At the beginning of this month, you, Mr. Speaker, commissioned the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), the Principal Clerk, Mr. Charles Winnifrith, and myself to present a Speaker's chair and desk on behalf of the House of Commons to the state of St. Christopher and Nevis in the Caribbean. Mr. Winnifrith was a great help and he guided us with great efficiency through the various formalities, for which we were most grateful.

When we arrived at St. Kitts, as it is called, we were met by the clerk to the National Assembly, Mr. Alfonso Lewis, who was most helpful throughout our stay, and we owe him our thanks. On Tuesday 7 June the Speaker, Mr. Speaker Buchanan, warmly welcomed us, and the hon. Member for Tottenham and I made short speeches thanking them for their kindness and presented the chair and desk on behalf of the House of Commons. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the chair and desk are magnificent pieces of furniture made in Sussex oak.

The Parliament in St. Kitts is continuously broadcast, but it does not meet as often as our Parliament and I do not think that many people heard our speeches. We had some competition because a test match was being played, and West Indians are probably more interested in test matches than in listening to politicians.

The Prime Minister, Dr. Kennedy Simmonds, gave us a warm welcome. He made an extremely good speech, thanked us and moved a resolution, which, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall read out:

"Be it resolved that this honourable House expresses its appreciation to the House of Commons for its gift of the Speaker's Chair and Desk to this honourable House in recognition of the attainment of independence in St. Christopher and Nevis on 19 September 1983.

Be it resolved that this House recognises the longstanding relationship between the Government and the people of the United Kingdom and St. Christopher and Nevis and looks forward to the strengthening of these links through a bilateral arrangement or through the Commonwealth and other international organisations."

That resolution was dated 7 June 1988 and was signed by Alfonso Lewis, Clerk of the National Assembly.

St. Kitts and Nevis are interesting islands. I am fortunate because I know them fairly well as I was the director of a sugar factory in St. Kitts and consequently visited the island many times. The island has a long history with the United Kingdom. Many battles were fought between the French and the English and a fort, Brimstone Hill, has been refurbished and restored. It is worth visiting St. Kitts just to see Brimstone Hill if nothing else. The restoration has been carried out by Mr. Lloyd Matheson, and he should be congratulated.

The economy of the island is good and tourism is growing. However, the sugar production is not in good heart because cane cutters are difficult to find and more mechanical harvesters are needed.

We visited Nevis, which is about three miles from St. Kitts, at the invitation of its premier, Dr. Simeon Daniel. We should like to thank him for his hospitality and kindness. The independence that has been granted to St. Kitts and Nevis is unusual because, although there is one assembly, the Nevisians have the right to secede from St. Kitts if they wish.

Our visit to Nevis coincided with the inaugural meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and on 8 June Nevis joined that association as a full member. It may be that the hon. Member for Tottenham and myself are founder members of that association and, consequently, if there are any further trips, I believe that founder members may have to go. That is something for the future.

We spent an interesting day at Nevis and saw the entry for the marriage between Admiral Lord Nelson and the widow Mrs. Fanny Nisbet, which was interesting.

Speaker Buchanan sends his greetings to you, Mr. Speaker. We delivered your letter to him and I have one for you in return. I also have in my possession the resolution and I shall hand that, together with the letter, to you, Mr. Speaker, after the hon. Member for Tottenham has spoken. Speaker Buchanan is coming to this country later this month for the tercentenary celebrations of the Bill of Rights and we look forward to seeing him again.

May I say on behalf of the delegation that it was a great honour for my colleagues and Ito be the emissaries of the House of Commons. The Kittians and Nevisians have a deep feeling of friendship for this country. We told the National Assembly that the gifts of the chair and the desk will be a constant reminder of the bond of friendship between St. Kitts, Nevis and the United Kingdom.

I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) has said—and it is not often that I do that. The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the St. Kitts and Nevis region was helpful to the delegation. I felt rather strange because the hon. Gentleman knew more about those islands in the Caribbean than I, and I come from that part of the world.

I was grateful to the House for giving me the opportunity to visit the islands and especially to my colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party who had the foresight to send someone who came from that region. I believe that that was the first time it had happened, but I hope that it is not the last.

We received excellent treatment from the parliamentarians and officers of St. Kitts and Nevis. Our hosts were extremely generous, and we were taken on a tour of the island. We were met by the Prime Minister and a number of other dignitaries. In Nevis we met the deputy governor general, who is more British than the normal West Indian.

We were especially pleased to present the gift, which was excellent. It has brightened up the atmosphere within the House of Assembly, and the parliamentarians were extremely pleased that the British Parliament should see fit to give them such an excellent gift. They were extremely pleased to welcome me as I am from that region. I believe that they were especially pleased that someone who originated in that area was able to come back to present such a gift.

As the hon. Member for Croydon, South said, St. Kitts is faced with some difficulties regarding its sugar cane crop. We understand that this year, because of a lack of cane cutters and mechanical harvesters, it will lose 50,000 tonnes of cane. That is a tremendous blow, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, the economy is strong and tourism is good. The island hopes that any revenue that might be lost from sugar cane production will be made up from tourism.

We visited Nevis, which is one of the most beautiful islands of the Caribbean. Mount Misery, which belies its name, is extremely beautiful. The top of the mountain is covered by clouds and snow. The Nevisians are fiercely independent and, as the hon. Member for Croydon, South said, they are proud of the fact that they may secede from St. Kitts should the need arise. We were there for the inaugural meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and we forced ourselves to become honorary members. We hope that we will be able to go back to celebrate the first anniversary of Nevis's membership of the CPA.

I took the opportunity to visit the colony of Anguilla, which declared independence some time ago. I believe that the representative from the British Government was chased off the island and the Government quickly sent troops and a squad of London bobbies to restore order. I am pleased to say that now all is calm on the island.

I met the governor of that island and I was invited to the Queen's birthday parade, which is one of the relics of the old Commonwealth days. I was pleased to visit the island and I was cordially met by the Chief Minister and others.

On my visit, a number of residents took the opportunity to raise the problem of wild dogs, which apparently roam the countryside killing sheep and injuring people. I have tabled a question to the Foreign Office about that matter, and I hope that I shall receive a satisfactory answer in due course.

I also wish to thank the staff of the British high commission and, in particular, the deputy high commissioner, Mr. Brian Taylor, and his wife. Not only did they look after the delegation, but they looked after me for about four hours while I was waiting to change planes at Antigua. May I also thank the official of the high commission in Trinidad who met me at the airport and made sure that I was able to get through without any difficulties.

I was very pleased and proud to represent the British Parliament in that part of the world, and I look forward to many similar trips.

I thank both hon. Members for the way in which they discharged the tasks entrusted to them. I shall ensure that the resolution of the National Assembly of St. Christopher and Nevis is entered in the Journals.

The House will have enjoyed that interlude before these lengthier proceedings. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) showed deep insensitivity by mentioning cricket and the subject of test matches against the West Indies. It is deeply to be deplored. I could not help wondering, as I listened to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) expressing his deep appreciation that members of his party sent him to St. Kitts, whether they were trying to tell him something. But he has returned full of vigour and we very much enjoyed his contribution. I know that he will take my remarks in the spirit in which they are offered.

I welcome the opportunity of the debate to review fair employment in Northern Ireland. It was thought helpful to give the House an opportunity to debate such matters and, following the publication of the White Paper, for the House to be able to comment on the Government's proposals. We have published the White Paper and are preparing legislation which we shall bring before the House at the earliest opportunity, and it is proper that the House be allowed to discuss in detail the proposals in the White Paper. If I set the general scene against which we have taken our initiatives and we then listen, with great interest, to the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will respond in detail to any points that arise.

This subject has been a thread that has continued through the fabric of the Houses of Parliament for centuries. We must ensure equal opportunities and fairness for all the people of the United Kingdom. Today we have come here to discuss equality of opportunity and the most effective ways to tackle unfair discrimination in employment in Northern Ireland.

In principle, the issue has united the House. We may not agree on every detail or every measure, but we are determined to seek fairness. The direct rule that we renewed in the House on Wednesday started against a background of perceptions, which the Cameron commission found significantly justified, of discrimination in several areas. If there was a programme of work on which successive Secretaries of State., of both parties, embarked during direct rule, it was to tackle the perceived problems of discrimination in housing, electoral practices and employment.

We have had significant success in housing. Of course, there are still problems of unfitness, and a great deal of work remains to be done, but there is now a wide perception that much work has been done to remove unfairness and discrimination in the allocation of housing and there is much greater confidence in the system operating under the Housing Executive.

The problems of electoral practices have been tackled, and the impact of proportional representation in some elections in Northern Ireland has been reflected in the composition of district councils and in the representation to the European Parliament.

We are having this debate because we are not satisfied with the progress in employment and recognise the need to make more progress. I say that because some people are trying to capture the subject as though they had suddenly identified it as a new and important area that has been of no interest to British Governments over the years. My first exhibit for the defence is the Fair Employment Northern Ireland Act 1976, which set up the Fair Employment Agency. Although those steps were taken and much good work has been done, there has been no major statistical change in the apparent disadvantage in employment for Catholic, as opposed to Protestant, members of the community in Northern Ireland.

I accept that there are reasons for that which have nothing to do with discrimination. They relate to location, demography and the relatively greater prosperity of the east as opposed to the west of the Province. After analysing all the reasons that might explain the problem, I am still satisfied that in many significant areas there is discrimination—some of it deliberate, some of it inadvertent, some of it merely maintaining past practices and some of it caused by a shortage of employment and the understandable human determination, of which we are all aware in our constituencies, to ensure that a member of the family or the child of a friend has the chance of a job, and to give him or her special help into employment. In the circumstances of Northern Ireland, that has the effect of perpetuating employment in one community to the detriment of the order.

I approach the debate recognising that there are perfectly honourable and understandable reasons why there is a difference in the relative prospects for employment, but that there are unexplained elements which can be accounted for only by determined efforts to maintain discrimination.

We have prepared our proposal on the basis of the most careful analysis of the background. My predecessor, the present Home Secretary, was concerned about what he perceived to be the lack of change and continuing imbalance. In 1985 he set in hand a study and since then we have been moving forward from his analysis. We have produced a succession of documents, with which the House will be familiar, including the consultation paper. I have with me the Government's new proposals on the fair employment support scheme, a guide to effective practice and the subject of our debate, the White Paper.

Against that background, one can appreciate the detailed way in which we have sought to study these matters. We have produced what we believe to be the most constructive and helpful proposals.

I notice that first of the documents that the Secretary of State has enumerated was issued in 1973. What document—if any—of a major nature was issued before then on the question of employment?

There were certainly earlier attempts. I should need to check the exact titles, but the old Stormont Parliament produced documents on employment. Work was done earlier and I believe that legislation was passed. I shall check on that and seek to reply to the point.

We have now produced a White Paper and we hope to legislate at the earliest opportunity. Some people have said that although they can see that substantial work has been done, progress in dealing with matters that require urgent attention has been too leisurely. I must make it clear that although we believe that legislation is necessary, we cannot, as the House knows, produce legislation overnight and have it immediately carried through the House. Any legislation must, quite rightly, go through the normal procedures.

None the less, we have been anxious to ensure that what could be done should be done in advance of legislation. That is why we have launched educational initiatives in the public and private sectors. We have produced a support scheme for private sector employers and we have increased significantly the resources of the Fair Employment Agency.

Our proposals follow a substantial number of responses to the original consultative document. Those responses came from a wide range of employers, led by the CBI, and from the trade unions, the Churches and a wide range of individuals and political parties. We have, in particular, been helped by the report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. I pay tribute to the quality of the work that it has done under its chairman, Mr. Seamus O'Hara. The House may be aware that his term of office is about to be completed. I have invited Sir Oliver Napier to succeed him, and I am pleased to tell the House that he has accepted that appointment and will become the new chairman. This is an appropriate time to pay tribute to Mr. O'Hara's outstanding leadership in a difficult, complex and controversial task.

I was very encouraged and impressed by the thoroughness of the SACHR report. Many of its recommendations are incorporated in our proposals—not all of them, but no one would expect every recommendation to be included. The commission can take encouragement from the obvious attention and value that we have given to its contributions.

The legislation that we shall bring forward will be tough. It will be much tougher than anything that has been done before, but it will be tough only for people who are determined to flout it. The legislation will require people to register and monitor. Failure to do so will expose people to the criminal law. Some people have taken exception to that. It is, however, a sanction that will apply only to people who are determined not to fulfil what will prove to be a very minor commitment in terms of time and effort, after some initial work. It will not be a burdensome obligation. It will ensure that everybody makes his contribution towards ensuring that the good name of Northern Ireland is established in employment practices, as in others. If an employer seeks to expand his business, it does him no good to operate within a Province that has a reputation sullied by allegations of discrimination and unfairness in employment.

The proposals can help by producing a virtuous, rather than a vicious, circle. They will build confidence, which in turn will create more jobs. That will help to tackle the problems of discrimination in employment more effectively. We know that we have no chance of achieving greater fairness and opportunities if jobs are being lost at the same time, because that builds a trench mentality in which people defend their jobs at all costs. That is why we have opposed so vigorously any proposals that smack of disinvestment or other sanctions that would cause jobs to be lost.

People who care about the issue, as we do, will agree. We do not have to prove our credentials. I am the representative of a Government who, in succession to other Governments, have sought to tackle the problems of discrimination in housing, electoral law and now in employment. We look for the good will and help of people to bring jobs that can genuinely create more employment for the people of both communities. That is at the heart of our proposals.

We seek affirmative action to remedy under-representation. We have set out approaches on the use of goals and timetables as set out in the code of practice. We shall give the new commission powers and sanctions to support it. At the heart of the proposals, however, we still seek to maintain the principle of appointment on merit. We have set ourselves clearly against quotas and reverse discrimination. Their effect could be catastrophic, in the climate of Northern Ireland, to the acceptance by the wider community of the fairness of equal opportunity proposals.

I recognise that this is a difficult area that has been the subject of much debate. There are many points of view and many people worry that the inclusion of the merit principle will somehow provide a loophole through which an escape from real progress will be made. Once we depart from the merit principle and the principle of equal opportunity, and somehow move into reverse discrimination, the whole nature of the approach is changed. We genuinely want to achieve equality of opportunity and appointment based on merit.

I have sought to set the scene, the climate, in which we have brought these proposals forward. Above all, I hope to show my personal commitment and the commitment of the Government to this task. The House will know that in our earlier documents the foreword to the guide for effective practice was by the Prime Minister. I was grateful for that, because it is important that everyone in Northern Ireland should understand that there is a commitment by the Government at the highest level.

I say to those who may feel threatened by our approach, and who may somehow feel that it is an attempt to disadvantage them, that it is profoundly to the benefit of everybody in Northern Ireland that the Province is seen to be a place where genuine equality of opportunity is practised. It is important to say that discrimination is not practised exclusively by one community against another. It is not all against Catholics. In some significant areas of employment there is significant evidence of discrimination against Protestants.

Our proposals are intended to achieve greater equality of opportunity for all. In the context of what I said on Wednesday in the House, if we can do that against a background of a genuine chance for more jobs and more opportunities, our proposals will form one of the elements of a real contribution to improving the atmosphere and the confidence in the Province.

On Wednesday we talked about the evil of sectarianism. It can be led by a defensive attitude over jobs. We know about some of the problems that have existed in some factories. At every level and in every respect we wish to root out sectarianism from society. Our proposals and the legislation that we shall bring forward should do that. I hope that the response by leaders of opinion in the House and in the Province will not be to seek to exploit the grievances in the Province. Undoubtedly, some people will seek to do that. I hope that people will try to build on a much more constructive basis and see the need, in everybody's interests, for greater progress toward's achieving equality of opportunity. Against that back-ground, I hope that people will see the contribution that these proposals can make towards improving the general atmosphere, confidence and good will in the Province. It is in that spirit that I introduce our proposals.

May I first join the Secretary of State in the tribute that he paid to Mr. Seamus O'Hara. the retiring chairman of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. At a turbulent time in the history of Northern Ireland Mr. O'Hara played a notable part both as chairman of the commission and on the Housing Executive. The part that he played in guiding the commission at a difficult time has been instrumental in producing a quite remarkable piece of work in the recommendations on fair employment. I trust that he now has the opportunity to go back to his practice and perhaps repair some of his financial losses and make his peace with his partners. I hope that he will enjoy what he deserves—a successful remainder of his life. We are indebted to him.

Through Mr. O'Hara I should like to pay tribute to the members of the commission who laboured long and hard over this difficult and thorough report. It examines many of the myths and problems and looks carefully at the situation in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State claims that the White Paper takes up much of what the commission recommends. I should like him to produce a chart of its 123 recommendations and say how many the Government have accepted and why. I say that because I think that in some ways the Government have not got to the root of the proposals. It' the Secretary of State has produced such a chart, I shall be happy to receive it.

I am pleased that we are debating this White Paper because less than a year ago there was a suggestion that we would be talking merely about an unamendable order. It will be clear as my argument progresses that I have major reservations about some of the contents of the White Paper. However, I congratulate the Secretary of State and his Ministers on realising the considerable advantage, not only in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland but internationally, of airing the problems and legislating for them in the national Parliament. Having said that, I must make it clear that in some ways I am unhappy that there should be any need at all for a debate on such an issue. I know that the Secretary of State shares that view.

Inequality of opportunity in employment because of religion is the last of the great issues still unresolved from the civil rights marches of 1969 and before. Housing remains imperfect but the greatest disparities have disappeared. Political gerrymandering has been brought under control and great progress has been made there. The Fair Employment Act 1976 was introduced by a Labour Government and supported by all parties in the House. In many ways it was based on a document which I am surprised the Secretary of State did not mention in fairness to his former colleague—the van Straubenzee report. Twelve years after the passage of that Act serious problems still remain. There appears to have been no significant change in levels of religious inequalities of opportunity in Northern Ireland.

The Policy Studies Institute report of 1987 highlighted the continuing problem of discrimination and cited the striking example of Catholic male unemployment which stands at two and half times the level of Prostestant male unemployment. I supported the passage of the 1976 Act. To my regret, the Policy Studies Institute study also shows that the Act has had little effect upon the practices of employers. Those are my two starting points.

One of the major problems which sparked the troubles of 1969 remains largely unchanged and the laws that we have passed to deal with it have had little effect. It is from the perspective of those two points that I shall examine the White Paper. The Opposition want to see the problem dealt with now and dealt with effectively. The Government claim to want to introduce effective and hard-hitting legislation to end religious inequalities of opportunity in Northern Ireland. I do not doubt the Government's good will, but I doubt the effectiveness of the measures that they are taking to seek to achieve that objective.

We should look at the change in attitude in Government circles since 1966–67 to the present day. Those of us who were engaged in the House or in Northern Ireland in the civil rights movement and in the agitation in the Province, will remember the moves made by the Trades Union Congress of Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish TUC in the days of the old Stormont Parliament to discuss these matters. At this point I should like to pay tribute to the work of the Northern Ireland congress on this matter. It has been in the forefront not only of trying to take sectarianism and paramilitaries out of the workplace but in trying to give a lead to those elements in the work force who did not see the need to end discrimination in the interests of everybody.

When the delegation from the Labour movement in Northern Ireland went to see the then Minister for Commerce, Mr. Faulkner, the record shows:

"When asked whether the Government would not be prepared to give, at the least, a lead to private employers, Mr. Faulkner replied very emphatically that the Government would not feel justified in interfering with the policies of private employers."

One might say that that was Thatcherism 12 years ahead of its time.

Yet, the Government's White Paper says:

"It is wrong in itself that anyone's employment prospects should suffer on account of their religious background."

I acknowledge that we have come some distance but I shall discuss whether we have come far enough. I want to look at some matters, which the Government have not examined and which the Secretary of State did not mention in his speech, but which have persuaded this most unlikely of Governments to propose a package of legislative and administrative measures designed to ensure that dilatory private and public employers will end direct and indirect discrimination.

The Government have to satisfy two distinct groups with their proposals. First, they have to satisfy the people of Northern Ireland and the House and then external groups, especially in the United States. That may be regrettable, but it has arisen as a result of the way in which the issue has been put back on the agenda. That is spelt out in a careful and detailed assessment of the White Paper to be published in the Industrial Law Journal in September, copies of which were sent to all the major parties. In his paper, Dr. Christopher McCrudden of Lincoln college, Oxford, an acknowledged expert on the subject, said:

"Inequality of opportunity between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland has again become a political issue, largely due to pressure from outside the Province. A campaign in the United States was begun to bring pressure to bear on American corporations, state legislatures and municipal Governments with investments in Northern Ireland to adopt a set of anti-discrimination principles called the 'MacBride principles'. The MacBride campaign, despite well-orchestrated opposition from the British and American Governments, has been popular with state legislatures. By June 1988 seven states had already enacted legislation requiring American companies in which they invest to ensure fair employment practices in their Northern Ireland subsidiaries, and many more were considering similar moves."

Those seven states have now been increased to eight. They are eight of the wealthiest and most populous states in the country: New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine and Minnesota and Illinois. The last three were added this year. Two other large states are on the point of enacting MacBride legislation. In Florida it has passed both legislative Houses and is awaiting signature by the governor. In Michigan it has been through the House of Representatives and is due for a Senate vote within weeks. When it has been enacted in those 10 states, the bulk of total state investment funds in the United States—nearly $30 billion in all—will be subject to the requirement that companies with subsidiaries in Northern Ireland abide by the MacBride principles. About $1·2 billion invested in Northern Ireland is affected by that. An awful lot of jobs are at stake if the Government do not get their legislation right.

