asked the hon. Member for Kingswood, as representing the Church Commissioners, what is the current value of Lambeth Palace and its grounds; what proportion of the accommodation is used for residential purposes; to what other uses it is put; and whether there is any real or book income arising therefrom.

It is not possible to put a meaningful value on Lambeth Palace, which is a grade I listed building in a conservation area and with grounds zoned for planning purposes as"open space ". Its annual value for rating purposes is £11,638. Within the palace and its associated buildings there are 22 units of residential accommodation, including the Archbishop's own 3-bed-roomed flat. The remaining accommodation comprises offices used by the Archbishop's official staff, the chapel and State rooms, and the Lambeth Palace library which has an international reputation and is open to students. Rents are obtained from eight of the residential units.

I am sure that the whole House was interested in my hon. Friend's revealing answer about Lambeth Palace. May I express my disappointment to my hon. Friend about the fact that from his answer I cannot calculate the value of the residential part of the palace in terms of tax free allowance? He may be able to write to me about that. In considering alternative use, has it been considered whether the palace might be a good centre for the low paid or a refuge for those suffering from excessive rent increases in my constituency? Finally, will he confirm that the Archbishop is not remote from, innocent of and ignorant of what hard-headed businessmen at Mill-bank are doing? Is it not a fact that he is the chairman of the board of governors of the Church Commissioners and is therefore responsible for excessive rent increases? Is it not the fact that the Archbishop has personally endorsed and condoned this example of greed by the Church?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the Archbishop a Member of another place? Was not the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) an attack upon the Archbishop, and should it not be withdrawn?

The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is wrong. He suggests that it is out of order to cast any reflection upon a Member of another place or of this place. The hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) had to deal with the Church Commissioners.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I said in the course of my supplementary question that the Archbishop was not remote and ignorant.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most people believe that the Archibishop's historic residence is most suitable for him, and that most people hope that the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) will cease his vendetta against the Archbishop?

As I have replied before to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) and to others, the commissioners seek a fair rent on residential properties and have special arrangements to deal with hardship cases. The Primate is the chairman of the Church Commissioners and, therefore, is kept fully informed, as are all Church Commissioners.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful for your guidance on the matter of Question Time. It is a convention in debates that hon. Members declare any financial interest at the beginning of a debate. I wonder whether it would not be prudent for you, Mr. Speaker, to advise hon. Members on what they should do during Question Time when they have a financial interest. For example, it may well be, in relation to question No. 17 by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), that he has an interest of some kind in tourism. Where that occurs, it would only be fair to the House and, more important, to those reading the record of our proceedings to see that any financial interest is declared. I know that the Register of Members' Interests has tended to fade into some degree of desuetude as there is not the easy access of publication that there should be. That lack of a declaration does not help the reputation of this House and tends to evoke criticism. To help you defend that criticism, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to advise hon. Members to make such declarations in debates and at Question Time in this Chamber.

It is a long-established custom in the House that a declaration of interest is not required from hon. Members during questions—only during debates.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that, if you had not allowed a point of order during Question Time to the Church Commissioners, question No. 26 and even possibly question No. 27 to the Secretary of State for Trade would have been reached?

The hon. Member knows that I normally do not take a point of order during Question Time. However, this point of order came at the very end of it. I doubt whether we would have taken another two questions. We might have had one.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would have referred to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), but he is not worth referring to.

What protection can you, Mr. Speaker, give to Back Benchers in the following circumstances? The Under-Secretary in answer to a question referred to increasing public expenditure, whereas in my supplementary question I made it clear that I was not asking for that. What protection do we have?

Order. I can never help any hon. Member who is dissatisfied with an answer.

Often, Mr. Speaker, you answer points of order by saying"It has been a tradition in this House." That may well be so. I can understand your relying on that in your answer. Nevertheless there are people both outside and inside the House who recognise that improvements and adjustments need to be made. Indeed, I am sure you will recognise that Parliament, if it is to keep abreast and answer criticisms, must produce some change. How shall we effect that change if, whenever a valid point is raised about financial interests within the Chamber and the House, the answer is always"We have always done it that way, so we shall not change it "?

Order. May I explain to the hon. Gentleman, first, that the House decided by resolution that a declaration of interest is not necessary at Question Time. As the House decided that, only the House—not I—may change the rule. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am the servant of the House. It is not for me to overrule the resolutions of the House.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that it must be within your recollection that last week the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) put to you a series of points about the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, who, the hon. Gentleman suggested, had some kind of personal interest as a result of his membership of the National Union of Public Employees. He suggested to the House that the Minister of State should declare his interest in a trade union—quite wrongly, because the Minister receives no private gain as a result of his membership of NUPE. However, here is another Member of Parliament who is directly employed to put a point of view on behalf of commercial interests to the House. The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that he receives personal profit from those interests. However, he has the brass neck to accuse the Minister of State of gaining from his membership of the union—

Order. I have explained the position to the House.

