time.

I hope that what I have said will assist the hon. Gentleman in understanding the basis of the system of Civil Service pay and pensions.