In addition to state legislatures, many major cities—New York city, Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit and Chicago among them—have adopted the principles. The Democratic presidential candidate, Michael Dukakis, signed them, as governor of Massachusetts, and has endorsed them as part of his presidential campaign. In an interview with The Times on 17 June this year he made it clear that he would support the principles. He said:

"Based on our experience it just isn't enough to say, 'Well, we are against it.'. If there's been an historic pattern of discrimination then you really have to take steps to affirmatively act."

In the United States Congress, Representative Brian Donnelly and the chairman of the Friends of Ireland—the moderates on the issue—have legislation on the MacBride principles in the pipeline.

The problem for the Government as they consider their legislation on fair employment is that many employers in Northern Ireland are already worried that the MacBride principles will place an impossible burden on them, requiring them, for instance, to guarantee the security of employees travelling to and from work. That is an impossible thing for a private employer to do, and in any case it usurps the role of the state and the civic authorities. They are also worried about a possible conflict in law between the MacBride principles and the Government's proposals.

My hon. Friends and I have made it clear that we support the spirit behind the MacBride principles but that we seek all-embracing legislation that would go beyond the principles in substance and application, while avoiding any practical problems that may be inherent in the principles as drafted. We are particularly worried about the possibility of reverse discrimination and various other matters. Therefore, it is not the spirit that we oppose but the practicalities. The argument should go beyond the MacBride principles. We should acknowledge that they played a part and ask what the Government are doing to overcome the problems and whether their proposals in the White Paper go some way to meet them.

That catalogue of steps in the United States is not the only cloud upon the Government's horizon if they do not get their policies right. The attempts in the United States to legislate for equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland in the face of British tardiness have gone even further. Legislation on defence procurement has just emerged from a conference or joint committee of Members of both Houses of Congress. Attached to it is an amendment, sponsored by Representative Joseph Kennedy, in the House of Representatives, and Senator Edward Kennedy, in the Senate, which affects all those in Northern Ireland from whom the Pentagon makes equipment purchases. It requires them to conform to United States anti-discrimination legislation on pain of loss of the right to tender for Pentagon business. That is not punitive legislation from liberal Democrats of Irish extraction, as some might wish to represent it; it is a compromise that emerged with Republican support in both Houses, against which the British ambassador lobbied furiously

I shall quote from a press statement on the subject. It said:

"Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy II announced today that the conference considering the Department of Defence Authorisation Bill have adopted his provision that prevents the largest employer in Northern Ireland from receiving funds from its upcoming"—

a nice American phrase—

"$60 million aircraft contract with the United States Army unless it commits to support equal employment opportunities for Catholics.

'I think that this action by the US Congress sends a strong message to the hundreds of thousands of Catholics in Northern Ireland and their supporters around the world that America is ready to use its influence, and the power of its pocket book, to try to correct the wrongs that have existed for too long in the North of Ireland', Kennedy said.

Kennedy also announced the results of his work with Michael W. Stone, Under-Secretary of the Army, in securing specific commitments from Short Brothers of Belfast, Northern Ireland, the contractors for the planned C-25 (Sherpa) aircraft. Specifically, Shorts committed to undertake a programme to develop a subcontracting system for subcontractors within Northern Ireland that have predominantly Catholic work force. Approximately $5 million of the $60 million Sherpa contract will be used for this purpose.

Shorts also agreed to specific employment goals for the recruitment of Catholics as new hires. Under the timetable, 17·5 per cent. of the new hires in 1988 will be Catholics; 25 per cent. in 1989; and 33 per cent. in 1990. Currently, Catholics represent 16 per cent. of the new hires at Shorts.

Kennedy described Shorts' acceptance of goals and timetables for minority hiring as a particularly important breakthrough."

Kennedy then went on to talk about his visit to Shorts earlier this year.

Shorts, no doubt doing its best to avoid domestic flack, issued on Saturday what I can only describe as a non-denial denial which was reported in a Belfast Telegraph article headed,

"Planemakers deny Congressman's 'RC quotas' claim".

I do not want to make life difficult for Shorts, but it might help to clarify things if the Minister will confirm or deny Mr. Kennedy's statement that Shorts undertook 17·5 per cent. new Catholic hirings, 25 per cent. new hirings and 33 per cent. new hirings in 1988, 1989 and 1990, respectively.

I read with interest the article that appeared in the Belfast Telegraph, but newspaper articles in the United States spelt out clearly the pattern of events which took place. They disclose that Representative Kennedy contacted the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces and that the Under-Secretary went to Short Brothers with Representative Kennedy's message, only to return with a proposition that Representative Kennedy would not accept. It appears that the Minister returned to Shorts and came back with a compromise. If that is the position, it demonstrates the significance of these matters in federal legislation in the United States.

That is not the last of it, and the Secretary of State arid his Cabinet colleagues must be sighing with relief that that is all that they have to face at present. Some time ago I warned the Secretary of State that if the Government did not get their act together they would be dealing with measures affecting United States investment in Britain as well as in Northern Ireland. If it had not been for some effective Israeli lobbying, Israel being alarmed that it would be affected, the Kennedy amendments would have applied to British as well as to Northern Ireland contractors to the Pentagon. As an aside, it would seem that the Israeli lobby is more powerful than the British lobby in Washington, despite our special relationship. On that, I have the Secretary of State's full support.

I was interested in what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said about Shorts. He will have seen the publication that was produced by the Northern Ireland Office in April 1987, entitled "Fair Treatment for All". If the figures in that publication are to be believed—I refer specifically to those on page 5—the initiatives that Shorts has taken to improve Catholic employment in Shorts have been useful and the trend is in the right direction.

Yes, the trend is in the right direction. Whether Shorts has gone far or fast enough is another matter. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with me about that.

It is clear that in determining their policies the Government have responded to outside pressures. I do not doubt their good will, but, as the MacBride campaign developed, so did the amount of money that was directed to the Fair Employment Agency along with the number of staff. The success of the MacBride campaign can be set against figures of that sort. The campaign wonderfully concentrated the Government's mind.

It is clear that the Government have fundamentally mishandled their response to concerns in the United States from the start. Instead of welcoming the concern and interest and taking the campaigners on board in their efforts to end inequalities of opportunity, the Government have sought to confront those involved. They should have been able, especially since the publication of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights report, to show that their own proposals are at least as positive, practical and all-embracing as those being proposed and introduced in the United States, and much fairer. The MacBride principles apply only to United States investment. I understand that they would not include all sorts of foreign investment, and that would be scarcely fair. The Government have effectively heightened distrust and suspicion so that even some of their more positive proposals have been dismissed as cosmetic.

Cities, states, the United States Congress and, potentially, the next President are legislating for fair employment in Northern Ireland while we are still discussing the White Paper. The Donnelly Bill, which would apply to all United States subsidiaries in Northern Ireland, would require affirmative action, which the White Paper proposes should be made illegal. What choice would that leave United States companies? Would they pull out or defy their own Government? The principle of the set-aside provision of $5 million in the Shorts contract was addressed in the excellent report on fair employment by the SACHR, but it is ignored in the White Paper. What are Shorts and other contractors to do about such requirements in future? Are they to shut their eyes and hope that they will go away?

The Government must realise that United States pressure will not go away. It is here to stay and it must be addressed. I am not sure whether the White Paper does that effectively.

I shall direct my remarks now to some of the specifics of the White Paper, but in the course of discussing them I shall return to some of the issues that I have already mentioned. My colleagues and I want to see effective legislation that will end discrimination and inequalities in Northern Ireland. Such legislation requires that attention be paid to the devil of the detail because the devil is in the detail. Attention must be paid to detail as well as to the grand design. We have examined the detail of the Government's proposals and we find either perfidy—it seems that the drafters hoped that no one would read the fine print—or a failure to understand what is needed to address the problem. It seems also that the drafters failed to do their homework.

There is much in the White Paper with which we agree but there are seven specific issues to which I shall refer. I do not want to detain the House on the development of what might be called the McCrea principle. The seven issues that I wish to bring to the attention of the House are as follows: the so-called merit principle; affirmative action; indirect discrimination; the appeals procedures; grant and contract compliance; the proposed code of conduct; and targets and timetables.

The Secretary of State made much of the merit principle, which was introduced for the first time into British proposals in the consultative paper that was issued by the Department of Economic Development in 1986. It was a sop to the Prime Minister's instinctive dislike for anything which could be construed as interfering with the diktats of the market or giving preference to some troublesome minorities. In the form in which it was defined in the consultative paper, it threatened to gut the proposed legislation before it ever reached the House. The ridiculousness of proposing legislation to deal with a major problem of discrimination and inequality while specifying that remedies cannot address the causes of that problem will be clear to hon. Members on both sides of the House.

The White Paper does not provide an alternative definition, but, fortunately, it makes it clear that the Government have shifted their position considerably, and I welcome that. As the term is used in the White Paper, merit would apply only at the stage of appointment and would operate

"in the context of an overall programe of affirmative action."

It would allow some affirmative action but it would be harmfully restrictive at the appointment stage. For example, it would prevent employers from giving due weight to social factors, such as one candidate being employed and the other unemployed.

The United States audience, which the Government need to address in putting forward these proposals, will be aware that British and United States discrimination legislation has so far survived without the strange and problematic concept that is set out in the White Paper. In many instances it will enable a coach and horses to be driven through the legislation that stems from the White Paper. The American audience will wonder at the Government's insistence on a nebulous, restrictive and dubious concept. It will be necessary to convince it, my right hon. and hon. Friends and the people of Northern Ireland that the concept of merit will not restrict the effectiveness of the legislation. At least it should be confined to the code of practice, where it could be thrown out relatively easily if necessary, and specifically defined to allow for essential affirmative action measures to be taken. The affirmative action that is taken will be crucial to the success of the proposed legislation.

The feature that concerns us especially about the affirmative action proposals outlined in the White Paper is that they are considerably narrower than those currently provided for by race relations and sex discrimination legislation in Britain. The White Paper outlines possible types of affirmative action with which we are in broad agreement, but whereas existing British legislation specifically exempts affirmative action from anti-discrimination provisions governing both direct and indirect discrimination, the Government's proposals in the White Paper limit the exemption to indirect

That would mean, for instance, that whereas it would be legal in Britain for an employer to make special arrangements to interview pupils from a school attended predominantly by members of an under-represented group, that would be illegal in Northern Ireland. That is ludicrous. It would severely limit the ambit of affirmative action and run counter to what is accepted practice in both Britain and the United States of America. In such circumstances, the people of Northern Ireland would have every right to demand to know why they were being denied effective legislation. At the very least, there must be provision for the encouragement of applications from, and specific training for, under-represented groups, as is allowed in Britain.

To return to an earlier theme, I should say that the Donnelly Bill would specifically require religion-specific training provision. There is the real potential here for British and United States legislation to meet head on, with disastrous implications for jobs.

My next point relates to indirect discrimination. We welcome the Government's stated intention of outlawing indirect discrimination for the first time in Northern Ireland, but we are concerned that that step should be taken in an effective way. There are two aspects to our worries. The White Paper has defined indirect discrimination in terms of what cannot be shown to be "justifiable" on jobs-related criteria. In explaining "justifiable", it uses the term "necessary". Since case law in Britain suggests that "justifiable" is open to too wide an interpretation in the courts, we would like to see the word "necessary" used instead. The term should be "necessary" discrimination rather than "justifiable".

In addition, the White Paper's definition in its use of the terms "requirement or condition" may fail to include the complete range of discriminatory practices that should be dealt with under the proposals. For that reason, the Opposition would prefer to see the definition provided by the standing advisory committee that indirect discrimination should constitute:

"Any practice, policy or situation which is continued, allowed or introduced and which has a significant adverse impact on a particular section of the community defined by religion and which cannot also be demonstrated to be necessary."

That is the definition that we would like in the legislation. So far the Government do not appear even to have reacted to SACHR's proposed definition.

People in the United States—that most litigious of countries—will understand my reason for raising the question of the appeals procedures on my fourth point. The Opposition cannot support multi-stage appeals procedures in law against the enforcement decisions of the new Fair Employment Commission. The British experience has shown that legal harassment can emasculate enforcement commissions. It has long been accepted that one of the weaknesses of the Commission for Racial Equality in Britain has been excessive timidity in issuing enforcement notices in the face of possible litigation by private employers. It would be a great mistake if the proposals were to leave the FEC in a similar position. The Government have moved some way to simplifying procedures, but continue to resist the recommendations contained in the SACHR report that appeals on pattern and practice cases should go direct to the High court. Similarly, they have given no sign of an intention to limit the scope for judicial review.

Grant and contract compliance has been a particularly difficult issue for the Secretary of State and his colleagues. We are all well aware that while he was pushing for it in Northern Ireland, his Cabinet colleagues were seeking to outlaw it on this side of the water. I should begin by congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on sticking to his guns on the issue. Having said that, I think that he needs to look again at how effective those guns, as presently loaded, are likely to be.

Contract and grant compliance, used properly, can be among the most effective tools available to the Government for the enforcement of anti-discrimination measures. The danger at present is that the Government will throw away that advantage by circumscribing them so severely that they cease to be effective. At present, the White Paper proposes to exclude non-Government public sector grants and contracts—for example, Harland and Wolff would be excluded—to exclude subcontractors, and to limit the proposal to those grants linked to employment creation or maintenance, thus cutting out large sections of the public sector, including local education authorities, agencies, National Health and so on. In addition, the Government have added a rider and proposed a general security or public interest exception.

We recognise why on occasions that should be necessary, particularly in view of the security position in Northern Ireland. However, we also believe that the pecise circumstances in which that defence may be advanced should be tightly drawn. We would like to see the implementation of SACHR's recommendation that appeals against the proposal should go to the ombudsman. We recognise the necessity of the proposal, but there should be more and better safeguards for the individual.

If we are looking for a test of the Government's determination to introduce effective legislation, the question of grant and contract compliance must be it. There are no reasons to limit that in the way that it appears to be limited at the moment in the White Paper. There is no greater spur for an end to the evil than the fact that Government grants, assistance and contracts are specifically and directly connected with grant and contract compliance provisions.

The Kennedy amendment illustrates exactly how effective contract compliance can be. Shorts was faced with the stark choice of losing a $60 million order for its aircraft or signing an agreement to undertake specific measures to remedy its religious imbalance in its work force. In addition, it had to agree to subcontract $5 million of the work directly to companies employing predominantly workers from the under-represented part of the community. It would not be helpful to our image in the United States if we were less wholehearted in our measures than the United States Congress.

The penultimate issue in my list is the code of practice which, the White Paper states, will occupy a central position in the new system. The White Paper concedes that the code of practice, which spells out proposed affirmative action measures, should be part of the legislation rather than outside it. Although it continues to resist making it universally applicable, it concedes that compliance with specific provisions in the code can be required of individual employers through the issuing of legally enforceable directions by the new Fair Employment Commission.

Despite the progress that has been made, the Government continue to resist incorporation in the primary legislation. The Opposition believe that it should be in the primary legislation., but the Government deny that even to the principles of the code, let alone the code itself. The Government continue to insist that, on its inception, the code should be drawn up by the Department of Economic Development—the Department which, for 10 years, complacently refused to acknowledge that there were any major inequalities persisting in Northern Ireland. After that, the code will go to the new Fair Employment Commission and then to the House. I concede that there are practical problems about that process.

Although the code will come before the House at the same time as the primary legislation—a concession that we welcome—neither the code nor the underlying principles will be subjected to detailed scrutiny in Committee or to legislative amendment. That is completely unacceptable to us.

The affirmative action proposals, as I said earlier, will be central to the success of the legislation. It would make a mockery of our procedures in this House if right hon. and hon. Members on either side were to be denied the opportunity to seek to amend the crucial part of this legislation. I began this morning by congratulating the Secretary of State on seeing the sense of legislating by a Bill on this matter. The same logic demands that at least the principles and definitions which will inform the code of practice should be in the primary legislation.

As I understand the White Paper, the code of practice which will be produced initially will be an interim code of practice. The new commission will amend that as it sees fit in the circumstances in which it finds itself working. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is appropriate that an interim code of practice should be written into the primary legislation?

The code will come through one, two or possibly three filters. First, it will come through the new Fair Employment Commission. The commission will prepare the code which will have to go to the parent Department, the Department of Economic Development. The commission will have to decide what it can get past the DED, and the record ofthe DED has not been terribly good. The DED will consider the matter and decide what it will give to Ministers. Ministers will have to consider what they can get through this place with the least possible row in an order lasting one and half hours. The order will not be amendable. That is why we should have the principles and at least the definitions—if we cannot have more of the code—in the legislation.

Dr. McCrudden continued:

"the minimum safeguard must be that the primary definitions, those of direct and indirect discrimination, the scope of the affirmative action permitted to an employer, the definition of equality of opportunity, and the scope of remedies available to the FEC must all be in the primary legislation itself. The Code is only suitable for advice, guidance and interpretation, not basic definitions."

We know that people will work from basic definitions.

My seventh and last point relates to targets and timetables. The Government have accepted that employers should adopt targets and timetables for remedying any religious imbalance in their work force. We are unhappy that the Government should continue to recommend that targets and timetables should be used only in relation to applications, but we are pleased that they have accepted the principle.

The Government have resisted strenuously in the White Paper the standing advisory committee's recommendation that targets and timetables should be established for the legislation. If the Government genuinely want to remedy inequalities, surely the most basic thing is to set targets against which the effectiveness of their proposals can be measured. Their refusal to do that suggests that, even before legislating, they are trimming their sails to meet the squalls of possible failure.

At the start of the White Paper the Government use evidence of disproportionate unemployment among Catholic males as an indicator of inequality, but in the final two extraordinary paragraphs, they specifically reject unemployment differentials as measures of the same inequality.

Having made it clear that they regard legislation as part of a package with social, geographical and economic elements designed to tackle inequalities, the Government argue against the use of unemployment as an indicator on the ground that the unemployment differentials between Catholics and Protestants will be at least as strongly influenced by social, geographical and economic factors as by fair employment policies. I found it regrettable that the Secretary of State should use those arguments when the standing advisory committee, based on the PSI evidence, exploded the argument that size of family, training, geographical location or social material could ever account for more than 0·5 per cent. of unemployment.

I was giving a balanced account.

That would be most unusual for any Tory. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition once described the well-balanced Nationalist as one with a chip on each shoulder. The same is probably true of Tories, except that in their case it is the City on one and Lloyd's on the other. The Government have refused to accept the argument advanced by SACHR or to commit themselves to a goal against which they can measure the effectiveness of their legislation. Our fear is that the 1976 legislation may be replicated here.

I accept, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that we need more investment to get more jobs, but we must not forget that more than 100,000 jobs change hands in Northern Ireland each year. Having rejected unemployment differentials as a measure of effectiveness, the White Paper uses them as an argument against setting any targets or timetables. It is difficult, in the face of such specious and tendentious argument, to reach any conclusion other than that the Government are not convinced that their proposals will work and that they do not want to provide future critics with ammunition. We should like to be more confident—and I have suggested how we could be more confident—about the working of the legislation.

I have spent some time talking about the influence of the United States of America. Those of us who were engaged in the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland or in this House in the middle and late 1960s will remember the influence that the civil rights movement in the United States had on us. It is strange, but if we now go to the United States and speak to Senators or trade union officials, they say, "What the hell is the problem? We went through it 20 years ago. After six months it was all over. What are you worried about?" They cannot understand why the Government are dragging their feet.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman could have intervened earlier. I have spoken for some time, and I have just reached my peroration.

I want to pay a compliment to the influence that the United States had on us in the 1960s, especially in regard to discrimination against blacks. I have already mentioned the steps taken by Senator Kennedy and by his nephew Representative Kennedy, but I should like to mention another Kennedy—President J. F. Kennedy, who made a statement in 1963 when the Americans were at a crossroads. In their case, the problems were racial, and in ours they are religious. He said:

"It is not enough to pin the blame on others, to say that this is a problem of one section of the country or another, or to deplore the facts that we face … Those who do nothing are inviting shame as well as violence. Those who act boldly are recognising right as well as reality."

We hope that the Secretary of State will act boldly and use what I have said, what my right hon. Friend has said and what is in the SACHR report to ensure that we get effective, prompt and bold legislation that meets the dream of the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland, and that will eventually achieve equality in employment in Northern Ireland.

I am pleased to have caught your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, although in view of the emptiness of the Chamber, that was not particularly difficult.

I rise to speak as an English Member who takes an interest in Northern Irish affairs, and as an employer for many years of Irish people. I, my father and my grandfather before me have employed many thousands of Irish people during the decades that we have run public houses in London. We have employed them in all grades of work and, even today, nine out of 10 of my managers and manageresses are Irish.

I believe that I can say without equivocation that nobody whom we have employed has ever been employed on the basis of his or her religious beliefs or upbringing. It is incredible to me that such a qualification should play any part in recruitment, employment or promotion policy. Surely, when one takes on a new employee, one looks for a willingness to work, competence to do the job, honesty, courteousness and a good appearance. One might consider educational qualification or success, or the training of a potential employee, if one is looking for an academic or specific skill, but surely no employer in normal circumstances will examine religious belief or background as a qualification for employment.

I know that people encounter bias, prejudice and discrimination on the basis of gender, the colour of their skin, a disability or deformity from which they suffer and even sexual proclivities.

It is clear from the figures in the White Paper that people in Northern Ireland encounter major discrimination on the basis of which of two sorts of Christian religion they have been brought up in. The figures for dependency on social security in paragraph 1.5 make it clear that Catholic Nationalist families are much more likely to be dependent than are Protestant Loyalist families. That cannot be right, and from that point of wrongness people such as myself——

With permission. Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's proposals following the recent consultation exercise on competition in the management of local authority sport and leisure facilities.