Mr. Neave (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the allegations made by the official doctor of the RUC about ill treatment of prisoners by the Constabulary.

Allegations of ill treatment can be effectively dealt with only if the cases are identified. As my right hon. Friend made clear at the time that he set up the Bennett committee to inquire into police interrogation procedures, there is an established system for dealing with complaints against the police under which any allegations of ill treatment are investigated, the results of the investigation being put to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, who decides whether to prosecute. The same standards of justice are applied to those suspected of crime, whether within the security forces or outside. I remind the House that the RUC is striving to protect the people of Northern Ireland from terrorists who would rob them of their most fundamental human right—the right to live, and to live in peace.

Although the allegations made are extremely serious, is the Minister aware that the"Weekend World"programme yesterday will be seen as a calculated attack on the administration of justice and the security forces in Northern Ireland? Is the Minister aware that in a radio interview today the editor declared that he brought forward the programme to pre-empt the Bennett report, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? Is it not therefore in the best interests of the RUC to publish that report immediately, so that if there are grounds for Dr. Irwin's allegations, urgent action may be taken by the Government? Would it not have been wiser in the circumstances, with a view to giving a more balanced impression, had the Government spokesman appeared in the programme to explain the position? Whatever the outcome of the report, we all owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the security forces for their courageous achievements in Northern Ireland.

I do not take the security forces for granted, and I shall certainly make sure that the hon. Gentleman's comment is passed on to them.

My right hon. Friend did not refuse to appear on the programme yesterday. He was invited to take part in a programme due to be shown later this month on the general working of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. It was obvious from the programme that it had been hastily brought forward. That is why it lacked basic content and fair judgment.

My right hon. Friend has had the Bennett report for a few days. He intends to report on this within the next two weeks. However, having read the report I know that it contains 160 pages of closely-typed foolscap. It has over 500 paragraphs. Therefore my right hon. Friend will need a little time to study it.

Is the Minister in a position to say how many cases Dr. Robert Irwin reported to the proper authorities, and how many cases went from them to the Director of Public Prosecutions?

Dr. Irwin has in some cases reported such findings in the proper way, but I should add that there were not as many as 150 cases, as was mentioned yesterday. In all cases where he made such reports he was interviewed about them by the police. The results of the police inquiries would have formed part of the material forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland, who is independent and who alone decides whether to prosecute.

My right hon. Friend will recall that, during the passage of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, the present Solicitor-General, the present Home Secretary and various other Ministers and members of the Cabinet were all concerned about the effects that the measure would have on the quality of justice in Northern Ireland in the long term. That was why we opposed it so much. Will my right hon. Friend therefore inform the House how many people have been convicted on their own statements in the courts, under the scheduled offences, and how many of those cases have resulted in allegations of police brutality and wrongful extraction of confessions?

Is my right hon. Friend able to inform the House why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not here to answer these questions? After the very serious allegations made yesterday about his failure to appear on the television programme, would it not have been a courtesy for him to be here to answer questions, much confidence though I have in my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to answer them?

I think that basically the questions that my hon. Friend is asking were contained in the Gardiner report, but I will make sure that the figures are given to him.

My right hon. Friend is in Belfast at the moment, conducting a security review, which he does every Monday morning. We in the Northern Ireland Office start work very early on Monday in order to get to our office in Northern Ireland. I can assure my hon. Friend that, long before the mechanics of this House were in operation, Ministers were well on their way to Northern Ireland.

In view of the total propriety of London Weekend Television's programme yesterday, does the Minister really feel that the Secretary of State did enough in regard to the programme in question? Knowing how much attention Northern Ireland gets at the moment, surely it was the duty of the Secretary of State or the Minister to give his side of the question.

As I said in my opening supplementary answer, the Secretary of State did not refuse to go on the programme. He was asked to appear on a programme to be shown later this month. It was obvious—as I think was obvious from the radio broadcast today—that yesterday's programme was brought forward only to pre-empt the Bennett report. That report will be out shortly and it might be better for the House to await it.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that to many of us, and to many people in the country of all shades of opinion who are very concerned about the continued operation of the emergency provisions, yesterday's television broadcast did a great service? Will he further accept that Dr. Irwin and those who were connected with the programme are to be congratulated on being prepared to stand up and say what many of us have long been trying to establish, namely, the fact that all is not well with the emergency provisions Act?

As question and answer across the Chamber do not provide the best way in which to deal with the problem, Mr. Speaker, will my right hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to initiate an early debate on the emergency provisions Act and security in Northern Ireland?

The emergency provisions Act is discussed from time to time in this House. We have to discuss it by statute at six-monthly intervals, and on those occasions the House is able to pass judgment on it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that at Question Time on Thursday he undertook that the Bennett report would be published shortly? We were glad of that. What excuse can there possibly be for anticipating, by a form of prosecution on television, without any defence, the publication of that report and its consideration by Members of this House? Should not this total impropriety—if I may disagree with the Liberal spokesman—be considered by the Independent Broadcasting Authority?