My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland have considered very carefully the wide-ranging responses to consultation. They have decided that the competitive tendering regime provided for in part I of the Local Government Act 1988 should be applied to the management of sport and leisure facilities. We will therefore lay an order under section 2(3) of the Act to make the management of sport and leisure facilities a defined activity for the purposes of the Act. Before laying the order we shall undertake the consultation on it provided for by section 2(4).

The competitive tendering regime should yield greater value for money from local authority expenditure on sport and recreation through more effective management arid marketing of facilities, and a greater sensitivity to the needs of the community. At the same time, we have recognised the main concerns raised by consultees. As a result, subject to consultation on the terms of the order, we propose, first, to exempt from compulsory competition the management of all sports facilities provided or made available for community use under section 53—whether alone or in conjunction with section 41—of the Education Act 1944, and, in Scotland, under section 6 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. This applies to facilities at primary and secondary schools and further education establishments. The exemption from compulsory competition would also apply to facilities that are termed "dual-use" and "joint use" facilities, and to community centres in Scotland.

We propose, secondly, riot to limit or restrict local authorities' existing discretionary powers over pricing, admission and opening hours policies under section 19 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and section 16(1) of the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982.

Those decisions should help ensure that significant further progress is made towards maximising the use of educational facilities provided by ratepayers and taxpayers, and that disadvantaged groups and promising young sportsmen and women continue to have every opportunity to make use of sport and leisure facilities.

We propose that compulsory competition should apply to a range of facilities provided by local authorities under section 19 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and, in Scotland, under section 15(2) of the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982. Those facilities would include sports centres, leisure centres, swimming pools, leisure pools, golf courses, bowling greens, putting greens, tennis courts, athletics tracks, pitches for team games and other games, cycle tracks, water sports and leisure facilities whether inland or coastal, bowling facilities. Community or village halls, where sport is a secondary or minor activity, would not be included.

We also propose that the management function should include taking bookings; collection of and accounting for fees and charges; cleaning and day-to-day maintenance of buildings, grounds, sports surfaces, plant and equipment; supervising activities—for example, lifeguards at swimming pools; providing instruction in the sport and recreational activities offered; catering and the provision of refreshments; provision and hire of sports equipment; paying for heating, lighting and other services; marketing and promotion of the facilities; employment, and relevant training of staff to undertake these duties.

There is some overlap between that management function and other activities aleady included in the 1988 Act. Under section 2(5) of that Act authorities will be free to decide whether the catering, cleaning and ground maintenance aspects of the management function are best treated as part of sport and leisure management, or as part of those other activities. It would also be for local authorities to decide whether tender specifications for the management of their sport and leisure facilities should be drawn up on an individual facility basis or otherwise.

As regards the implementation timetable, we appreciate the concerns of many local authorities and the private sector about the potential difficulties of bringing competition to this activity in addition to the activities on the face of the Act. We accept that authorities and the private sector need time to prepare for this aspect of competition. Consequently we propose that all counties, non-metropolitan districts, parish councils, local authority joint committees and Scottish local authorities will have to have exposed the management of their facilities to competition by 1 January 1992; that half the London boroughs and half the metropolitan districts will have to have done so by 1 August 1992; and that the remainder of the London boroughs and metropolitan districts will have to have done so by 1 January 1993.

We further propose that those London boroughs and metropolitan districts included in groups 1, 2 and 3 of the Department's "Implementation of Competition" letter, issued to all chief executives on 30 March, should comprise the authorities that will be required to introduce competition to their sport and leisure facilities by 1 August 1992, and that authorities in groups 4, 5 and 6 of that letter should do so by 1 January 1993. A separate announcement is being made about the proposed implementation timetable for Wales.

We appreciate and welcome the desire of some local authorities to press on voluntarily with competition in this activity in advance of the necessary legislative provision. We hope that, in advance of the necessary consultation on the terms of the order, the information set out above is helpful to those authorities. We aim to begin consultation on a draft order before the turn of the year.

Finally, and further to my reply to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on 25 January, in column 40, copies of the responses to the consultation paper issued in September 1987 have been placed in the Library.

The confused thinking in the Minister's statement clearly explains why the Minister hoped to make his announcement by means of a written answer, which would have been outrageous and no doubt accounts for the leaks in this morning's editions of The Times and The Independentabout what he would say. The statement should have been made in the House right from the beginning. Hon. Members are entitled to know the result of such disastrous and confusing Government policies.

The decision to exclude educational and dual-use facilities and to allow local authorities to set pricing policy and determine public interest policy—that is, the philosophy of sport for which they are providing—is to be welcomed. It will, however, make nonsense of everything else that the Minister has told us today. It is important to clear up the confusion about the right of local authorities to decide pricing policy.

On 22 July last year. the Secretary of State said:

"The enabling power … will also allow the level of fees and charges under existing, new or amended charging powers to be prescribed or varied."—[Official Report, 22 July 1987; Vol. 20, c. 277.]

Does the Minister's statement repudiate the Secretary of State's overall doctrine, or is he now saying that, although local authorities can decide their own pricing policy, the Secretary of State retains the right to intervene and instruct them on prices—which would make nonsense of the statement?

The evolving contortions of the Government are a recognition of sustained hostility towards all sport and local government. I have not yet had time to look at the responses that the Minister has only this morning put in the Library for hon. Members to see. That is an outrage. Before any statement of this nature is made, we are entitled to have time to consider the purposes on which the Minister has based his statement.

This started out in the consultation document as an intention to privatise all local authority sports facilities—including, so we were told, those in schools. The Minister, to his credit, was obviously often distressed at having to defend that policy. Then we had phase two of the policy on sports and local government, which was that the facilities would not be privatised, but the management would. Now in phase three we are told that that is not exactly correct and the Government are allowing local authorities to retain control of pricing and public policy. Wherever this has been tried it has had a disastrous effect on the users. Local authorities which have privatised these facilities ahead of the Government's intention have made no real savings whatever.

Nonsense.

They have not, and cannot make savings for the simple reason that they are left to pay the loan, maintenance and insurance charges and to meet the cost of equipment and plant. That is a substantial cost on local authorities and ratepayers which is excluded from all these management considerations.

It is theft.

Yes, it is theft and piracy. No wonder that throughout the country local authorities which have tried this have fallen flat on their face.

The facilities in Wandsworth and at the Castle centre in Blackpool were privatised, both went bust and the facilities had to be returned to the local authorities. Wandsworth decided to privatise its swimming pool and called it Splashland. Before it did so, the charge to the public was 50p; after privatisation the charge increased to £5 for adults and £3 for youngsters. No wonder the company went bankrupt. I am told that it still owes many thousands of pounds. The council has had to take it back into municipal ownership and the charge is now £1·50. In other words, the charge is now three times what it was before this lunatic exercise began. What lesson has the Minister drawn from those debacles?

I wish to ask the Minister a detailed question on contract compliance under the Local Government Act 1988. Will local authorities be entitled in these contracts for management to insist that all employees at, for example, swimming pools, are properly qualified in life saving and resuscitation procedures and, in all other sports facilities, in first aid and public health protection? That is important. Every local authority must ensure that that is the case and we need assurance on that from the Minister.

At a time when vandalism, hooliganism and anti-social activities are rampant and on the increase in all our communities, both rural and inner-city communities, this action is a massive distraction to local authorities in the performance of their duties, and a complete disincentive to the voluntary work of governing bodies of sport. It is a disgrace, and if the Minister had any self-respect he would resign immediately.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke from a written note about confusion in a statement which he had not even heard. I am appalled that throughout his blind campaign——

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

No. The right hon. Gentleman will have a chance to reply later.

the right hon. Gentleman continually resorted to misleading and wholly inaccurate gloom and despondency on this issue.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What the Minister said is plainly false. A copy of his statement, as is customary, was supplied to my right hon. Friend, who read it and based his response on it. We demand that the Minister withdraws his wholly false allegation.

That is up to the Minister. What he said was not out of order.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman referred to confusion in a statement which he had not heard, and that is precisely what I said: he had not heard my statement.

If the right hon. Gentleman had read the statement, he would not have talked such blatant nonsense on pricing policy. Where a council wishes to continue to subsidise its pricing policy, it is perfectly entitled to write that into the contractual arrangements. That is the major difference between Wandsworth and these proposals. Local authorities can retain their discretionary powers over pricing, opening hours and admission policy. If they choose, they can draw that up in the tender specification.

I repeat—obviously this was neither read nor listened to accurately by the right hon. Gentleman—that that means that the free market must not control completely the pricing level. We have rightly taken into account the fact that local authorities should decide local priorities for sport and recreation. If they wish to continue with a subsidised pricing policy, they can do so. We are talking about putting out contracts to competitive tender to get value for money in local authority expenditure and more effective management of facilities.

I, too, attach importance to safety. Health and safety at work legislation requires owners and operators to pursue strict conditions, and guidelines for swimming pools were set down only this year. It will be up to local authorities to write safety guidelines into specifications.

The right hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the fact that he had not read all the replies received from those whom we consulted. Clearly there are many months before the end of the year and the order is tabled for debate, so he will have adequate time over the summer months to review in detail all the replies to our consultation exercise in order that he may be fully briefed, possibly for the first time, before we debate this issue.

The right hon. Gentleman is worried about the implications of this statement on hooliganism, and towards the end of his comments he somehow linked the two. That is utter nonsense. Where contracts placed in the public domain for the management of these facilities are available and pricing controls remain, if that is the council's wish, it can only be right for other companies to consider the specifications for tender documents and to assess that the best way of making a profit is by getting more people through—

Profit?

Yes, profit—and by increasing efficiency. By doing so, the main objective of sport for all will be achieved because the motivation will be to get more people using the facilities.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision that he announced this morning is most welcome because local authority ratepayers are as much entitled to expect value for money as taxpayers? The most sensible way to ensure value for money is to put local authority services out to competitive tender so that we can see whether they are being provided economically, efficiently and effectively, and whether they are being adequately and competently managed.

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right in saying that by putting local authority facilities out to private tender we shall see whether there is value for that expenditure. For the first time many local authorities will be required to identify the specific costs of operating those facilities, and that must be good for future community charge payers as well as users.

Does the Minister realise that he has pleased nobody by this dog's breakfast of a statement? Clearly it is a victory for dogma over common sense. Even private contractors could not make the profits that they would want under the proposals that the hon. Gentleman has announced unless they cut corners by cutting staff and health and safety standards, despite what the hon. Gentleman says. Will it be optional for local authorities to make specifications for health standards?

I should like to refer to the final paragraph of the Minister's statement. He knows that I asked him on 25 January to place in the Library the responses from the consultees. They were placed in the Library at 10.55 this morning, 158 days after he had promised, and after many courteous promptings to his office. He has treated hon. Members with a great deal of contempt.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said, we shall oppose the measures, but I should like to ask specifically about football and cricket grounds owned by local authorities, such as Leeds United, Halifax and many others. Will they, too, be subject to the conditions that are laid down?

It is clear that the Minister cannot stand up for sport against his philistine boss. Should he not reconsider the proposals?

The hon. Gentleman needs only to look at the range of facilities that are already managed by the private sector, not least by Crossland Leisure and Sport and Leisure Development plc, to see that it is absolute nonsense to say that companies have cut corners and reduced health and safety standards. Hon. Members who represent the constituencies concerned will know that there has been increasing participation, more effective management and far better value for money for the local authority ratepayers in those areas.

The hon. Gentleman referred to football clubs. We are talking not about the ownership but about the management of football clubs. If the hon. Gentleman examined the matter closely, he would see that the only people who would be subject to this form of competitive tendering would be those who are paid by the local authorities to run football clubs. There is no example of one of those in the four divisions of the football league. We looked at that carefully when the hon. Gentleman brought that point to our attention in advance.

I have been asked to name one of the facilities. I could name many, but hon. Members need only to look at the Arena leisure centre of Surrey Heath borough council, the Albion leisure centre at Erewash, the Kingfisher leisure pool and Hadleigh swimming pool of Babergh district council, Cromwell squash and snooker club of Alton town council, and the Romford ice rink, owned by the London borough of Havering and run independently by Sport and Leisure Development plc. Thus there are not just a few but many examples of where this system is working effectively.

In general, I welcome my hon. Friend's statement, but will he assure the House that any reasonable reductions for the disabled will not be obstructed by the Government? What provision will be made for quickly removing control from operators that cannot measure up to the standards that are required? It would not be satisfactory to let a facility to be run badly for a long time when young sportsmen, in particular, rely on services so that they represent our country.

Will my hon. Friend consider laying down much more stringent regulations on first aid? Despite what he said, authorities, paticularly St. John Ambulance, are genuinely concerned about standards, particularly in clubs, where the provisions that are laid down by Act of Parliament do not necessarily apply.

On my hon. Friend's first point, local authorities have the discretion now with their facilities to make appropriate pricing policies for certain groups. My hon. Friend mentioned the disabled. It will be proper and in order for those local authorities to continue to exercise their current discretionary powers over pricing for the disabled, and they will be able to write that into the tender specifications.

With regard to the contract period, that issue must rightly be addressed and reviewed regularly to avoid the potential problem that my hon. Friend raised. That will be looked at in detail when the draft order comes out for consultation. My hon. Friend voiced his concern about safety, particularly at sport and recreation facilities. Incidentally, the matter goes far wider than merely facilities run by local authorities. Safety is a matter of concern for the Government. We are actively looking at it and welcome the fact that guidelines have already been issued for swimming pools. We shall consider in more detail whether to propose additional specifications. That will be examined in the context of the draft order.

Is not the Minister confirming that the consultation was a charade, because the whole of the informed sporting world and all local authority associations were against compulsory competitive tendering? Indeed, the Association of District Councils said that it was especially inappropriate in relation to sports and leisure management.

The Minister gave the game away when he said that the provision would produce

"greater sensitivity to the needs of the community."

In reality, that just shows the Minister's insensitivity and lack of belief in local government. Instead of community facilities being paid for collectively by the community, all over the country there will be higher charges at the gate and the door. With the announcement, the Minister is putting the playing fields of England—Scotland and Wales, too—up for grabs and for profit. Instead of more sport for all, there will be more sport for all who can pay and less for the rest.

That is absolute nonsense.

It seems that everything is nonsense.

The right hon. Gentleman may say that, but virtually everything that I have heard from the Opposition Benches has been nonsense. It must be nonsense to suggest that prices will go up, because local authorities will retain control over pricing if they wish, so what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) says militates against logic.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the consultation exercise. Many points were raised which were taken on board in the statement by the Government, not least the timing of the introduction of the system and the main concern expressed by many local authorities and governing bodies, in all their replies, about pricing policy, admission and their desire in some cases to continue with an appropriate level of subsidy. We have responded positively to all those points, so it is inaccurate to say that all governing bodies in all the sports are against the proposals. If the hon. Gentleman takes time over the next few months to read the 347 responses, he will see that many of the points that I have raised have been taken into account. I am certain that, as a result, the proposals will be widely welcomed, in seeking greater efficiency and increasing participation and use of those facilities.

rose——

Order. I remind the House that we have an important Irish debate today. I shall allow questions on the statement to continue until 11.45 am, then we must move on. I ask for brief questions. I also remind the House that the matter will be subject to debate later.

If, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) said, this is a matter of political dogma, and if it is political dogma to increase the scope for traditional Labour councils such as mine to offer services to the public at lower cost when the community charge is introduced in a few years' time, is not that political dogma to be welcomed?

I very much hope that value for money is not an issue that will divide the House. It should not be an issue for political dogma.

Let them decide.

We need to ensure, as the hon. Gentleman says, that local councils are able to decide and to judge the difference between the service that is currently provided by their direct labour organisations and the opportunities that can be made available for other people to manage more efficiently and in the greater interests of the local electorate, even within price controls. For example I cite the interests expressed by the Professional Golfers Association, which looks with considerable interest at the possibility of managing a number of municipal golf courses. If it can do it, it should be allowed to do it.

Is the Minister at all concerned about access to sports facilities in the inner city for young people, black and white, given that unemployment among young people in inner cities is as high as one in three? Given that access is not simply a matter of pricing but depends on how sensitively facilities are managed, it is perfectly possible to manage facilities in a way that specifically excludes poor and unemployed people, although the price may be set at a certain level.

The Minister has said a lot about local authorities' power over charging, but it might still be possible for a local authority to subsidise charges to unemployed people on benefit and for the private contractor managing the facility to restrict such people to certain unpopular hours, leaving the popular hours for people driving Porsches from outside the inner cities, and paying full charges. How will that conflict be resolved.

Very easily—by writing it into the specification for contract. Of course we recognise the need for the continued use of facilities by disadvantaged groups and promising young sportsmen and women. That is why local authorities will retain discretionary powers over pricing, opening hours and admission policy.

Will the Minister assure the House that he has no intention of giving in to the bogus howls of anguish that we are hearing from the Labour party and that we are certain to hear from local government, since the cosy monopoly of local government services provision is bad for users and payers? Will the Minister confirm that councils will be forced to hand over services only if they cannot get their house in order and do it properly themselves? Does he agree that the introduction of competition will lead to new investment, new facilities, better services, better safety and better value for money for those who foot the bill?

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. It ill becomes anyone who purports to promote participation, competition and excellence on the tracks to champion a cosseted trade union monopoly protecting the local councils' direct labour organisations to manage facilities.

It is a pity that no Scottish Minister is present on the Front Bench, but the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that some local authority leisure and sports services are unique facilities of world-wide significance. I am thinking in particular about St. Andrew's golf course, which is the home of world golf and has been run successfully by local authorities not only for decades but centuries. The prospect of St. Andrew's being put out to private tender, and the prospect of souvenir shops over the Swilken burn, and hamburger stalls on the 18th fairway would make old Tom Morris turn in his grave, and cause offence to the great names that have been associated with that golf course.

What steps does the Minister intend to take to give local authorities the power to protect such unique facilities? Has he considered the effect on St. Andrews if, for example the Royal and Ancient golf club decided that the privatised golf course was no longer suitable for the Open?

The hon. Member should he aware that we are talking about not the privatisation but the management of facilities. The tender document and the specification, which rightly should be detailed, will cover all the points of concern that he has expressed, because local authorities will continue to write into the tender document whatever specification they believe to be right. On that basis the private sector will be able to assess whether it wishes to compete against current local authority management.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be a wide welcome by Tory Members for the distinction being drawn between the duty of a local authority to ensure that sports facilities exist and the management of such sports provisions? Most people are aware of the gross inefficiency of the sports provision in many local authorities, and want competitively-provided sports facilities so that participants will have better value for money and there will be a greater take-up of facilities and, at the same time, there will be a better deal for local government and for the taxpayer.

My hon. Friend is right. We are seeking not only more effective management of facilities and better value for money, but a private company managing such facilities will be keen to increase the throughput and make sure that as many people as possible use those facilities. Given that that is its interest, it will have a joint interest with the Government and with all local authorities to increase participation and throughput and make sure that the facilities are used to maximum possible extent. That is better marketing of facilities. That objective is in common with the Sports Council's sports policy and will have my full support.

Does the Minister realise that in the Local Government Finance Bill the Secretary of State has 344 new powers? The Secretary of State can compel local authorities to charge when they do not charge now and to increase charges when he does not consider them sufficient. Therefore, where did the Minister get his information that local authorities are free to subsidise? Is it not a fact that by "subsidisation" the Minister means subsidising for profit and not subsidising for the community? Is he aware that the Sports Council comes down heavily against this idea and is most disturbed that the excellence that has been provided through local authorities to Olympic and international standards will gradually disappear and that we shall have not sport for all, but sport for all who can afford it and not for those who cannot afford it?

Will the Minister answer a question about ethnic minorities and about disabled and mentally handicapped people who have private facilities at sports centres because of the nature of their problems? What will the local authorities do if sports facilities which are run only on a profit-making basis go bust and disappear?

With regard to the powers of the Secretary of State, a draft order will be coming before the House on the regime of competitive tendering specifically for the management of sport and leisure facilities. It is recognised that an appropriate level of subsidy, if required, not by the private sector managers but by local authorities, to achieve certain objectives of the sports policy of a particular council—and the hon. Gentleman was right to cite some important considerations of local councils—will enable local authorities to continue a specific level of subsidy to achieve the goals about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned.

I must declare an interest as I am the honorary president of two sporting organisations for schoolchildren from London. Like other hon. Members, I hold coaching qualifications in several sports.

I welcome the Minister's statement. He must do something about providing coaching for children and adults because of the serious decline of the teaching of sport in schools. In many areas, only one in eight primary schools teach cricket. The statement will help in that respect.

As a result of the statement, will more children be taught to swim and will poor people be safeguarded in their access to sporting facilities? Will my hon. Friend the Minister underline what he said to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott)? Will the statement lead to more sport being taught to more children and adults in public sports centres, as I believe it will?

Finally, will my hon. Friend take note of the fact that many hundreds of adults, pensioners and others use private facilities in my constituency to go dancing and take part in healthy sporting activities, and that his statement will help them, too?

A private sector manager must respond to the increased participation trends for sport and recreation. The figure increased from 17 million in 1977 to about 23 million now. He will also note the national trend to be involved in a wider range of sports than previously was the case. As a result, he will be keen to respond to demand, and for that reason he will ensure that as wide a group of people as possible come through the door and are catered for by as wide a range of sports as is demanded. I am confident that that objective will be achieved.

Swimming pools are equally important. There is much demand to learn to swim, and the number of swimming pools has increased from 910 in 1982 to 1,032 now. Managers will be keen to ensure that more people learn to swim, which is essential, and I welcome my hon. Friend's support for that campaign.

Does the Minister realise that the average deficit on a swimming pool is £200,000? Does he believe that all this ideological claptrap will mean anything to people other than those who wish to make a profit? Does he believe that the sports which are improving the health of our people will thrive as a result of what he has said? Is it not a fact that since 1972 the number of sports centres has increased from 20 to 1,500—all of them provided by local authorities—and that their growth has been limited only because the Tory Government have robbed local authorities of funds?

It will be of interest to the House to know that there has been a more rapid increase in the number of facilities provided under this Government than there was under the Labour Government.

There will need to be recognition of the sensitivity about providing sufficient subsidy where that is thought appropriate by the local authority. That will be critical in drawing up the tender specification. But I am confident that, given more positive marketing, more efficient management and better value for money, we shall achieve greater sensitivity to the needs of the community, which will lead to more participation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, if his proposals lead to the better management, marketing and promotion of sports facilities, and that if that draws more people in, it will reassure those of us who are worried about the diminution of sport in schools? Will he answer two specific questions? Has he thought how his proposals will affect centres such as the Black Lion facility in my constituency, which is jointly managed between two local authorities? Will his proposals cover ancillary facilities such as sauna baths and beauty treatments which are currently undertaken in that centre?

On the second point, where they are managed by local authorities the answer is yes. The joint management of facilities by two local authorities will be covered by the draft order that we shall publish later in the year.

I sympathise with the Minister because I cannot believe that his heart is in this statement. But I offer him the assurance that he will go down in history as a handicap. Ironically, he is both the smallest and the largest handicap ever visited upon sport and leisure.

The Government have called for competition in sport. Now we know what they are after: competition for profit. Will the Minister take note of the fact that the Billingham Forum in my constituency, Clareville stadium in Middlesbrough and the Gateshead facility on Tyneside are all centres of excellence of national and international prestige that were built with local money? Whatever some Conservative Members would have the public believe, we do not mind private establishments. We are against the fact that, after paying the risk capital to establish them and then paying the on costs, facilities will be taken away from local authorities and given to someone else who will cream off the profit that belongs to the ratepayers. That is what we are against, and that is what I charge.

The hon. Gentleman's allegations are wrong. If they are to compete and win contracts against the direct labour organisations, the new management teams will have to identify opportunities for greater efficiency and ways to attract more people to use the facilities. It will be a real incentive to achieve sport for all.

Does the Minister accept that, in the history of local government provision and private enterprise practice, there has been nothing to stop private organisations building any sports facilities that they wished? They have completely failed to do so, and that is why local authorities have had to provide this social service for the community and for sport.

That is not true.

It is correct. When the Minister replies, perhaps he will give us examples of where he says that has happened.

Will the Minister confirm the calculations that we have made in the past 35 minutes while the debate has continued? From the responses that he placed in the Library at five minutes to 11, it would appear that the consultation exercise produced 340 organisations opposed to his proposals and five in favour. If those figures are accurate, it explains why he tried to avoid giving a direct answer to the House today. The Minister placed those replies in the Library at a time when he thought we would not have an opportunity to read them. It was disgraceful treatment of Parliament and of sport.

Will the Minister provide Government time for a full debate—not just for one and half hours—on the social implications of the draft order?

The right hon.Gentleman's arithmetic and speed reading are at fault. Many of the responses—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] We can go through them all if hon. Members wish, but I can say that 93 local authorities expressed doubt. They did not come out against the proposals, but mentioned issues that have now been satisfied in my statement—[Laughter.] Opposition Members laugh because they do not like the facts. Far more of the governing bodies than the right hon. Gentleman mentioned came out in favour and, completely contrary to what was said earlier, the Sports Council is in favour of any proposal that leads to more effective management and value for money. Private sector companies were in favour, as were professional bodies and trade unions. Other organisations that responded were also in favour. The Opposition have not read the responses—[Interruption.]

Order. Hon. Members should allow the Minister to finish.

I take heart from the fact that the core objections from the Opposition relate to the number of responses and the views in the responses placed in the Library. They will not face facts and accept that obtaining better value for money through the range of proposals that we have introduced will benefit sport and ratepayers and will provide more effective competition in the provision of local authority services.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Documentation is always a matter for the House. On 25 January my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) received an answer saying that documentation would be placed in the House as soon as possible. You have heard that it was not placed in the House until 10.55 this morning. The Minister had also recently provided written answers to my hon. Friend about what the responses contained. In answer to my hon. Friend's question, the Minister did not explain why it was impossible to place those documents in the House between January and this morning. It is now for the Minister, perhaps by rising on a point of order, to explain why it was not possible to do so.

That is patently not a matter for me, but perhaps the Minister will assist.

I will help the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) is aware that we placed a condition upon the publication of the documents that we should consult each and every consultee to make sure that they were happy for their individual responses to be placed in the Library. Regrettably, that consultation exercise could not be done overnight given that there were some 347 responses.

The key point is that it is unnecessary to place full documentation of that kind in the Library for a statement. It is absolutely critical that such information is in the Library for a debate; but the debate on the order will riot take place for another six months.

rose——

Order. This is an Irish day and it is unfair on Irish Members and others who have come here to discuss an important matter to continue with this subject.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have no wish to be unfair to those people who wish to debate important matters connected with Ireland. It is not the Opposition's fault that the statement had to he dragged out of the Government today. If what the Minister has said is true and certain inhibitions existed that prevented him from putting the English responses in the Library, why were the Welsh responses put there in good time?

rose——

Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to be called in the debate?

I have not stood up to he called at all except on this. I wish to raise a point of order about the habit that is now developing of making statements in the midst of debates on Fridays. It is disgraceful. Nearly everybody went home last night because they did not know that a statement would be made,.

Why?

Most hon. Members did not know that this statement would be made, and it was wrong to interrupt the serious Northern Ireland debate.

I used to run athletics in Sheffield and I know what will happen when people hear about this statement. I want to know why we are interrupting an extremely important debate on Northern Ireland—one of a length that we practically never get, except late at night—and it is a disgrace that this statement is intruding on it. The statement has an importance of its own.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has rightly said that there was a condition that the consultees had to agree to their responses being placed in the Library. I have been in touch with some of those consultees and they gave their authority months ago. Therefore, what the Minister has said is not an excuse. Will he therefore place in the Library the responses to his request for them to be placed in the Library?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been several questions about the authenticity of the documents that went missing for some considerable time and which were not placed in the Library until five minutes to 11 today. Investigations have been carried out at certain levels and it transpires that the documents were sent to Westminster council for verification. No doubt that was done in view of the fact that it is expert at selling off cemetaries for 15p and that it was thought advisable to check with Lady Porter. The result is that the Government have learnt no lesson from Westminster council, which should face a surcharge. That council is chucking away the assets of ratepayers. The Government should learn a lesson.

None of that is a matter for me.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) expressed concern that our debate had been interrupted by the statement and the lively exchanges that followed. My concern at that interruption was even greater than his, because I was in mid-speech when the interruption occurred.

Before I was interrupted by the important statement, I had accepted that there is a problem in Northern Ireland affecting employment and that it arises out of the apparent disparity between unemployment figures for those from the Catholic Nationalist tradition and for those from the Protestant Loyalist tradition. That is wrong, but people such as myself, who are somewhat cynical about whether the law can remedy discrimination, are forced to conclude that we must seek a legal remedy given the intractable situation in Northern Ireland.

The law may be good at compensating for hurt caused by discrimination. I suspect, however, that its ability to re-educate or remould the prejudices and even bigotries of those who discriminate is somewhat more speculative. I have read the White Paper carefully and I believe that it makes an honest attempt to confront the problem of unequal opportunity in employment in Northern Ireland. However, it will require a wise head and a deft and sensitive hand to apply its proposals if new resentments are not to be spawned, notably among employers, who will see the new Fair Employment Commission and fair employment tribunals as simply more sophisticated versions of the present onerous bureaucracy of the Fair Employment Agency.

I am concerned that the emphasis of the White Paper seems to be heavier on stick than carrot. Talk of fines and imprisonment for non-compliance with the registration, certification and monitoring processes is a negative incentive to an employer struggling to start or to run a business in the difficult climate of the Province. Although I understand that help to set up the monitoring system will be available, I believe that the emphasis of the commission must be to mould and persuade rather than to bludgeon. The prospect of being cut out of private sector contracts—unless, of course, the public sector cannot manage without a specific product or service; a bit of pragmatism if ever there was some—looks suspiciously like insidious contract compliance. It seems very much like a bludgeon to me.

I am slightly puzzled by the semantics of paragraphs 3.24 to 3.28, which seek to differentiate between the illegal quota and the highly desirable and legal goals, targets or timetables. I believe that the principal difference is flexibility of time scale. I am pleased that there is no intention to impose positive discrimination, as that would be divisive and corrosive.

I am worried about paragraph 3.22, which deals with catchment areas and I hope that my hon. Friend can deal with my worry. A fortnight ago I visited Belfast with three other hon. Members. We went to meet members of the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade and we were generously hosted by Bushmills distillery and by Bass, Ulster. We visited the Ulster brewery of Bass on Glen road, Belfast, which is situated alongside Andersontown. It is a modern and well-run brewery and it employs almost a completely Catholic work force for its weekly-paid staff. The management is worried that the White Paper proposals could, if not applied sensitively, end up by reducing good job opportunities for Catholics in west Belfast. That would be an unfortunate result of well-intentioned legislation.

My final worry is about the method of monitoring. Paragraph 3.8 emphasises the need to be open, not covert, in monitoring arrangements. Paragraph 5.5, however, suggests that monitoring should be done by requiring employees, or potential employees, to declare their school backgrounds, preferably primary schools, but, failing that their secondary schools, in order to assess their religious-cultural background, rather than by asking a direct question. I believe that those two paragraphs of the White Paper conflict. It is a supreme irony that discrimination in Northern Ireland begins in an institutional way at school.

I believe that my right hon. Friend has no option but to set up a new legislative framework to try to overcome the serious affront to decent employment opportunities represented by religious discrimination. The precedents of racial and sexual discrimination legislation are not altogether encouraging and do not lead to optimism. I shall support the Government, however, in the quest to provide equality of employment opportunity irrespective of the traditions and background in which the employee has been raised.

I hope that, if they have the opportunity, my right hon. and hon. Friends will talk to Michael Dukakis and the other influential Americans mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and persuade them to discourage rather than encourage states in the United States from incorporating the MacBride principles in their state law. In the final analysis, one of the most potent weapons against the men of violence is a thriving economy, with reduced unemployment and much fairer employment opportunities as between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. Withdrawal of overseas investment from Ulster, or the withdrawal of the opportunity for Ulster companies to bid for American contracts, would only damage that aspiration. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will make that clear to present and putative Administrations in the United States, should they have the opportunity.

I wish my right hon. and hon. Friends success in turning the White Paper into legislation, but legislation that relies on re-education and persuasion, rather than on draconian criminal penalties or commercial sanction. The legislation will achieve its aim only if it is supported by a consensus among employers and employees of all traditions.

In introducing the debate, the Secretary of State set the theme—equality of opportunity for jobs and all that flows from it. He encapsulated the parameters of the origins of the problem and highlighted the fact that, in the late 1960s, the three basic demands for civil rights and liberties in Northern Ireland were housing, electoral reform and equality of job opportunities. The right hon. Gentleman was correct in stating that the first two—housing on merit and electoral reform—have been dealt with satisfactorily. Twenty years later we are dealing with that most annoying and pernicious of evils—discrimination of livelihood, which strikes at the core of not only the individual but family life and the community.

Almost a year ago to the day, on 7 July, I made my maiden speech and one of my two major criticisms of 13 years of direct rule was that little had been accomplished in terms of fair employment. I said in my opening address to the House that I had hoped that equality of opportunity would be high on the list of the Government's priorities and that they would ensure that discrimination was immediately and effectively penalised in every way. I said that I hoped that a

"fresh and vigorous look will be taken at the problem to initiate immediate changes."—[Official Report, 7 July 1987, Vol. 119, c. 225.]

I hope that today is the start of that fresh and vigorous look.

There should be two overriding objectives of fair employment legislation: first, to ensure that discrimination does not occur in the future; and, secondly, where possible, to eradicate the injustices of the past where those employment practices continue to affect the equality of opportunity of any community.

The SDLP's policy on fair employment is firmly embedded in, and has developed from, article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which fully expresses the right of all people in our society to enjoy equal and just opportunities of employment. We are conscious, however, of the statement in paragraph 3 of the foreword to the White Paper, which reveals that a statistical review in Northern Ireland in 1985, just three years ago, found that

"despite almost ten years of anti-discrimination legislation and enforcement, the Catholic community remained at a serious disadvantage in employment in both quantitative and qualitative terms; that this obtained throughout the Province (even in areas of relatively high employment); and that it persisted despite progressive convergence of educational attainment between the Protestant and Catholic communities."

Such a finding puts paid to the rather facile response from the Confederation of British Industry. Of all people, its members have had the opportunity over the years to make considerable progress and to ensure redress. The CBI has given a hostile reception to the White Paper. The CBI carries the major share of blame for the unjust and un-Christian discrimination in employment that has taken and is still taking place. The CBI had the capacity to bring about change and could have given Northern Ireland enormous encouragement in trying to achieve peace, community prosperity and harmony but it failed to do so.

I should like the House, and English Members in particular, to be in no doubt about the people, firms or companies that perpetrate this crime of injustice. Many people have an image of a mean-minded and uneducated employer who is embittered by his environment and has turned to sectarianism, which was part of his upbringing. Nothing could be further from the truth. The list of firms that were investigated and found to be guilty of serious discrimination includes household names that could be taken from the stock exchange list. It includes insurance companies such as Commercial Union, General Accident, Royal Insurance and the Prudential, all of which were found guilty of gross discrimination to the extent that 90 per cent. of their work force were Protestants. The Progressive, Leeds, Halifax, Gateway, Abbey National, Nationwide and Woolwich building societies are all in the bracket of 77 to 91 per cent. discrimination in favour of Protestants. Those employers do not fit the image of the narrow-minded Northern Ireland employer. The high street banks are all British-based and are administered from London, yet they are major employers and major discriminators in Northern Ireland.

I do not wish to give the impression that it is only the financial sector that is named in the reports copied from the Fair Employment Agency investigations. They named companies in the engineering and linen industries including Harland and Wolff, Short Brothers and James Mackie and Son. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) mentioned Harland and Wolff. He did not say that in the third monitoring the percentage of Catholics employed had fallen from 17 to 14 per cent. That was a backward step.

Gross discrimination in Northern Ireland knows no sectoral boundaries. it is as diverse as the Civil Service, the museum service, the fire authority, local authorities and the railways. The cases that I have mentioned are only those that have been investigated, so the House should not think in terms only of Northern Ireland-based companies or of non-Government employers. All are guilty. That injustice has been compounded by the refusal of so many employers to do anything about it. It has led to a deep sense of personal and community grievance, which has fostered disaffection with the system of government, given rise to disorder and prevented community reconciliation. As the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said, potential investors, especially from the United States, are unwilling to put their money into an area where, in addition to violence and political instability, unacceptable labour practices prevail.

I sincerely hope that we are now engaged in a new and radical phase and are building, as we should, on the 12 years' experience gained since the Fair Employment Act 1976 established the Fair Employment Agency. It is obvious that the inadequacies of that Act and the experience over the 12 years since its passing have led to the proposals in the White Paper.

These proposals require considerable and detailed consideration, even though they have been produced after a gestation period of almost two and a half years. The most significant and welcome proposal is for the introduction of compulsory monitoring of the religious affiliation of all employees in work forces of 10 or more. To date, that information has been available only after the Fair Employment Agency has instigated an investigation. To continue on the old basis would mean that the majority of instances of discrimination would remain hidden and uncorrected.

In case anyone thinks that compulsory monitoring is a gross infringement of the rights of employees, I should tell the House that a survey by the Policy Studies Institute in London, published on 29 October 1987, said in paragraph 23:

"Two thirds of both Protestants and Catholics said they would be prepared for their employer to keep a record of their religious group to check on the fairness of recruitment and promotion procedures."

That shows that the proposal was endorsed by two thirds of both communities in the Northern Ireland work force. The introduction of compulsory monitoring will, where appropriate, enable directives to be issued or affirmative action to be taken to correct any imbalance that there might be.

Another significant proposal is for the application of sanctions and fines against errant employers. Those employers will be subject to a range of sanctions, including specific penalties, enforced directions and, in the words of the White Paper,

"Exclusion from a range of Government grants and from public sector tenders".

One hopes that these and other proposals will achieve their stated objectives of fair employment and of redressing imbalances.

Regrettably, some criticisms must be made of the White Paper, which contains some serious deficiencies and loopholes which may enable those employers intent on discrimination to continue with their abominable practices. The most glaring weakness is the failure to follow the logic of creating targets or goals and timetables. This logic demands that the new legislation should require of all employers whose work forces have an unacceptable imbalance to redress the imbalance through the achievement of target ratios within certain time scales. The ratios of the timetables would have to take account of such criteria as the location of the workplace, the skills required and the likely turnover in the work force. A clear requirement to meet such criteria would provide bench marks by which progress could be effectively measured.

The differences that arise when this issue is discussed show a failure of nerve on the part of the Government. The differences appear to arise from an unwillingness to legislate in the one direction that would make clear to employers what they must do to achieve a just balance in the work force. To suggest, as the White Paper does in paragraph 3.29, that the new code of practice to be prepared by the Fair Employment Commission will provide the necessary guides in this area is to cloud the issue. It adds weight to the impression that in spite of their experience the Government still hope that in some spontaneous way employers will become more co-operative than they have been in the past.

In the corresponding Canadian legislation of 1986, section 5 explicitly requires employers to prepare annual plans indicating the goals by which they intend to achieve employment equity and the timetables for the implementation of those goals. Since the Department of Economic Development has acknowledged that the Canadian approach to fair employment has influenced its thinking, one must ask why it has not adopted this crucial provision affecting a key instrument in achieving employment equity.

Of grave anxiety to me are the proposals for dealing with individual complaints. Hitherto, individuals have received considerable support from the Fair Employment Agency, both at the investigative and judicial stages of complaints about alleged discrimination. The proposals in the White Paper will, if enacted, reduce support by placing a graver onus on the individual to pursue his own investigation. The apparent justification for this proposal is to allow the new Fair Employment Commission to select only those cases that are of strategic value in highlighting specific aspects of fair employment legislation.

That approach is unacceptable, because every individual is entitled to have his complaint investigated in the necessary way. Individuals are unlikely to be able to pursue by themselves cases of alleged religious or political discrimination. They need assistance, and if the new Fair Employment Commission is to be the only means of public support, it must be required to provide reasonable support.

I suggest to the Secretary of State and to the Department of the Environment that if individual cases are not seen to be pursued with the same vigour as hitherto, irrespective of what happens in general, the perception in the communities will be that this is a retrograde rather than a progressive step. The importance of the individual case which the individual is frequently unable to pursue has been grossly underestimated, and I urge the Government to rethink this issue.

I shall now deal with compensation and remedies for individual cases of indirect discrimination. The White Paper has nothing whatever to say about that. While it is a step forward to bring indirect discrimination within the scope of the legislation, it is a glaring omission not to say how the individual might be compensated when the findings are in his favour.

Another cause for concern is the White Paper proposal that employers be allowed to appeal against findings in the "pattern and practice cases" to the Fair Employment Commission. This contains a number of dangers. Obviously it would be unjust to employers to deny them the right of appeal against Fair Employment Commission findings. The problem is whether allowing such appeals would result in the whole process of dealing with imbalances in work forces becoming log jammed. That appears to be a real possibility if the White Paper proposals are enacted. Appeals of this kind should be possible only to the High Court. This would result in careful consideration being given to the grounds for such an appeal, reduce the likelihood of appeals being mounted on an unsound basis and prevent frivolous or preventive action from being taken.

I am worried about the absence of any proposals that would oblige employers and workers jointly to ensure that workplaces are free from any form of bias in terms of flags, emblems, rallies or parades of a political or religious nature. The White Paper seems to depend on the Public Order Act 1986, and that is not an adequate response. The absence of neutrality in the workplace has been a major factor in discrimination.

There are a number of other matters that will require considerable clarification before the legislation can be fully effective. For example, there is a need to bring all public bodies, especially district councils, fully within the scope of the legislation on contract compliance. District councils, no less than other public authorities, must be required to deal only with employers who comply fully with the fair employment practices. The White Paper is less than clear on how public bodies other than Government Departments will be made to meet their responsibilities in that regard. We have sufficient experience in local government to know that that requires considerable, if not detailed, attention.

A critical issue, to which attention has been drawn by previous speakers, is the so-called merit principle and the way in which it should be upheld in the context of the need to redress imbalances in a given work force. The attitude of the SDLP has always been that jobs should be offered on merit. However, where several candidates of equal merit are being considered by an employer who is also seeking to redress an imbalance in his or her work force, the latter obligation must also become a determining factor in deciding who will be appointed. If it is not, the very principle may become an excuse for not redressing imbalances, and progress towards equality of job opportunities could become frustrated. The White Paper continues to emphasise the overriding importance of the merit principle in a manner that leads one to suspect that narrow employer interests have received more consideration than that of equality in the work place. The ongoing and five-year review that will test the efficacy of the proposed legislation will tell its own tale. Only time will tell us whether an adequate response to the problem has been made by the proposals before us.

I should like to point out a grave responsibility of the Government. They must play a major role. They cannot, having passed the legislation, walk away from it. The Government help to keep much of the economy of Northern Ireland afloat and, therefore, they have a great deal of clout over what happens in the economy and the job sector. The Government must face their responsibility in several ways. They must provide training for skills, and new skills, and they must provide it in areas accessible to both communities, not just one. They must actively encourage a proper geographical spread of industrial location, and new industry location, which has not taken place before. They must administer Government funds and the New Ireland Fund so that disadvantaged areas are given at least some new advantage in job creation. Perhaps a policy of decentralisation to the less-favoured areas might be the necessary embryonic factor to enable job development to take place there.

Above all, the Government must give a moral lead. They must exert a moral, as well as a statutory, pressure. The Secretary of State's first job should be to bring together all the Departments under his command arid co-ordinate a policy for the eradication of job discrimination. He should formulate that policy arid pursue it in all the activities of the Departments and the Government in Northern Ireland.

My party welcomes the proposals for legislation. My community, of which I am the only representative out of the 650 Members in the House, has waited 60 years for the redressing of these wrongs. In my teens I suffered gross discrimination in job seeking. I have waited all my adult life. The proposals will be given every support by my party and the community of Northern Ireland, I hope both Protestant and Catholic. I sincerely pray that they will be the commencement of a new era of community reconciliation, which will be another prop to a better Northern Ireland for us all.

I did not approach this debate with great enthusiasm and, as I listened to the opening three speeches, my enthusiasm grew even less. I am grateful for the tone and content of the speech made by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) because it enables me to play what I hope will be at least a partially constructive role in the debate.

An Ulster Protestant coming to the House to listen to the opening speeches in the debate has no alternative but to put on sackcloth and ashes and plead guilty. I do not wish to do that because I do not feel guilty. If I oppose or reject any of the proposals in the White Paper, I am seen as justifying the imbalances. I will be pointed at, as I was 12 years ago, as an example of why the legislation is necessary, as if I were trying to defend some vested interest. If I reject some of the White Paper, I will be accused of being against the principle of appointment on merit or equality of opportunity. I am not against either.

I again place on public record my own experience. For a period of only six years I was in a position to employ people. I challenge anyone in the House to find anybody in the arena in which I was employed who can make or sustain an allegation that I discriminated against them. At both supervisory and operative level, the majority of the people employed were Catholic. I pay tribute to the job they did for me and I hope that, they will acknowledge the job I did for them. We were the only department in the Goodyear Tyre and Rubber company that ever made a profit during the 10 years of its existence in the area.

I have nothing to be ashamed of in that regard. When I hear the comments that people occasionally make about the social disadvantage of Catholics, I put my experience on the public record. Like many other hon. Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland—I do not know whether this applies to the three representatives of the minority community who are in their places today—I came from a poor working-class area. I lived in a terraced house. Until the age of 25 years I had to shave within inches of where my mother cooked my breakfast. We had a cold water tap, an outside toilet and no bathroom. I have often wondered what advantage I gained from being a Protestant. I gained no advantage when it came to housing, nor did I have an advantage in employment opportunities. I had to work extremely diligently to achieve anything which I might have achieved.

I am in favour of equality of opportunity and appointment on merit. I am saddened by the remarks of the hon. Member for South Down, and I apologise to whatever extent I can for whatever he has suffered. He says that during his late teens and early twenties he experienced vicious religious discrimination. I would not want to experience that, and nor would I want others to do so.

Twenty years ago Ulster Protestants were reviled around the world for being obsessed with trying to determine the religion of those in employment or seeking employment. It is ironic that it is now to be a criminal offence for an employer not to ascertain the religious associations of those who are available for employment.

I shall put on record why Protestants have resisted and opposed some of the attempts that have been made over the past 15 or so years to deal with the problem that the White Paper seeks to resolve. That has much to do with the approach of those who have spoken from the two Front Benches this morning, the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I regret that they did not take the approach of the hon. Member for South Down. Whether intentionally or not, they plant guilt and invoke the collective responsibility of the Protestant community in Northern Ireland. Let it be understood that about 90 per cent. of all the Protestants in Northern Ireland are not in a position to discriminate against anyone. That is because that 90 per cent. do not employ anyone. I accept that that is only part of the answer because the allegation can be made that Protestants seek to retain the present position because they want to reserve their privileged position.

Whatever direct rule has done, it has certainly distanced substantially the employing classes in Northern Ireland from Unionist politicians and the Unionist community. The Secretary of State is much closer to those who are accused of being guilty of mass discrimination than I am. They are the people who have offered him succour over the past three years. They have dined at his table at Stormont castle at Hillsborough. That has not been done by those such as myself or by those whom I represent.

Paragraph 1.6 of the White Paper states:

"while it is very difficult to quantify its impact"—

that is a reference to religious discrimination—

"it is clear that it is by no means the sole nor even the main explanation."

If religious discrimination is not the

"sole nor even the main explanation"

for the disadvantage that is suffered by Roman Catholics, what are we talking about? It is all very well for the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North to brush aside the other factors as if they had no significance when it comes to employment.

I am the father of three children. My next-door neighbour is an affluent Roman Catholic and he has six children. Will he have more or less difficulty than me and my children in ensuring that we have full employment? He will have more difficulty, but in all the circumstances I do not think that his difficulties will be very much greater. If the principles that are set out in the White Paper are placed in legislation and implemented, it would mean that one of my children would have to be permanently unemployed so that four of my neighbour's children could he permanently employed.

No.

I hope that it will be explained to me why that is not the position. We face a statistical minefield. If we do not face the realities, we shall never change statistical patterns. Family size is important.

Let us take the example of a Roman Catholic living in the hills of south Fermanagh, where there has never been any industrial development. Let us say that he is the member of a large family that is in poor circumstances. It is probable that such a person will have no industrial experience. His education may or may not be all that one would wish. He will be at a great disadvantage when it comes to finding employment opportunities. The various relevant factors do not count for much when they are considered in isolation, but collectively they assume some significance. That has ramifications for us all. There has been a persistent resistance to what is now being proposed because the Protestant community has been branded as guilty.

The hon. Member for South Down said that, when Protestants were asked whether they objected to their religion being monitored, two thirds said that they did not. I believe that most Ulster Protestants are reasonably fair-minded people, just as fair-minded as anyone else. They deeply resent the destruction of their self-respect and self-esteem which has continued for so long.

As I said earlier, I want to try to avoid emotion and the temptation to outdo my opponents in this debate. The hon. Member for South Down listed various organisations that have discriminated against Catholics. For the sake of balance, he could have referred to the Allied Irish Bank and the Bank of Ireland which are substantially guilty of discriminating against Protestants. Similarly, the insurance companies Britannic Refuge and United Friendly, from a statistical point of view, are also guilty of such discrimination. I do not believe that any of those organisations are guilty of face-to-face, brutal, individual cases of discrimination. That is the difficulty.

When the first fair employment legislation was passed in 1976, the idea that there were massive, widespread, systematic, and individual cases of discrimination against Catholics was prevalent. It was thought that if a fair employment agency was established charged with rooting out that evil, it would deal with the problem. After 12 years, 52 cases of religious discrimination have been established. Let no one tell me that the Protestant community has become so skilled at discriminating that it can keep it to that absolute minimum. Fifty-two cases of religious discrimination have been established by an agency charged with finding and rooting out discrimination. Of those cases, one third have been against Protestants.

I do not believe that there is widespread and systematic discrimination against Protestants or Catholics in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that the brewery in the Glen road—and it sounded very much like special pleading—is guilty of discrimination against Protestants any more than I believe that certain other organisations in Northern Ireland are guilty of massive, systematic discrimination against Catholics.

It was not my intention to suggest that the Ulster brewery was guilty of discrimination. The mere fact of its location in west Belfast has led to an almost totally Catholic work force. I raised that point because, if the matter is not handled sensitively, the proposals could lead to new discrimination against Catholics.

That is precisely the point that I wanted to come to. I would like the hon. Member's sympathetic understanding to be directed elsewhere. However, the matter is more complex than he has suggested because that industry has been traditionally and historically associated with one religious community in Northern Ireland. Two such companies in my constituency will face grave difficulties when the legislation comes into effect. These matters were referred to in the debate on this matter in 1976. One of the principals of one of the companies to which I am referring was on the Terrace with me when that debate was taking place in 1976. He employed 80 people, but only one Protestant. He told me that he had tried to attract other Protestants to his company, but without success. I think that he probably does not employ any Protestants today, through no fault of his own. Should he somehow or other turn that position round and have a 55:25 Protestant-Catholic ratio? If that is not proposed for him, why should it be proposed for other employers in Northern Ireland?

There are difficulties and problems involved in this business which are gravely misunderstood. I regret that the Government have decided to concentrate on this very emotive statistic of unemployment. It appears that a Roman Catholic is twice as or two and a half times more likely to be unemployed than a Protestant. That has led to hon. Members claiming that two and a half times more Catholics are unemployed in Northern Ireland than Protestants. That is wrong. The two things do not follow. The statistic also invites people to jump to the conclusion that one is two and a half times more likely to be employed if one is a Protestant rather than a Catholic. That does not follow.

The Government might have put it this way—about nine out of 10 Protestants are employed while slightly fewer than eight out of 10 Catholics are employed. That means the same thing and would have been more acceptable to the community. It might also have shown that the Government are anxious that about nine out of 10 people of both religions should eventually be employed. The thrust of this proposed legislation is that everybody will be happy if eight and a half out of 10 Protestants, arid eight and a half out of 10 Catholics, are employed. Why does the Secretary of State have to look at it negatively? Why can we not be positive?

Why do we not find out exactly what the situation is? We might find that Catholic males are more than two and a half times as likely to be unemployed as Protestants. Let us find out. Why cannot the Government produce a register showing the religious affiliations of the unemployed? That would be useful. We would have precise statistics. We could draw up an accurate profile of the type of person who is likely to be unemployed, establishing factors such as geographical locations, skills and experience. If the Government did that, however, they would have a responsibility to do something about what they found. I believe that that is why they refuse to take such a step. I shall table an amendment for the Report stage when we shall hear what the Government have to say on the matter.

A recent report shows some of the disadvantages suffered by the unemployed. The report, by the Rupert Stanley college in east Belfast, is based on a survey of 1,237 trainees. Under the heading:

"Three 'Rs' crisis faces youngsters on TYP schemes",

it says:

"it is disturbing to note that 82 per cent. failed to fill in a simple application form".

It found

"extremely low standards of spelling, reading … and basic maths … just over one fifth could subtract one weight from another … only 16 per cent. could work out the area of a room nine foot by six … Only a quarter of the trainees could answer a simple question … on VAT".

If we know that there are problems which confront the unemployed and what they are, we can develop programmes to tackle them. If the emphasis is now to be switched to the imbalance in unemployment or the lack of opportunity, why do we not have a survey to find out exactly what the situation is? Why do we not build up profiles to see where the real problem is?

The Government could also see the difficulties with their exercise in monitoring. Their only advantage would be the protective screen between them and the person whose religion they are trying to determine. Despite what anybody says, most of us feel the hair on the back of our neck rising when somebody asks, "What is your religion?" It will not be easy for employers to ask that question.

People from both religious groups ask my advice on this issue. I tell them that it is a matter for them, and that they are not compelled to reply. They are being asked the question but they are not required to answer. I tell them that if they do not answer, someone will make an assumption, which may be right or wrong, so they should consider answering the question accurately. It might be better if we have the letter "P" or the letters "RC" tattooed on our foreheads so that when we touch our forelocks to our betters it is clear what we are. It would save a lot of bother. It is not so much a matter of what religion people are as what religion they are perceived to belong to. At least that problem does not arise with race.

One cannot opt or change. A person who is born Protestant or Catholic remains Protestant or Catholic for the rest of his days despite what happens to him. The difficulties in that respect should not be underestimated.

I am not here to defend the Confederation of British Industry, but it should be put on record who the main employers are. The main employer is the Secretary of State. There are 30,000 people in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The next major employer is probably the police authority, which employs 12,000 or 15,000 people. The next after that may be the Ministry of Defence. I say in all sincerity to the hon. Member for South Down that if we try to put the finger too firmly on the manufacturing sector we may find it incapable of dealing with the problem. It may not have the scope to achieve the redress that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he did not think that there was systematic discrimination against Catholics in Northern Ireland, and I have listened carefully as he has developed his speech. If there is no such discrimination, how does he account for the massive differential in employment levels? Is he trying to argue that it is merely coincidence?

I have already conceded that there are historical, cultural and many other reasons for those imbalances. What I am saying is that those imbalances may not be so massive, depending on how we view them. I feel that, while the fact that nine out of 10 Protestants and eight out of 10 Catholics are employed suggests an imbalance, it does not suggest a massive imbalance. It does not suggest face-to-face, one-off instances of discrimination. I do not think that an employer will deliberately employ a Protestant whom he knows to be second rate, aware that he may be rejecting someone better able to do the job. There is no evidence of that from the past 12 years. Certainly there is none from the Fair Employment Agency, despite all the work that it has done to establish the existence of such discrimination.

Is the hon. Gentleman implying, then, that the reason Catholics fail to obtain employment in Northern Ireland is that they have not the competence, the skills or the education?

Catholics do obtain employment in Northern Ireland. That is precisely the point I am making. What we are arguing about is the differential between the two communities in terms of either the Government's unemployment statistics or the statistics about which I am talking. The hon. Lady may not realise that some 50,000 Protestants are also unemployed in Northern Ireland. If matters were so simple—if there was discrimination on the scale that she decribes—I imagine that no Protestants would be unemployed in Northern Ireland. You might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb. I have accepted that there is an imbalance—I believe that Catholics do suffer a disadvantage—but I am concerned with ensuring that the whole community addresses the problem in a way that is likely to remedy it.

Two issues have been avoided in today's debate, and I hope that some comment will be made on them before we finish. First, what is the position of Sinn Fein? We know that Sinn Fein supporters constitute about a third of the Roman Catholic community in Northern Ireland. If I were an employer there, I could not employ a Sinn Fein supporter. He would probably be seeking my death, or he might be happy to collude in setting me up for murder. If he was not after me, and I employed others who were members of the security forces, he might well be engaged in activity that would lead to their murder.

How do the Government intend to deal with that problem? If a known Sinn Fein supporter is refused employment, will the employer lose whatever grants are available to him? Will he be prosecuted? Or will he be able to say that he is not prepared to risk either himself or his other employees by employing such a person?

The other issue is employment in the security forces. Between the police, the Ulster Defence Regiment, the prison service and associated ancillary workers, there must be about 30,000 jobs going begging. If the Catholic community took up its share, 10,000 or 12,000 might be available. What difference would that make to the figure? It would be bound to have some effect. In Northern Ireland, 10,000 or 12,000 is a large slab of jobs. We sometimes forget on how small a scale the problem exists there.

What assurance are we being given that efforts are being made to ensure that the Catholic community plays its full part in the security endeavour? Or are we reaching the point at which we say to that community, "You can refuse to take up these opportunities, but you can go on demanding sufficient jobs in other spheres to compensate for the fact that you have not taken up those jobs"? I hope that the Minister will respond to that.

What is the position of contractors working on security bases? Are we to make a special exception for them, as we made for the brewery in the Glen road? Will the Government say, "Unless you have your proportions right, friend, you will not get a contract here"? Naturally, no one else will carry out the contract. I am looking forward to some of these monitoring returns. Will they be open to public scrutiny or available only to the agency or Ministers? That will be an important aspect of the debate on the legislation.

As I said earlier, I intend to take a fairly low-key, positive approach to this debate because for an Ulster Protestant there is nothing to be gained from doing otherwise. I hope that a sensitive approach to the problem will be adopted. It will not be easy. It is not just a matter of the initial time in building up the monitoring returns. Many employers will have to spend a great deal of time producing their defence. If they cannot meet their target, their only justification will be if they can show that they did everything to try to meet it. Presumably they will have to keep records of the various applicants, show what they have done on recruitment practice, and so on. It may well produce shocks for some who were not expecting them.

I want to see a fair society in Northern Ireland, as do most Protestants, and I hope that whatever detailed legislation comes from these proposals will lead to that. But, I wish to add one note of dissent. It is remarkable that neither Front Bench spokesman mentioned terrorism. It was as if the campaign of the past 20 years had had no effect on employment. Yet it has had a dramatic effect. In 1973, there were only about 40,000 unemployed in Northern Ireland. On the basis that the same proportions applied, that would mean that there were probably equal numbers of Catholics and Protestants unemployed in employment terms, nine and half out of 10 Protestants and nine out of 10 Catholics in work. That does not fit with the case that some hon. Members are trying to make. I am not suggesting that the terrorist campaign has been solely responsible for the massive increase in unemployment but it has been substantially responsible.

I do not accept that the primary cause of the lack of investment in Northern Ireland has been the perception overseas of Northern Ireland as a vile, discriminating place. It is caused when people across the water see two soldiers being dragged from their car, stripped naked, beaten and slaughtered; a Remembrance Day parade being attacked; and six soldiers returning from a charity run being bombed. That is what deters people from investing in Northern Ireland, as is the campaign of the IRA to destroy factories and murder business men, Protestants and Catholics alike. Some Catholic business men in my constituency have been murdered by the IRA. That is what prevents growth in employment, and more employment is ultimately the answer in securing the opportunity for work for everyone, which is what we all want.

rose——

Order. Four or five hon. Members still wish to speak in the debate, which has been shortened because of the statement. Only about one hour is left before the expected time for the winding-up speeches, so I appeal to all hon. Members whom I call to make brief contributions.

I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker). I have deep respect for him, as he well knows. Indeed, he shares a great deal of my thinking and that of the Opposition, but he should not talk as if nothing went wrong. That is not on. The civil rights march of 1969 did not come from nowhere. The reality, which must be faced, is that I want, as much as he does, every Protestant and every Catholic to be employed. There was a time, whatever the hon. Gentleman says, when that was not true. The Catholics were held in a subjection that was bound at some time to produce a civil rights march or something like it.

We, as much as the hon. Gentleman, are on public record all the time as being against terrorism. Just in case people think that we are not, because of the propaganda machine, I should tell the House that we are on record even more regularly than others as being against terrorism. It is so easy to think that because we differ from the Government on many aspects we might just support terrorism. That is an easy accusation to make. When people on either side are killed, it is a terrible thing, and we are deeply aware of that, but it began to occur at a greatly accelerated rate after the civil rights march of 1969. It was not the civil rights marchers who attacked others; it was a peaceful demonstration. They were attacked because they were demonstrating for precisely the civil rights that are embedded in the White Paper that we are debating.

One of the things that I feel sad about—I am sure that there must be an explanation—is that it has taken a long time to reach this stage. I, for one, welcome the White Paper. There might be shades and nuances, and there might be something bigger that I have not understood yet, where I might differ, but I profoundly agree with it, as I understand a large number of people do.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann said that he hoped there would be a sensitive approach. In God's name, what sort of sensible approach have the Unionists had for all these years? As I said in the debate the other night, never have they admitted that they made a mistake or were wrong. That has never happened, and I have listened to them in the House for 15 years now.

I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) read out paragraph 3 of the foreword. I can show him that in my copy it is marked. I had intended to read it out. III cannot have paragraph 3, let me read something else, which is in the introduction:

"There are clear and long-standing differences between the employment experiences of the Catholic and the Protestant sections of the community in Northern Ireland. In particular, unemployment rates are significantly higher among Catholics and they hold relatively fewer senior positions."

The hon. Member for Upper Bann does not seem to agree with that, from what I heard. The introduction continues:

"There are many reasons for these differentials which arise from a range of social, geographical and historical influences."

In my opinion, they are basically historical influences which arose from the plantation of Northern Ireland when the British had trouble with the Irish and the Scots. Astutely the Government did what they used to do when I was a soldier in India, with the Moslems and the Hindus. No matter whether that is denied, I saw it with my own eyes. The introduction states:

"The phenomenon of a cycle of disadvantage is an experience common to parts of every industrial society and Northern Ireland is by no means unique in demonstrating that such a cycle can be very difficult to break."

I do not agree with that. Northern Ireland is unique because of its history and because of the occupation of Ireland for hundreds of years. The problems sprang from that. Therefore, it is not correct to equate the problems in Northern Ireland with the slump. The slump exists, but superimposed on it are historical reasons for the lawful killing that takes place. The hon. Member for Upper Bann underestimated, or played down, what had happened in the past.

The introduction continues:

"Higher levels of unemployment are reflected in higher dependency on social security benefits (23·8 per cent. of the population of Northern Ireland, compared with 15 per cent. in Great Britain)."

There are many reasons for that, and I think we all know them. Some areas are so gravely disadvantaged that many Protestant working-class people are in dire and terrible poverty, and I want them to be helped and given the same rights as everyone else.

The issues with which we are confronted have become more terrible because of the new situation. In Strabane, for instance, largely due to a lack of investment and the slump., 47 per cent. of the people are unemployed. In Derry 30 per cent. are unemployed, and in Foyle and West Belfast the figures are probably even higher. I do not have the figures, but the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) gave me some figures and attributed a great deal of that to lack of investment. Lack of investment is not due only to the present troubles. There has been lack of investment for a long time. Whether or not the trouble was violent, it existed.

As the speeches from the Front Benches have made clear, members of the Catholic community have been disadvantaged in housing, in the voting procedures and in employment. Therefore, the need for investment, of which they have been starved, must be examined. It is mentioned in the document because sectarianism in a particular area leads to an increasing lack of investment in that area.

There are many kinds of sectarianism. We constantly argue about sexual sectarianism, which occurs in many communities. In many areas this side of the water there is sectarianism against trade unions and many employers can sack their entire work force because they belong to a trade union, and can get away with it. An employer in my constituency sacked the whole work force when they went on strike. When religious discrimination is superimposed on discrimination of that nature, the situation becomes desperate and needs desperate remedies.

It is all the more difficult to attempt to achieve fairness in the context of such an appalling situation, because the finest method of achieving no discrimination is to have full employment. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) nods in assent, but I must say to him, as he is a Unionist, that, sadly, it was not true until the troubles came about. When there was really high unemployment in Northern Ireland, sectarianism existed and was engaged in by those who led that particular grouping.

We cannot talk sectarianism out of existence. It must be faced, just as in another great country the people are having to face their past and do something about it. Some of the people who have opposed us in the past and who we want to work with us in the future still talk as though nothing ever went wrong and as though someone utterly wicked started doing something bad in 1969 and carried on doing it. We shall get nowhere unless we admit to what went wrong.

The Secretary of State had with him many pamphlets on fair employment. They have all been published since 1973, and there is not the slightest doubt that they were published because of the killing that was going on. The problem was running away with us, and it looks as though it will continue for a long time unless we admit that somthing must be done. Some people believe that if Northern Ireland was governed as it was before 1969 there would be no problem. All that they want to do is to return to the old Stormont and the same old mentality. I do not include the hon. Member for Upper Bann in that. Many of the points that he made were adequate and correct defences of himself, but the much wider group of which he is a part did some of the bad things that happened. A fightback was inevitable.

The last major legislation on the subject was in 1976. We have waited 12 years for the White Paper. Ulster Members of Parliament are in grave danger all the time and my heart goes out to them. I do not know how they face it. Having visited the Province many times, I know that they stand up to it wonderfully. It must be a terrible thing, but they must accept that something went wrong.

In paragraph (e) on page 12 the document deals with the likely impact on inward investment of sectarian discrimination in employment. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will refer to this when he replies. The Prime Minister and other Ministers constantly tell us that we are more prosperous than we have ever been and that things are going well. If we are more prosperous than we have ever been, why in God's name are not more people employed in Britain and in Northern Ireland? Many of the people who are supposedly employed are not employed at all. More than 3 million of them are on training schemes, and all the signs are that real unemployment has decreased very little.

The harsh reality is that much of the prosperity is poured into the pockets of the wealthy, and the poor—including the unemployed in Northern Ireland—are suffering because of the mentality of people who want to get rich quick but who accuse ordinary working people of being greedy if they ask for unemployment benefit, or if they resist being paid unemployment benefit in order to do a day's work. As on the mainland, there are many problems in Northern Ireland, but they are accentuated by its political and historical background. That must be admitted before we can make any progress.

In conclusion—I believe that hon. Members should make short speeches today and I have been aiming at 10 minutes—I believe that the White Paper is welcome. Whatever the weaknesses, they are not terribly important compared with the likely effects of the White Paper and subsequent legislation. I believe that many people in Northern Ireland and over here will agree with me. I hope that the White Paper will produce a bond that will bring us closer together and bring us to the table to talk out our difficulties. The greatest enemy of terrorism is democracy—it cannot flourish where democracy exists. Therefore, it is our collective duty to aspire to that democracy, and there is a great deal of it in the White Paper proposals.

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for responding to my appeal to make a short speech.

I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) that the White Paper is long overdue. The hon. Gentleman followed the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), whose speech was welcome and its tone helpful to the debate. I do not believe that there is any point in trying to apportion blame or guilt. We must consider the reality of high unemployment in Northern Ireland and see how best we can address that issue to ensure that, instead of sharing the misery around, we can find the maximum number of opportunities for people from both parts of the divided community. Last year, at the height of a bleak period the hon. Member for Upper Bann provided a gleam of hope with the publication of the task force report. Today his contribution has had a similar effect and helped to make this debate highly constructive.

It is somewhat ironic that this debate has been initiated by this Secretary of State, given that the present Government pride themselves on allowing market forces to let rip. Generally they are opposed to intervention in the market, yet paradoxically they have produced this welcome document today. I was even more surprised when I heard the Secretary of State talk about a commitment to a fair electoral system and describe the virtues of proportional representation for local government, the now defunct Assembly and the European Parliament. I hope that he will extend the logic of his commitment to a fair electoral system and also apply interventionist methods of tackling economic problems to all of the United Kingdom, not just to Northern Ireland.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's announcement that Sir Oliver Napier is to be appointed as the new chairman of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. It would not be right to pass on without paying tribute to Seamus O'Hara on the remarkable contribution that he has made to Northern Ireland public life. Sir Oliver Napier is a friend and former leader of the alliance party in Northern Ireland and I do not believe that anyone would gainsay the contribution that he has made over many years to breaking down the sectarian barriers in Northern Ireland. I believe that he will be a worthy successor to Seamus O'Hara, and I am sure that the whole House will wish him well.

The Secretary of State spoke about the need to maintain the principle of appointment on merit. I agree, but it must not be used as a way of stymieing fair employment. We shall consider the legislation when it is introduced to ensure that a proper balance is struck. I am sure that it will.

The Secretary of State has said that the Fair Employment Commission must not be seen as a beleaguered organisation simply on one side of the argument or the other. The hon. Member for Upper Bann echoed that. I t is important that fair employment cuts both ways and it must look after the interests of everyone. The commission must be seen to be on the side of fairness and justice.

I am aware of the inevitable problems that terrorism is bound to create regarding any type of employment in Northern Ireland. Difficulty is bound to be caused when someone from Sinn Fein, for instance, presents himself for employment. Yet, I believe that, after security and political questions, fair employment is the single most important issue and, despite the difficulties, the Government are right to introduce the White Paper today.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that he would like the code of practice incorporated in primary legislation, but I disagree. There will be considerable differences between big firms which employ thousands and small firms which may employ no more than 10. In those circumstances it may be better to have some degree of flexibility. With the acute problems with security and terrorism in Northern Ireland the commission must have some scope for manoeuvrability. I shall watch carefully, as will others, the Government's full proposals on the code of practice when they are published. We on these Benches would not wish to see them in the primary legislation.

I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North call in aid Senator Joseph Kennedy, whose outbursts in Northern Ireland have had more to do with pleasing voters at home than with addressing the problems facing a divided community. I do not accept that the positive discrimination policies adopted in many parts of the United States have been easily, universally or wholeheartedly implemented. We should not see such policies as a panacea. However, I agreed with many of the other comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and am happy to associate myself with the majority of his remarks.

I congratulate the Government on bringing forward this initiative. It must be seen in the context of the figures issued by the Department of Economic Development, which show that 116,156 people in Northern Ireland are unemployed—17·1 per cent. of the population. My primary reason for supporting this initiative. which attempts to create equal opportunities, is that it will enhance the north's prospect of attracting new work and investment.

The present image of a sectarian Northern Ireland, where people merely look after their own, drives away potential investors. As the White Paper properly says, no society can afford the waste of talent or the sense of unfairness that such persistent disadvantage entails.

The White Paper's proposals demonstrate a commitment to a new Northern Ireland, marked by equality of opportunity for all. They represent a repudiation of those who wish to turn the clock back to a society of discrimination and one-sided prejudice. The proposals are sufficiently powerful to combat and neutralise the determined attempts by Republican interest groups in America to damage the economy of Northern Ireland through disinvestment by American business men.

The White Paper is the long-awaited answer to those who promote the MacBride principles which sound so enticing to American politicans and business men, yet, in practice, would inflict only further misery on Northern Ireland's long-suffering people. These proposals will inspire confidence in the international community and among the minority in Northern Ireland. The White Paper has teeth that look sharp enough to rip the north free of bigoted practices in the workplace, and I welcome that.

I am glad that the Government are using the public Bill procedure to introduce this legislation. It is good that we have had the chance to debate the White Paper and that an amendable Bill will be introduced. It would have been outrageous if a 90-minute debate had been announced on an unamendable order. That would have left many people extremely angry. As a contrast with the Orders in Council procedure, this has been an extremely useful exercise. It demonstrates how we should conduct more Northern Ireland business. Opportunities for debate across the Chamber, for sophisticated amendments to be moved, and for cross-community co-operation to take place in debating the nuances of legislation add to the texture of Northern Ireland politics. That is extremely welcome. It helps people to come out of tribalistic bunkers and to deal with important political issues.

There are some obvious problems that the House will wish to address, one of which is what the SACHR report described as the chill factor. As the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) mentioned, there will be Roman Catholics who, if offered the chance to work at Harland and Wolff, would be too scared to do so because of the possibilities of retaliation, harassment and intimidation. Clearly, the House cannot legislate for the chill factor, but it will have to take it into account.

Similarly, we must take into account not only discrimination but historical and educational factors. Traditionally, employment in the predominantly orange east has been based on manufacturing, skills and enterprise, unlike in the predominantly Catholic west, which is inevitably more green. We must recognise that, for demographic and historical reasons, there will be major problems to overcome, and the White Paper can only be a starting point.

When we look at the education system we see that in the past Roman Catholic schools have undoubtedly concentrated on the arts and humanities while Protestant schools have concentrated primarily on science and engineering. That has led to different employment patterns, and we must take that factor into account. This also requires legislation to be flexible in its operation.

I have some questions about the scheme and I should like to put them to the Minister who is to reply to the debate. My first question is about the employer. If affirmative action is to be one of the Bill's principles, there will have to be some protection for the employer; otherwise he could be accused of discrimination in reverse. Where an employer goes out of his way to employ someone from the minority community or, indeed, a person from the majority community if the Andersonstown example were taken, what will happen to him? Will the legislation protect an employer who goes out of his way to redress some imbalance in his factory?

I should also like to ask about the fair employment support scheme. I am sure that the Minister would agree that at present the financial incentives for encouraging fair employment have been modest. The scheme has been long on sentiment but short on cash. I hope that the Minister will say something about further financial incentives to employers who implement the full spirit of the proposals in the White Paper. Undoubtedly the scheme will increase the burden on employers. There is no escaping that.

Turning now to the position of employees, I welcome the move away from the biased county court appeal system. However, the complexity of the new referral system may be a major disincentive to many employees. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) who spoke about the problems facing individual employees who take their employers to the tribunal. He argued that legal aid should be made available just as it would be for cases before industrial tribunals. I hope that the Minister will answer that point because I strongly believe that legal aid should be made available. In the past some trade union help has been available, but in future that will not necessarily be the case with the new tribunals. For that reason, an individual complainant could find himself worse off than before. The cost may prove quite prohibitive and he may not be able to match the professional representation that employers may have. That is an important issue, and I hope that the Government will address it.

The Secretary of State will appoint the tribunal after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice. Will there be any consultation with the political parties in Northern Ireland as well, and what will be the precise make-up of the tribunal? Can the Minister, in his winding-up speech also tell the House about the sensitive issues of security mentioned by the hon. Member for Upper Bann? Will meetings be held in camera, as I think has been the practice in the past? In normal circumstances, will they be open and reportable by the press'?

I welcome the commission's ability to choose its own targets. It should be there primarily to cajole, encourage, persuade and negotiate and it should not necessarily be combative. When it does act, how is the success of the commission to be measured? Will it be on the basis of a dearth or surfeit of prosecutions? At what point will the Commission decide that an employer is not acting in good faith'?

A firm in my constituency, which is a stone's throw from Toxteth, where a riot broke out five years ago, had problems of discrimination of a different kind. I recently visited that factory, after complaints from members of the local black community who said that only three or four people from an ethnic minority were employed there. They were obviously anxious to see an increase in the number of black employees. Whilst I accept the sincerity of that particular employer that it is its intention to recruit more black people in due course, the problem is how long it will be before that happens. The company says that next year it intends to employ more black people if they apply, and that it will take affirmative action to demonstrate its commitment to good race relations. The problem is that that is perhaps a year away.

In the context of similar reactions from Northern Ireland employers, I should like to hear from the Minister what sort of time scale he will be expecting from employers, otherwise "some day never" will be the order of the day. Employers will try to push into the future the need to take on employees from the minority community or even, as in the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Upper Bann, from the majority community.

Surely, also, the commission should be able to refer direct to the High court without going to the tribunal. That would cut through some of the red tape and bureaucracy. It would hit employers who do not implement the scheme more rapidly.

Will the commission have the necessary resources to meet its massive new responsibilities in registering and certifying employers? To whom will the commission be accountable? A great deal of work will be involved and it will need more employees. Clearly, there could be an excessive work load with which to deal. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about the resources that it will be given.

May I also ask the Minister about the penalties that will be open to the commission if a company refuses to register or where a false claim is made? It may be that the penalties will be insufficient—just £2,000 may be the maximum. If someone has just won a contract or tender for perhaps £200,000 or even £500,000, £2,000 will seem a very small penalty. I hope that the Government will say something about the scale of penalties where an employer has deliberately put in a false claim of certification.

May I also ask about the nature of the questions that will be asked of employees to determine their religious background? Surely, it would be better to ask the direct question, "What is your religious background?" rather than to ask about the primary school that a child attended. I have been heartened to hear the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), speaking at the Dispatch Box about the Government's objectives of promoting integrated education. I welcome that. I am a patron of the Belfast Trust and, along with many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I believe that we should encourage and give incentives to schools that provide integrated education.

I am told that when the forms are completed, if the child went to an integrated school, the religious background will be listed as "Not known". With the Government's objective of increasing the number of children in integrated education, how will it be possible to determine religious backgrounds and whether or not the policies are working? That will make the monitoring of such a scheme difficult. Other hon. Members have also dealt with the question of monitoring.

I also wish to ask about other minorities. If integrated schools are to be left out of the equation, what will happen to people of neither religion? The hon. Member for Upper Bann suggested that it was not possible to be born in Northern Ireland without being one religion or the other. I suspect that in the vast majority of cases that is true. However, increasingly in the city of Belfast there are people drawn from ethnic minorities. What will happen to them? I hope that the Government will also give that point further consideration.

Anxious as I am to conclude my remarks so that other hon. Members may contribute, I should say that there is no point in simply sacking Protestants in order to employ Catholics. The overriding need is to create a stable atmosphere in which prosperity can develop and investment can occur. A prerequisite for that must be fair employment. Fair employment will make the best use of human resources. It will assist in creating a more united community. It recognises that the status quo is not an option. For those reasons, it would be churlish not to welcome the White Paper. Although we shall scrutinise the Bill when it comes forward, we welcome the debate today.

A serious issue is before us which has exercised the minds of many of the representatives of the Province and it deserves to be considered seriously.

For about 20 years a massive propaganda campaign has been waged against Northern Ireland in an attempt to discredit every positive aspect of life in the Province. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who has left the Chamber, cannot expect me to defend the employment practices of the past or those of the present. My party has never been in government in Northern Ireland. Therefore, my party and I are not in a position to defend anything that went before. For four years I was a chairman of a district council, and during that period no Roman Catholic or Protestant claimed that the council had discriminated against him in employment. The only criteria for a person's employment were merit and whether he was the best person for the job. That should be the principle on which we operate, rather than seeking a bogeyman or a religious tag to put on someone.

My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), in an excellent speech, drew attention to paragraph 1.6 of Cm. 380, which is headed "Religion and disadvantage". Part of the paragraph states:

"while it is very difficult to quantify its impact, it is clear that it is by no means the sole nor even the main explanation."

I thought that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), would have commented upon that or referred to paragraph 1.7, which reads:

"While allegations of discrimination against Protestants are less frequently heard, it would be wrong to imagine that it is something which affects only the Catholic section of the community, as a number of cases determined by the Agency indicates."

That puts the matter in its proper context. The paragraph refers to a fact which has been forgotten by many speakers in the debate.

Discrimination is suffered for reasons other than religion. Given the party and the denomination which I represent, perhaps I know more about discrimination than anyone else. If an applicant for a job writes on the application form that he is a Free Presbyterian, he can be almost 100 per cent. assured that he will not be given the job. I have been discriminated against in providing children with religious education, which is a right that is granted to me by statute. The school concerned has given every denomination except mine the right to carry on religious education in the school. I have to walk the children across the road and take them into my garage to give them religious education. No classroom is provided for me. When I did have access to the school, the headmaster ruled—no doubt this was done to discourage me from entering the school again—that the children must sit on the floor rather than on chairs. When it comes to discrimination and claims of discrimination, I do not need a lecture from anyone. I know the facts. I should be happy for anyone to inquire into the matters which I have mentioned in passing.

Irrespective of whoever has been discriminated against, I shall not defend discrimination. Surely it is the job of the Opposition spokesman, especially when we have a Labour Opposition, to demand more jobs for the Province. Surely that should have been done instead of talking, in effect, of knocking someone out of a job to give it to someone else because of his religion.

I did not hear much emphasis placed on the fact that the best way to avoid discrimination in the Province is for the Government to carry out an extensive programme to provide employment for everyone, or at least practically everyone. The idea that everyone should be employed is not a reality in 1988. However, everyone should he given the right to the possibility of a job, irrespective of who they are.

In 1968 only 27,000 people were unemployed in the Province at a time when there was a charge that there was extreme discrimination. At the moment there are 120,000 people unemployed. In the light of that rise, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North should have argued that the Government should provide employment. He should not have referred to a head count. The hon. Gentleman's speech was devoted to unemployment among the minority. However, the report that we are discussing today establishes that there is no sectarian head count and that there is discrimination affecting Protestants and Roman Catholics.

My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann stated that only 52 cases of discrimination have been established in 12 years. The old cliché may be applied that if one says something long enough, people will begin to believe it and one believes it oneself. Therefore, everyone else may take up the cause. Some Americans tell us that they are distraught about the employment position in Northern Ireland. We must remember the main fact that unemployment has risen from 27,000 in 1968 to 120,000 today. Many multinational companies have pulled out of Northern Ireland and caused job losses. Now theyhave the cheek to tell us that they will dictate the terms of how jobs will be maintained in the companies that still remain in the Province.

Those are the solemn facts. It was sad to hear the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North stating that there was a threat to British industry. He said that if the Government did not take action American firms, under pressure from Congress, would threaten jobs on the mainland. That is disgraceful. Jobs should not be threatened. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North should realise that threats to jobs are a matter for the trade unionists and that the United States pressure is here to stay and will not go away.

Instead of trying to encourage the Irish caucus to pull out of investing in Northern Ireland, we should seek to bring investment into Northern Ireland. If the Irish caucus is worried about investment in west Belfast, Londonderry and Strabane, it should be aware of the fact that there are opportunities and Government incentives in the form of grants to attract investment to the area. It is easy to talk about this problem, but we must consider the reality to understand why the situation is as it is.

I am not claiming that there has not been discrimination in Northern Ireland. However, we must consider the present position. It is easy to set off on a hobby horse. However, we must recognise that discrimination is not confined to Northern Ireland. We should consider the mainland. I believe that we are opening a can of worms here. If I were a member of the coloured population in Great Britain, I would be interested in this. This is a great bonus.

I have travelled extensively in the United States. Listening to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, one would think that blacks in the United States lived in a paradise. Those who go to the towns and cities there can immediately find where the blacks live and where the whites live, so the Americans should not pontifcate on something which they have not been able to handle. My plea is that, both in America and on the mainland here, we should give members of ethnic minorities greater consideration. Blacks and others have not been treated properly in employment. We should be open.

I hope that the Government have opened their mind to discrimination of all kinds and that the Opposition will press the Government for an effective and vital extension of what is here proposed to the mainland to ensure that members of the ethnic minorities and others who are under privileged in employment are supported. Northern Ireland Members will be with the Opposition on that.

If the Minister cannot give me an answer today, I should like him to write to me saying when measures concerning discrimination against blacks and other minorities will be taken on the mainland. Discrimination is defined in paragraph 3.12 of the Government's guide to effective practice which says:

"a person discriminates unfairly on grounds of religious belief or political opinion if on those grounds he or she treats that other person less favourably. Equality of opportunity of employment means equal access to employment opportunities."

I have no difficulty in saying that the person who is given employment ought to be the most suitable candidate, chosen on merit, no matter what his or her religious or political affiliations are, and no matter what the religious or political affiliations of the firm might be. My aim, and that of my party, is to achieve equality of emphasis, effort, information and training opportunities for all sections of the community, and employment of the best qualified people available whatever their class or creed.

I have no doubt that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is concerned about unemployment. The United States tells us how it will force certain things down our throat or that it will disinvest. A Fair Employment Agency report on the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said that, to all intents and purposes, two firms, Lee Apparel (United Kingdom) Ltd., Londonderry, and Essex International, Londonderry, employed no Londonderry Protestants. I should have thought that the hon. Member for South Down would have mentioned that in his analysis of the whole picture rather than one section of it.

I also would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would mention Daisy Hill hospital, Newry, which is near his constituency. The Fair Employment Agency found that 77 per cent. of all nursing staff in the Newry and Mourne district are Roman Catholic. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be happy to mention that. Mourne is in his constituency. I know the area well because my wife comes from it. I should have thought that that information would be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North if they wanted to give the full picture. I should also like to know—perhaps the Minister can find out—how many Protestants are employed in Beleek in Enniskillen, and in Tyrone Crystal, and how much Government grant has been given to those firms. Rather than judging whether there is an imbalance, I should be happy to leave it to the Department to tell me the answers. If I have to put my query down for Question Time, I shall be happy to do so.

What about Toome eel fishery? The Minister ought to know about that, because I wrote to the Department some years ago about possible financial improprieties that I wished it to investigate. A substantial sum may be involved. How many Protestants are employed there? I know that there is an equal balance of Catholics and Protestants in the surrounding area. On the one hand, there are Antrim and Ballymena, both largely Protestant areas. Magherafelt is 46 per cent. Protestant and 54 per cent. Nationalist.

May I comment on the statistics?

I wish to allow other hon. Members to intervene. I am not trying to cut out the hon. Gentleman, but I wish to finish my speech.

I am merely saying that it is not good enough to bandy the name of one firm against that of another. If that is the game, it will be found that the Unionist population employed in the west of the Province will be looking very carefully at the compilation of the work force, and will also demand that the Department takes action.

I sent a dossier to the Fair Employment Agency some years ago, when I was first elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly, asking for an investigation into the Government's employment of nursing and other staff in the Omagh hospitals, in the education and library board for the western area and in the health and social services department in the area. The House will be interested to know that so far no information has been given.

Members of the Democratic Unionist party, and all right-thinking people, will not approve of discrimination, irrespective of who suffers it. That cannot be allowed. I am anxious to ensure that there is fair employment in Northern Ireland, but I want fair employment in the whole of the United Kingdom. We should not simply bandy one statistic against another; the Government should look at

the matter as a whole. They are one of the major employers. I should like them to ensure that there is fair employment in my constituency. As the statistics that I gave to the agency show, there is not fair employment for people in my community. Merit must be the basis of future employment in our Province

I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) for finishing early to give me an opportunity to speak. I shall try not to abuse that, by confining my speech to 10 minutes or so.

The hon. Gentleman seemed at times to be trading off more jobs against more institutionalised fairness. I do not believe that they are necessarily exclusive alternatives. A major problem in Northern Ireland is unemployment, and action is needed to mop it up. Other problems may then remain, such as how that employment is distributed and how promotion is organised, so legislation of this nature may need to be extended to other areas and introduced throughout the United Kingdom. The prime question, which we must press, is about the availability of jobs.

I make no apologies for being a non-Irish novice on the subject of unemployment in Northern Ireland. Non-Irish Back Benchers should try their hands at discussing the problems of Northern Ireland because of the desperate situation that exists there, even if in doing so we learn more than we contribute to solving the problems.

On page 28 of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights' report on fair employment a table shows the problems of the distribution of employment. Obviously, the Catholic community is discriminated against in advancing within employment. Social workers have produced other sets of statistics on gender, race and social class for the est of the United Kingdom, and for Northern Ireland and we would find similar maldistribution there. That shows that deeper forces are at work than specific discrimination for employment. Obviously there is discrimination within employment but wider issues are also involved, such as who is getting what educational opportunity, who is making use of that opportunity, why some people are not making use of it and what their social backgrounds and conditions are. All those introduce bias into the system.

The table also shows that serious problems would exist even if we had a sort of fair weather system in Northern Ireland. Even if there were not serious mass unemployment and all the other problems that go with violence and sectarianism, we would have an issue to tackle. It would be easier to tackle, and this legislation might be the answer to it.

Northern Ireland's economy has been in sharp decline since 1960. As the 1980s have drawn to a close it has fallen even further behind the rest of the United Kingdom. Between 1981 and 1986 the United Kingdom economy grew by more than 15 per cent., albeit unevenly, but in Northern Ireland it increased by only 6 per cent. Although United Kingdom manufacturing output has increased by 10 per cent. since 1985, it has declined in Northern Ireland since 1986. The Government talk about an economic miracle—it seems rather less than a miracle—but it has not had the same impact on Northern Ireland as on the rest of the United Kingdom.

Poverty is not confined to Catholic ghettos. In the Protestant lower Shankill area of west Belfast almost two thirds of the population depend on social security for three quarters or more of their income. Half the population come within the Government's definition of poverty. The various Government disguises for the unemployment figures cannot hide the fact that the real unemployment figure is about 60 per cent. Even on Government figures, it is about 33 per cent. The area is blighted by high unemployment, poor housing, a poor environment and limited amenities, all of which have driven many people away, leaving a disproportionately old population.

On page 19 of the report an employment table shows the problems by dividing the male population into Catholics and Protestants. There are horrendous figures for unemployment among Catholics, such as 43·3 per cent. in Cookstown, 35·8 per cent. in Derry and 36·7 per cent, in Dungannon, but there are also terrible figures among the Protestant population, such as 22·7 per cent. in Carrickfergus, 21 per cent. in Moyle and 21·9 per cent. in Strabane. That shows that we cannot begin to tackle the problems in Northern Ireland unless there is a massive infusion of money and public funding rather than the nonsense that we are getting, such as the proposal to privatise provisions in Belfast and to create a situation in which the market has to determine things, rather than our being collectively and socially responsible for what is needed.

In the short time that I have been in the House, on listening to people from Northern Ireland I have been impressed by the fact that four or five different parties, including the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP, are often pressing the Government on similar things when they talk about hospital closures and the need for provisions here and there. There is an obvious social need to be met.

Unless the British Government wish to go down in history as just another British Government who failed to act in time to undermine the material roots of sectarianism and to prevent Belfast being turned into a twin city with Beirut, they must realise that now is the time to regenerate the economy of Northern Ireland through a programme of public investment and job creation, because the only way to ensure fair employment is to get full employment, although we might then need fair employment legislation.

Neither military nor market solutions will make much difference to eradicating deep-seated prejudice. We need a concerted programme of economic, social and political reform involving the demilitarisation of society, the acceptance that direct rule must be replaced by democratic and devolved structures and a Bill of Rights to protect all the citizens of the Province. There is now a slim chance for political progress in the Province, but if it is to have any long-term future it must be based on a thriving economy. The Government's announcement that privatisation is to be added to the Province's problems will not help at all. It will just add to the problems of religious bigotry.

The Government's report states in paragraph 1.5:

"Unemployment and disadvantage affect Protestants as well as Catholics. For example 1 in 5 Protestant families depends on supplementary benefit and over a quarter are in receipt of housing benefit. However, the most severe disadvantage is undoubtedly concentrated among Catholics."

For me, that means that there is the basis for a common struggle by Catholic and Protestant workers for decent living standards, wages and jobs. We should do everything that we can to unite that struggle and see that it is directed

at the Government, so that concessions can begin to be made. That can be done effectively only through public investment, but much remains to be done in eradicating inequalities and making it easier for workers, of whatever faith, to find employment.

I do not like the notion of quotas in certain industries, as it would help to reinforce and institutionalise religious and sectarian difference, when, as a Socialist, I believe that class can unite workers in a common fight for a fairer society. None the less, there is much that the Government can and must do to eliminate unlawful discrimination.

I should like to refer to a submission to the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights from the Workers' party in Ireland, because that party does not have a voice here, and other voices in Northern Ireland are heard. It shows some of the things that need to be done. I grant that not just the Workers' party makes these suggestions—I have already said that others are pressing the Government to take specific action to provide services.

The Workers' party asks for the provision of adequate transport to and from work and the security of employees to go to and from work. The party suggests that there should be a ban on all religious or political emblems or displays in places of work, to create an environment in which people could not be deemed hostile. It also suggests the sub-contracting of work in industries such as shipbuilding and in areas of high unemployment, which has already been mentioned. The social and economic considerations need to be pushed to the fore in an attempt to create circumstances that will help to solve the problems of Northern Ireland.

If we concentrate on that, people might begin to be drawn together, and the issues that have divided people, and the hard line that has been taken by people on the issue of the border, will begin to be eroded and in time will be seen as nothing. The answers to the problems that exist in Northern Ireland are Socialist answers about working-class unity.

The Opposition welcome the full and comprehensive debate that we have had on the proposed fair employment legislation. Clearly a multiple audience is listening to the debate. It is clear not only in Westminster, but across the water in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the United States. Many speeches, especially that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), have emphasised that there has been ongoing pressure from the United States, particularly from the Irish lobby, about the MacBride principles that has helped to chivvy the Government into producing the White Paper on fair employment. It is important for us to realise that opinion in the United States as well as in Northern Ireland will form the backdrop against which the success of the proposal will be judged.

In summing up, will the Minister address himself to the degree of scepticism in the United States concerning the White Paper. The doubt and scepticism will not go away. It can be well illustrated by a recent editorial in the Chicago Sunday Times which will give the House a taste of the cynicism in the United States. It states

"How would it go over in America if nearly one out of every two young members of a minority group were unemployed? What programs would be demanded to address a minority unemployment rate 2½ times that of the majority? How great would the outrage be if joblessness in some minority communities ranged up to 90 per cent?"

It continues:

"The answer is obvious: in the United States, outrage over similarly high unemployment rates among blacks and other minorities has led to the creation of tough affirmative action programs. But in Northern Ireland, where Catholic unemployment is rampant, no affirmative action programs exist or are planned."

It closes with the argument:

"The British will just have to excuse Americans if they do not share the Government's enthusiasm about the new program's prospects for success."

To succeed, the Secretary of State and his Ministers will have to overcome those views. If they show the necessary commitment, they will have our full support. If they do not, we will find ourselves reviewing the fair employment legislation as often as we presently review the direct rule legislation.

Many detailed questions have been raised this morning. I should like to emphasise some of them which I hope the Minister will answer when he replies to the debate. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Grady) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) made detailed and valuable speeches that outlined the extent and amount of discrimination. There were particularly useful references to the PSI surveys that show that work forces on both sides of the sectarian divide will be willing to co-operate in the implementation of the fair employment legislation.

I should like to pick up two points made by the hon. Member for South Down. The first relates to individual complaints and how the proposals will deal with strategic cases and not necessarily with the right of every individual to defend their own cases before the Fair Employment Commission if they so choose. We are concerned about the remarkable silence in the White Paper about remedies for individual grievances. It seems that compensation would normally be made on a monetary basis. Will remedies be made available that will include interim relief to protect the complainant's job pending a hearing? Will the Government consider introducing powers of injunction to order an end to a discriminatory practice and powers for the individual to apply to the High Court for injunctive relief to ensure the implementation of tribunal recommendations? That would resolve some of the matters mentioned by the hon. Member for South Down.

Some hon. Members talked about the need for the Government to set targets to evaluate their success in those areas. We hear much from Conservative Members about value for money, efficiency and the need to evaluate policy, but in this area, where targets could be set to evaluate policy, there is a glaring omission.

The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said that we need more cajoling and less bludgeoning by the Government, but that negated the points made by the Secretary of State, who said that for the past 10 years there has been a clear lack of respose to that sort of initiative and that we need more specific proposals. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we need flexibility of timescale. Many Labour Members would consider that to be the equivalent of saying, "Let us do nothing". There is some anxiety that the generalised points made by the hon. Gentleman would not produce the changes that are needed.

rose——

I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman because we have all had to cut our speeches to allow everyone to contribute to the debate.

That was not what I said.

I remind the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) that when discussing how statistics can be used and re-analysed we cannot avoid the fact that the two constituencies in Northern Ireland that have the highest unemployment are Foyle and Belfast, West. Of the 217 new factories that have been created in Northern Ireland since the 1960s, only 17 were created west of the Bann. With those statistics, it is difficult to deny the case of the hon. Member for South Down.

We are worried that the advantages of contract compliance will be denied to Northern Ireland by the conditions that are being placed on the Fair Employment Commission to operate contract compliance constructively. Will the Minister tell us about the scope of contract compliance? We want the procedures to be extended to all central Government contracts and to other public sector contracts—as the Minister knows, they account for almost as much as central Government contracts. It is important, because of the history of contracting and subcontracting in Northern Ireland, that any effort to include contract compliance should relate to subcontractors, too. Will the Minister consider giving the commission powers to enforce the law without having to await the outcome of protracted legal action?

As the White Paper says, consideration should be given to the certification of companies. The present certification process is universally regarded as ineffective. However, many Opposition Members and many people in Northern Ireland are worried because the new proposals rely heavily on almost a mechanical return of an annual monitoring report. We welcome the fact that failure to do so will be a statutory offence, but we are seriously worried that the new commission will have to secure a successful prosecution in the ordinary courts before withdrawing a certificate from an employer. We would like the commission to have the right to withdraw certification.

Much concern has been expressed about the nature of the status of the code of practice, which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) discussed. Even though we differ as to where the code of practice should stand in relation to the rest of the legislation, there is a clear concern that it will merely be used by the FEC to interpret the legislation and that the legislation will not bind the courts to which the FEC will be subject. The courts will be free to depart from the code of practice or decide that something is beyond the powers of the FEC or the Department. We believe that further attention should be paid to the status of the code of practice in relation not only to the rest of the legislation, but to the courts and the powers of the Department.

We agree with much of the underlying analysis provided by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. It has acknowledged that, in the past 10 years, changes in employment discrimination have not occurred and that there has not been a major statistical change in employment opportunities for Catholics and Protestants. We have already said that unemployment among Catholics is two and a half times higher than that among Protestants. It is also confirmed, as the Minister acknowledged, that employment discrimination exists as a result not only of inadvertent actions but of deliberate actions and adherence to discriminatory practices.

We are concerned that the White Paper proposals are not specific or forceful enough to respond to SACHR's analysis, on which there is general agreement. If we acknowledge the extent of the discrimination but fail to create the structures and processes to deal with it, we are acting irresponsibly. Many people in Northern Ireland hope that the subsequent legislation will change the discriminatory practices. If we acknowledge the problem but fail to create the structures to respond to it, we are not being honest nor responding constructively to the difficulties faced by the people of Northern Ireland.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said, we welcome the White Paper, but with noticeable reservations. When evaluating the fair employment legislation presented today, we must decide what we shall measure it against. If we measure it against present legislation, we accept that it is an improvement, but if we measure it against SACHR's report it is clear that there are major flaws in the proposed legislation. We must consider whether the proposed legislation will effect change and rectify present injustices. Unless there is further consideration of the issues that have been raised this morning—contract compliance, the scope and purpose of the remedies, the definition of permitted affirmative action—we are worried that the fair employment proposals will not do what many people hope they will.

I hope that the Government will not lose their nerve and that they will implement the structures and processes which are needed to achieve what is hoped for by the principles underlying the document.

There is not much time to reply to this debate, but I say that without any sense of complaint because I believe that it has been outstandingly helpful that so many hon. Members have been able to contribute. I was pleased that it was possible to call each hon. Member who wished to take part. I mention the time left to me only because, although I may be unable to respond to some of the points made, I shall do my best.

This debate has been outstandingly constructive and useful and a number of significant issues have been raised that merit further consideration by the Government. In any case, there are certain areas in which the detail of policy requires further work and refinement, and that is what White Papers are all about. Today's debate has provided a useful prelude for the range of matters that need to be given further consideration and close study when our proposed legislation on fair employment is presented to Parliament.

In addition to responding to the key issues raised, I should like to emphasise the main points made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in initiating the debate. First, the publication of the recent White Paper, the extensive preparatory initiatives that led up to it and are still continuing, the proposed legislation contained in it and the intention to introduce that legislation at the earliest opportunity testify to the Government's firm and determined commitment to fair employment in Northern Ireland. There is no room for doubt on that score.

Secondly, that commitment is based on the needs of Northern Ireland. History has left us with a legacy of unfairness. The Government are committed to stronger legislation on fair employment because that is the right and fair thing to do—morally, socially and economically.

Thirdly—this point was made forcefully by Members representing the Unionist community of Northern Ireland—the proposal is right for all the people of Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, discrimination can be practised within and against both communities. Economic disadvantage, through the denial of equality of employment opportunity, is not confined to one side of the community, so both have a legitimate interest in ensuring that fair employment is actively and energetically practised throughout the public and private sectors; that it is enforced by Government through appropriate legal action, economic sanctions and supportive educational initiatives; and that it operates on the basis of appointment on merit.

Fourthly, the package of new legal and institutional measures proposed by the Government incorporates all these features. The package is tailored to the particular needs and circumstances of the Province and has been put together in close consultation with all the major interests.

This consultation underlines the general recognition that the religious issue in Northern Ireland is unique, that its fair employment dimension has been legislated for on that basis and that its distinctive features are such that it should continue to be so. Those features are not replicated in Great Britain or in relation to other employment equality dimensions, such as gender and disability, in Northern Ireland. Therefore, there are no grounds for extending our proposed legislation to Great Britain or to other employment equality dimensions.

Religious monitoring is the key to fair employment practice. Only monitoring can supply the basic information necessary to determine whether fair employment is practised. Such practice is recognised as an integral part of good personnel management. In contributing to overall business and efficiency, it enhances the economic and social attractions of the Province to outside investors. The decision to impose on most employers a statutory obligation to monitor recognises those points. It also reflects clearly and unambiguously the Government's firm commitment to the effective practice and not merely the principle of fair employment. It is one of the major issues at the top of the Government's political agenda for Northern Ireland, and it will remain there. We are determined to focus sustained efforts on the issue so that a more equitable and proportionate distribution in employment can be achieved as quickly as possible.

Our present initiatives have already begun the process of change and our proposed new legislation will increase the momentum of progress. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and others made the point that it was surprising that the Government should produce such legislation, but he went on to praise it, and I thank him for that. I approach this subject with proper diffidence as a natural Conservative and opponent of Government interference. But the facts speak for themselves, and I must say in all sincerity that the option of doing nothing is unacceptable for a concerned Government. We cannot stand aside from this important moral, social and economic issue.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) asked about legislation before 1976 and went on to answer his own question. There was a small amount of legislation before 1976. That 1976 legislation was preceded by the report of the committee chaired by the former Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office and former Member for Wokingham, Sir William van Straubenzee. It is true that most legislation has been since 1976 and since that report.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked me a specific question—yes or no, black or white—about the position of Short Brothers over its prospective contract in the United States. Shorts informed me that it will use its best endeavours to meet the commitment necessary to ensure full equality of opportunity for both sections of the population in Northern Ireland and, in doing so, to secure the prospective order now being negotiated with the United States Government.

It would be premature to ask me to spell out exactly what commitments might in due course be made, because the stage of contract has not been reached and I understand that it will not be reached for some time. I have given exactly the extent of the commitment by Short Brothers. It is fully committed to fair employment and its longstanding co-operation with the Fair Employment Agency is continuing.

rose——

I prefer not to give way on this point because there is nothing further to say about it. I am not responsible for reports that may not be accurate. However, if the hon. Gentleman insists I shall give way.

Normally I would not insist, but legislation containing a specific clause has been passed by the Federal Government. Is the Minister saying that Short Brothers has not given a pre-contract undertaking that it will meet the commitments that I outlined earlier?

I have told the House the exact committment of Short Brothers. As I have said, the firm's long standing co-operation with the Fair Employment Agency will continue to promote better employment practices in Short Brothers.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), who I am delighted to see on the Opposition Front Bench, spoke about pressure on the Government from the United States and from the MacBride campaign. In 1985 the Government's statistics identified the scale of the difficulty in employment practice. At that time my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, took immediate action. He commissioned an urgent report and ordered publication of the subsequent consultative paper and a revision of the guide to effective practice. As a result of wide local consultations, he decided to introduce further measures, and we are now introducing legislation. There is a straight line of causation from the Government's statistics of 1985 to the legislation that we anticipate will be brought forward later this year.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said that we should have taken the MacBride campaigners on board. I think he said that instead of taking those campaigners on board we fought them. We have no quibble at all with the proponents of the MacBride principles in so far as they believe in equality of opportunity and fair employment and more employment in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman knows that some of the proponents of MacBride are perhaps not as well-intentioned towards the present regime in Northern Ireland as we would like.

It would be quite wrong for the Government to abrogate their responsibility to external forces and to throw their weight behind the MacBride campaign. That would be quite unreasonable. It would also be unreasonable to take the campaigners on board because some of the MacBride principles—especially the second principle mentioned by the hon. Gentleman about the protection of employees between their place of work and home—are quite unreasonable and could not be imposed anywhere. It would have been quite wrong for us to yield more than we have to those principles. In so far as we have yielded, I maintain that we have no quibble with them at all about fair employment.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North spoke about the principle of merit which underlies the proposed legislation and the White Paper. He thought that the principle of merit might be a weakness in the White Paper and the legislation. I disagree, because anything other than appointment on merit would be a weakness. It would be unfair; it would simply transfer disadvantage and institutionalise the very discrimination that the Government want to eradicate.

Our definition of merit is broad and includes potential as well as experience. It is designed to open up recruitment opportunities and is fully consistent with affirmative action. Those who argue against appointment on merit must have the courage of their convictions and openly advocate discrimination by quotas. Any other approach is disingenuous.

The point was made that we should allow employers to discriminate by providing training for only part of the community. We do not accept that that would be reasonable. The thrust of our policy is to move away from selection, whether for employment or training, on the basis of religion and to widen opportunities for both communities. To introduce religion-specific training would deny access to training purely on the grounds of religion. That would be divisive in both communities and on the shop floor. It is preferable to allow training to be provided primarily, although not exclusively, for any under-represented group. That training would be open to all and employers who provide it would be protected from charges of indirect discrimination. The religious issue in Northern Ireland attracts unique sensitivities that are not replicated elsewhere. Our proposals reflect that fact.

The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North said that the appeal mechanism would emasculate enforcement. There are no grounds for that supposition. The work of the commission and of the tribunal is intended to complement each other. In the interests of natural justice, the tribunal must be not only an appellate body but a body with practical experience as well as legal expertise. Issues that arise in directions may not be easily justiciable by an exclusively legal body. It makes sense to have an appellate body that can combine legal expertise and practical experience. Tribunals' work on individual cases will help to inform its appellate role in pattern and practice cases. No employer will lightly contemplate disobedience of an order of the tribunal when it leaves him open to certification to the High court for the exercise of its contempt jurisdiction and possible unlimited fines and/or committal in the event of continued recalcitrance.

I must pass on to points made by other hon. Members as it would not be fair to concentrate entirely on the points made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, important as they were. However, he did make a major point about the influence on our thinking of the standing advisory commission and asked about the extent to which the SACHR report had been taken into account and implemented in the White Paper. We calculate that we have, in whole or in part, accepted two thirds of the 123 recommendations in the report, and a number of others are subject to detailed consideration now. As I said, the White Paper is not in final form for legislation and further thought will be given to the matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) made a most helpful and constructive speech. I am grateful to him for that. He said that there is, as he described it, more stick than carrot in the White Paper. I put it to him that penalties are necessary to show the Government's total determination to act. It is certainly no wish of ours that penalties should be expected. They must be there to show employers and all concerned that we are not prepared to tolerate backsliding or delay. It is no part of Government policy to fine, punish, deny grants or refuse to accept tenders. We hope that none of those things will be necessary. The Government would not he taken seriously without the penalties being in place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham also asked about the difference between quotas and goals and timetables. There is a clear difference. We reject the idea that there should be quotas for employment, which would be a percentage for each section of the community, laid down at the centre. We believe that goals and timetables have an important part to play because the FEC will seek to agree with individual companies goals and timetables for them to achieve. We would delegate and entrust the FEC with that role.

My hon. Friend also asked about religious affiliation and monitoring. We believe that the question about schooling provides a clearer and less controversial manner of assessing religious background than the so-called direct question. The direct question, "What is your religion?" has been shown to lead to many different sorts of difficulty and uncertainty in the answers. It appears to us at this stage that the indirect question about primary schools is, for reasons given in the White Paper, the most accurate and best way of dealing with the matter.

My hon. Friend asked also about the assessment of catchment areas, which is important in determining the extent to which an employer is providing equality of opportunity. That involves the consideration of many variable factors. The employer has to make an informed judgment, taking full account of local conditions and consulting, where necessary, the Fair Employment Commission. It is possible normally to make a broad but realistic assessment whether employment and recruitment patterns are markedly out of line with the composition of the catchment area.

rose——

Considerable further thought will need to be given to these matters, which raise complicated issues.

Will the Minister give way?

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me——

Today's complex system of travel and goods distribution means that the road system is vital to all of us. Despite the welcome success of British Rail and the passenger transport executives—in west Yorkshire as elsewhere—in attracting more business, the roads continue to carry some 90 per cent. of inland traffic and must therefore bear the brunt of catering for the country's transport needs.

My experience of firms' investment decisions suggests that good transport links command a high priority—almost certainly higher, for example, than the availability of regional grant aid. Poor road links, on the other hand, can hold back an area's development, and I believe that my constituency has missed out on some economic opportunities which would have produced much-needed employment because of its seriously inadequate road connections with other parts of west Yorkshire and the motorway network. In terms of journey time, south Bradford is often closer to Manchester than it is to Keighley, which is within its own district.

This is an opportune moment to consider the major road system on which the Bradford district as a whole relies. Some vital construction is taking place, and more is due to happen before long, and crucial decisions on which a great deal depends apply to projected schemes for the next decade. My hon. Friend the Minister has responsibility for trunk roads, but I am sure that he will agree that the roads for which his Department has responsibility and those which fall under the aegis of Bradford metropolitan council integrate closely with one another. During the lifetime of the former West Yorkshire metropolitan county council virtually no new roads were built in Bradford, compared with other districts in west Yorkshire, but when that council was abolished it passed on to the Bradford council a number of schemes in an advanced state of preparation. That fact, together with developing work on trunk roads, makes Bradford easily the busiest district in west Yorkshire in terms of its construction programme. I know that both the Department of Transport and the city council have been working closely together on their plans for the future.

The Airedale trunk route has been debated and discussed, and has been the subject of inquiries and reports, for decades rather than mere years. Local residents must have wondered whether it would ever come into being, and I think there was even some scepticism when I had the pleasure of cutting the first turf for stage 1 in August 1986. As the route follows river washlands often liable to flooding, it has been necessary to construct an embankment and the amount of disruption and inconvenience which has come about as a result of the massive movements of stone and material has been considerable. People have had to be patient and grit their teeth as heavy lorries have thundered past on roads which were never designed for them. Nevertheless, the contractors, Budge, should be congratulated on meeting the two-year schedule, and we look forward very much to the visit of my hon. Friend on 2 August when he is to declare open stage 1 from Kildwick to Beechcliffe.

This will be a day of celebration for upper Airedale, which will benefit environmentally, with maximum relief accruing to the residents of Eastburn, Steeton and Utley who have suffered too long from traffic disruption and danger to pedestrians. The Steeton and Eastburn parish council has long campaigned for the new road, which will supplant a busy, twisting and dangerous stretch of the A629. Improved road safety will thus be a major benefit, as will the elimination of delays brought about by the replacement of a level crossing by a bridge at Station road, Steeton.

There is some concern that Hard Ings road, Keighley, between Beechliffe and Victoria park, which is an existing single carriageway road linking the dual carriageway sections of stages 1 and 2 of the new route, may have inadequate capacity for the traffic that the roads may generate. In theory, this bypass will carry a smaller volume of traffic than the routes which also serve the needs of traffic heading to and from the town itself, but I believe the situation will have to he watched closely when stages 1 and 2 are open because Hard Ings road could be a source of future problems

The really significant economic advantages will start to come with the completion of stage 2 from Victoria park Keighley, to Crossflatts. Again, work has been proceeding apace, and stage 2 will open very early in 1989. The completion of this part of the route will provide a new and attractive approach to Keighley while relieving the Riddlesden area of heavy traffic.

Before moving too far away from Keighley, may I urge Bradford council to move fast in the direction of a traffic scheme for the town itself. Its streets are badly congested with vehicles throughout each week day, and I welcome the commitment to try to bring about improvements.

It is to the east of Crossflatts that we run into big trouble on the Airedale route. As it passes through Bingley, the A650 is appallingly congested, with dreadful hold-ups for traffic and an intolerable situation for those living or working nearby. The line of the route has essentially been established but, as my hon. Friend's predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), pointed out in an Adjournment debate on May 6 1983, the construction of the section to the east of Crossflatts is dependent on a decision on the route to the east of Bingley.

When the first two sections come into use, they will attract extra traffic that does not at present use the new road. However, all those cars and lorries will be funnelled back on to the existing road at Crossflatts, close to one of the most dangerous parts of the A650, which has claimed a number of lives in recent months. The really bad news is not just that work has not started to the east of Crossflatts, but that we appear still to be a very long way off reaching that point. An announcement has been delayed by problems in determining what happens at Cottingley Bar, the eastern extremity of stage 3, because until we know where we go from there it is impossible to complete the planning of the route to Cottingley.

The section from Cottingley Bar to the east of Shipley holds the key to the success of the entire route. In May 1983, three years after the first public inquiry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey said that she was conscious of the need for a decision as quickly as possible, but today—over five years later—we are no further on. I believe that the long delays are largely attributable to the mistaken way in which the Department has brought forward its proposals for public debate and consultation, failing at each stage to provide people with genuine choices between a full range of options.

When the Department's original plan for bypassing Saltaire to the north was rejected by the public inquiry inspector, Mr. Chance, it went out to public consultation with three alternatives, all of them passing closer to the centre of Saltaire but seeking to minimise intrusion in environmental terms for instance by following the line of the railway. A local campaign was mounted against all the routes and a petition with a large number of signatures was submitted. Thus my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey said that the completely new route should end at Cottingley Bar, and alternative solutions would be sought for the section through Saltaire and Shipley.

I found the decision perverse at the time, and subsequent events have, I believe, already proved me right. Just doing nothing could never have been an option. For everybody's sake, there cannot be and must not be a "Chalker Gap". What has happened since that anouncement was entirely predictable. The Department went out again to public consultation with alternative plans which involved gyratory traffic systems and some demolition—in effect, forcing a way through the centre of Saltaire along existing routes. What happened? Of course the public found those plans even more undesirable than those they had seen before. Indeed, some of them said that if they had been aware of the alternatives, they might have supported earlier proposals. Nevertheless, analysing past mistakes will get us nowhere. We must now ask where we go from here.

Things have moved on in a way which demands that we reassess the situation. Traffic volumes have increased dramatically. Since 1982 the total of vehicle miles on England's roads has increased by a third. On some busy roads, the increases have been even more considerable; on motorways for instance, total traffic has gone up by about 70 per cent. partly because the mileage of motorways is greater. Moreover, Airedale has reflected the increase in industrial activity that other areas have experienced. Local manufacturing companies have increased their output and new retail activity is apparent for all to see. The local chambers of trade and the Bradford chamber of commerce and industry are demanding more loudly than ever that the route should be completed to cut the delays which are threatening jobs as firms consider locating elsewhere rather than put up with all this extra cost and inconvenience.

As new sections of the Airedale route open before long, extra traffic will be attracted to it, some from the narrow moorland roads which criss-cross the area, as well as some from other A roads. If we were to contemplate a situation where the Airedale route was completed as far as Cottingley Bar, while a further continuous section of modern and uninterrupted dual carriageway led from Shipley to the motorway south of Bradford, we would be condemning historic Saltaire to having deposited upon it in the foreseeable future up to 50,000 vehicles a day if the roads could carry them. The only factors that could limit the number of vehicles would be the available amount of road space and the horrific queues. Such an outcome would be an environmental nightmare and, what is more, it would undermine the whole basis on which millions of pounds of taxpayers' money are already being spent to improve communications in the Aire valley.

It is also possible that the transport needs of people and companies located outside the immediate area were not previously given adequate attention. In response to my parliamentary question answered on 1 May 1985 concerning submissions considered in reaching a decision, the then Minister forwarded details that omitted a survey, the detailed results of which I had passed to her, which showed that more than 90 per cent. of respondent companies in the Keighley and Upper Airedale area regarded the completion of the road as vital to their future development.

To achieve an acceptable way out of the present impasse, two decisions are necessary. First, it must be agreed that the special historic nature of Saltaire and the protection of the immediate environment require an exceptional financial commitment on the part of the Department of Transport. If it is necessary to construct part of the route in a cut and cover tunnel, that must be done. I believe that a financial analysis would demonstrate that a failure to complete the route would seriously undermine the economic benefits to be gained by constructing the first three stages. If one also takes into account the delays, the environmental intrusion to Saltaire caused by heavy traffic, and, not least, the safety advantages, bearing in mind the announcement this week that the cost of a fatality has been reassessed at £500,000—over twice the previous figure—as a component in the Department's COBA formula, the case for devoting exceptional resources to solving an exceptional problem becomes overwhelming.

Secondly, it is essential that in future public consultation—and I do not think it would be right or productive to proceed without further consultation—the full range of options is put before people at the same time. In no other way is it possible to find out what they really want. It is my belief that, given a realistic choice, most people will opt for a variation on the Department's original proposal that takes proper account of the environmental problems. It would probably incorporate a tunnel and keep well away from the historic heart of Saltaire. Such a proposal was aired by the city council and the former county council during the previous consultative exercise.

This stage represents the keystone to the entire route between upper Airedale and the motorway to the south of Bradford. If this problem can be resolved, the rest falls into place with relative ease. I do not want to speak in detail now about the Shipley eastern bypass nor about the dualling of Canal road for which the city council has responsibility but with the Bradford spine road, of which stage 1 of the inner ring road has already been completed ahead of schedule by the council, with some funding assistance from the European regional development fund, these links constitute a chain which will dramatically improve the way in which people and goods can be transported between different parts of the district, as well as with the national motorway network. Completion of the Bradford spine route will also incidentally enable traffic to be kept out of the centre of Bradford, providing an opportunity to transform it into a far more attractive urban area.

Between the centre of the city and the M606 there are two routes—Manchester road and Wakefield road—the latter of which will be incorporated in the projected Bradford spine route. The M606 is at present a designated district motorway, but I understand that negotiations are in hand for responsibility to be transferred to the Department of Transport. My hon. Friend should be aware that there are already serious delays at the city end of that short stretch of motorway, and I am sure that his Department will be involved with the council in finding ways to overcome the difficulty which has essentially come about through the unexpectedly large increase in traffic to which I have already referred. One solution would be a link between the underpass, which was originally intended to form part of a now abandoned route into the city centre, and a point lower down on Manchester road. The problem here is that, at present, traffic using the outer ring road coincides with traffic entering or exiting the city, and the existing roundabout junctions are inadequate to cope with the massive number of vehicles.

I want to say a word or two about the feasibility study which has been taking place into a possible link between the M62 at Clifton in the vicinity of Brighouse and the M1 near Wakefield. This route lies outside the Bradford district, but its impact would significantly impinge on it. I was pleased when the Department initiated this study because, some six years ago, when I suggested to the Department that it would make good economic sense, I was informed that no case could be made out for its construction. Again, traffic growth has brought about a rethink—and rightly so, because the route could be extremely beneficial economically to the whole of the western part of the county, particularly Huddersfield, Halifax and Bradford. In effect, the journey between those communities and the M1 motorway will be reduced in distance by some six or seven miles. I strongly add my voice to those of hon. Members on both sides of the House representing constituencies in the Kirklees district who have pressed for its adoption into the roads programme, pointing also to its environmental benefits.

My message today is that the new route should not be an all-purpose trunk road, as was suggested by my hon. Friend in a recent answer to a parliamentary question from me, but should rather be built to motorway standards. The case for building it as an all-purpose trunk road rests on the premise that it would essentially serve local needs. However, I believe that it would be totally unrealistic to ignore the fact that, once the road was built, it would effectively be regarded and used as part of the strategic road network by a great deal of the traffic changing between a north-south direction and an east-west direction south of Leeds.

A factor that should be taken into account when considering this point is the inadequate capacity of the present junction at Chain Bar, where the M606 meets the M62 south of Bradford. Despite the addition of an extra slip road lane and other traffic measures, we now have the dangerous situation at times where the traffic tailback can stretch back along the nearside lane of the motorway. The Chain Bar roundabout is also one of the locations of the largest number of accidents in the Kirklees district. If it is recognised that the M1-M62 link is part of the strategic network and is therefore built to motorway standards, the Chain Bar junction will be relieved of much of its existing overloading.

There has in the past been a regrettable tendency to build new roads to an inadequate standard, resulting in the need to expand their capacity at very much greater cost. I would ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that even today the M1-M62 link has the potential to attract a considerable amount of traffic. We should come to regret any decision which ignored the route's strategic significance.

I finally want to refer to two bypass schemes on the A65 trunk road through the Wharfe valley—those at Addingham and at Burley-in-Wharfedale. The Addingham saga is a long one, and residents of the village have waited for a considerable time for the bypass to be included in the programme. It was a particular blow when the last Labour Government set it back for many years because of the cuts they were obliged to make at the behest of the International Monetary Fund. We welcome the fact that, following an inquiry, the route has been confirmed, and work is due to commence next year. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to state that a further inquiry into the compulsory purchase and side road orders will not be necessary, because there is a great deal of unanimity in the village about the need for this long-awaited road and the route it should follow. Accidents on the main street through the village occur with almost monotonous regularity, and the elimination of most of these, together with freedom from heavy lorries, will be a blessing for local people.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) has been active on behalf of his constituents in assiduously pressing the case for early construction of the Burley-in-Wharfedale bypass. There have been problems because of the need to divert the course of the river slightly, and fears about the effects that this could have on the downstream print works, which depends on a reliable flow of clear water. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance today that further delays will be minimised.

We also look forward to seeing the conclusions of the study carried out for the Department into road links between the Wharfe valley and the main north-south corridor to the east. Furthermore, with bypasses at the late planning stage for the communities to both east and west, the needs of Ilkley should not be ignored. I welcome the news that roadside traffic surveys are to be carried out near the town next week to gather information about the volume and movement of vehicles with the objective of identifying traffic problems and remedies.

In conclusion, the Bradford district has an inadequate road system for a city that is changing fast in response to a very different situation from that which existed when it was expanding rapidly in the last century. Despite its problems, the city is looking to the future, not with foreboding but with confidence. By the end of this century we could have a road infrastructure which would be a marvellous asset, or we could still be held back by delay and hesitancy in making essential decisions. I hope we shall go down the first path.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller)—we have known each other during all our time in the House and we have shared many experiences—both as a driver and as a member of this House. He has driven me round his constituency and he has rightly identified the economic advantages, environmental relief and the casualty reduction that comes from having a better road system. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), who, although unable to take part in this debate, has been forthright in giving me advice about roads in his constituency. The House will understand his position and I am grateful for the fact that I can concentrate on answering only my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley.

The Department hopes to publish the compulsory purchase orders on the A65 Addingham issue in July. The date may slip a little, but we hope to progress as my hon. Friend has asked. There may be individual issues which I shall not have time to cover in detail and I hope that my hon. Friend will accept it if I write to him about them. I shall deal first with the major issues of Bradford and the Airedale route.

My hon. Friend ended by saying that the alternatives for the future were perfection or misery. Bluntly, it is likely to be somewhere between them. We shall continue to make progress, but we cannot solve all the problems, and it is better to admit that. He referred to the Labour Government's difficulties, which they overcame with help from the International Monetary Fund. One of the consequences was that the new roads programme was virtually halved. Our aim has been to go for sustainable increases in the roads programme, not to have cuts in it, and during the past eight years we have achieved that. There was a slight hiccup at the end of 1983 which affected the whole of the Government, but generally we have seen a slow but steady increase in resources for improving road communications. This year we intend to spend the money that has been budgeted, and we are prepared to take the sort of decisions necessary to make sure that that happens.

Bradford is strategically well placed in the national trunk road and motorway system. My hon. Friend paid tribute to the improvements in British Rail, and it is important that British Rail continues to improve assts services to freight customers as well as the travelling public. We could not take all the freight or travelling public on the roads, and they need to have a choice. That is part of our political philosophy. The more that we can transfer current subsidies to capital investment in all forms of national life, the better. That is how prosperity comes, as the British people have discovered in the past eight years.

The M62 runs immediately south of Bradford, arid links to it are via the M606, soon to be taken over by the Government, and the A650 to the south, which is being improved. The Drighlington bypass construction is due to start next year. The M62 in turn provides nationwide links via the motorway network. It links the east and west coast ports, and it links directly with the M1, A1 and M6 north-south routes—one of the interests of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale.

To the north-west the A629–650 trunk route is being comprehensively improved. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley rightly referred to two schemes under construction: the Airedale section 1, where he kindly did the turf cutting, and the Airedale section 2. There are three further schemes in the trunk road programme: Airedale section 3, Skipton to Kildwick and the Shipley eastern bypass. Those five schemes will provide 13 miles of new road at a current cost of nearly £80 million.

In Bradford itself, the north-south route is being substantially improved. The major part of the city ring road was recently opened and I had the pleasure of seeing it last year. They are local authority schemes at present, but it is planned to take them over to become a national road. There has been substantial Government assistance, through transport supplementary grant. It is a wise and necessary part of the Government's dedication to and support of the inner cities, and I wish that there was more recognition of that from those who occasionally get reported, probably inadequately, as saying that the Government should spend all their money sorting out traffic jams in London, so that a bishop does not get held up for 20 minutes.

That is a guarded reference to my noble Friend the Bishop of Durham. My advice to a bishop in the north is that, if he allowed a little more time for his journeys, we should be able to go on spending money in the north rather than using it to solve London commuter problems. If a Government spent all their money in London and the south-east, we should be rightly criticised by northern bishops.

I should now like to refer to the Airedale route. It is a difficult area through which to construct new through traffic routes. There is a narrow valley and much development and there are conflicting pressures. It is already crowded, so there are difficult environmental issues with route planning. As my hon. Friend gently and diplomatically said, the Department has been trying for years to achieve acceptable schemes. There has been limited success. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that there has been only limited success. In some areas there is substantial opposition to almost anything. We intend to press on. Our aim is to provide a new continuous high standard route to link Bradford and Skipton.

I pay tribute to successive generations of staff at the Department of Transport, who put up with occasional personal abuse and professional frustration in trying to get people to understand that a decision needs to be made. Often almost any decision is better than none, given the build-up of traffic and the need to provide for more jobs to meet the needs of people growing up in the area. Too often round the country I have seen communities virtually destroyed by through traffic because they have not been willing to decide to go to the left, or the right, to the north or the south, above or underneath. I often think that local community representatives should do what my hon. Friend does nationally, which is to say, "Let's talk through the issues and, if necessary, put them before a public inquiry. An independent impartial inspector can adjudicate and offer advice to the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Transport, but for heaven's sake, whatever we do, let's get on and try to make decisions."

The Department intends to press on and provide that new continuous high standard route. Two schemes will open to traffic this year—the Kildwick to Beechcliffe route and the Victoria park to Crossflatts route. Together they will provide six and half miles of new dual carriageway road at a cost of about £36 million. I look forward to being with my hon. Friend on 2 August for the opening of section 1.

The preferred route for one scheme has just been announced, that is, the Skipton to Kildwick section, linking Skipton bypass and Airedale section 1. That was announced in May after public consultation. Announcements are due this summer, concerning the remaining three sections. The Airedale section 3 has been prepared up to draft order publication stage and can be published as soon as the eastern termination point is confirmed. That means that it depends upon the route of the east of Cottingley Bar scheme. That scheme has a difficult route alignment. Is is a built-up area, with crowded development, and it is environmentally sensitive. There was a nine-month public inquiry into the proposals in 1980. The valley bottom part of the route was rejected by the Department of Transport Minister. There was public consultation in 1984 on several possible options. No acceptable new route was identified and the valley bottom route was again rejected. There was fresh public consultation in 1986 on widening the existing roads, and I announced early last year that alternatives suggested by the public were being examined. That scheme is the constraint upon announcements on the adjacent schemes.

The Shipley eastern bypass links in the south with Bradford city council's schemes. There was public consultation in 1986, jointly with east of Cottingley Bar. There has been no announcement yet as the decision is tied to the termination point of the east of Cottingley Bar scheme. An announcement is promised this summer, as I said to my hon. Friend in April. The announcement is still planned. I ask my hon. Friend to be patient for a little longer as difficult issues need careful study. I think that my hon. Friend will understand that there is no point in giving advance information on options under review because of the blighting effect on property.

This has been a useful debate. We must recognise that building roads is necessary. Covering the whole countryside with concrete is not necessary. We have the greatest difficulty where there are valleys, but we still intend to overcome such difficulties. I ask for understanding and help in the local communities so that it will be accepted that, by going through the procedures, we shall pick the best or the least worst option. The only option that we must reject is doing nothing. The area deserves better than that.