Mr. Concanonn:

I do not think that this is a question that should be directed at me or at my Department, which is not concerned with television ethics.

No matter how serious the security position in Northern Ireland, Mr. Speaker, it cannot excuse the beating up of prisoners who are under interrogation. Does not the Minister recognise that what is at issue is the question whether the complaints of Dr. Irwin have been properly investigated, and that the anodyne statement put out yesterday by the Northern Ireland Office did nothing to encourage conviction that the matter was being looked at seriously? Is not the real answer to the questions raised by Dr. Irwin to publish the Bennett report as soon as possible?

Mr. Concanonn:

My right hon. Friend set up the investigation as a result of the report by Amnesty International and some of the uncertainties indicated in that report. He has had the Bennett report for only a few days. As I have already said, it is 160 pages long and there are 500 paragraphs. My right hon. Friend must take some time in which to assimilate it. He will publish it as soon as he can.

I hope that the Bennett report will be published quickly and that it will be followed by a full debate. Is the Minister aware of the resentment that was caused by the remark on the television programme yesterday that members of the Parachute Regiment had opened fire on the civil rights march? Is the Minister aware that this is a travesty of recent history?

I can only reiterate that the Bennett report will be brought out as soon as my right hon. Friend can get it to the House with his own remarks about it. I think that the television programme was hastily brought forward and that it suffered because of that.

Several Hon. Members:

rose—

Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have already risen.

My right hon. Friend mentioned the fact that certain of these complaints have been investigated and that some are now in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland. Can he say whether the DPP has finished his inquiries, or whether those inquiries are awaiting the publication of the Bennett report?

The Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland receives a report on all complaints and decides whether to prosecute. Some of the allegations to which reference was made have already been to the Director of Public Prosecutions and he has made his decision on them.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that at the very end of yesterday's television programme Mr. Brian Walden said that the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State had been invited to participate in the programme? Will he clarify what he said a moment ago? Is he saying that no such invitation was extended to the Secretary of State?

I am saying that the Secretary of State did not refuse to appear on the programme yesterday. He was invited to take part in a programme due to be shown later this month, on the working of the emergency provisions Act generally. That was the programme that we expected would be going out later this month, after the report of the Bennett inquiry. It was obvious from the remarks on the radio today that yesterday's television programme was hastily brought forward in order to pre-empt the Bennett report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have had no opportunity of appearing on that programme when he had already been asked to appear on a later programme.

Will the Minister confirm that Dr. Irwin is a part-time police surgeon of some years' standing, and that he is a member of the council of the Association of Police Surgeons of Great Britain and a member of no political or denominational organisation?

Dr. Irwin is a member of the Association of Forensic Medical Officers of Northern Ireland, whose members have contracted with the police authority to attend police stations where necessary. Most members of the association are also engaged in general practice. As I have said, procedures exist for the investigation of allegations from whatever source they may come.

Is the Minister aware that it is now perfectly clear from the exchanges in the House that, in spite of the considerable length of the Bennett report, it really is a matter of urgency that it be published as soon as possible, and that the period of two weeks that he mentioned is too long? I ask the Minister to convey to his right hon. Friend the very strong feeling in all parts of the House that the report ought to be published as a matter of urgency.

I would say that it will be within the next week or two, as a maximum. We understand the urgency of this matter, and so does the RUC, whose name is being besmirched again. Very little appreciation is being expressed of the splendid work which it has been doing in the Province.

I acknowledge that there is general opposition in this House to all forms of terrorism, but will the Minister acknowledge the seriousness of the allegations made in yesterday's programme? Will he also tell the House whether his office, the RUC or the Army was given an opportunity of previewing the programme? Will he emphatically tell the House whether or not the Secretary of State was offered an opportunity of appearing in the programme? Lastly, if he has reason to object to the content of the programme, is he contemplating submitting an official complaint to the Independent Broadcasting Authority?

Again, I can hardly stress enough that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not refuse to appear in the programme yesterday. The whole thing was brought forward. I do not know that I can say any more, or that the matter gets any better for my reiterating this. There are no plans at present for doing anything that my hon. Friend has suggested. As we have said before in Northern Ireland, we are not against censorship of the media; we just wish that they would conduct themselves a bit more sensibly than they do.

Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that for many months those of us—and there are not many—who take part in Northern Ireland Question Time and Irish debates have been receiving letters from the relatives of imprisoned people denouncing the treatment in Long Kesh? Will he also accept from me that when Opposition Members say"Everything is perfect"and when anyone else says"Everything is wrong ", the truth probably lies somewhere between the two? It would be helpful if, without rushing to say that nothing is wrong—as a spokesman for the Northern Ireland Office did—some detailed inqury were made, even though we are waiting for the Bennett report. We have waited a long time. Until these suspicions are allayed there will be widespread worry about our reputation all over the world, and not only throughout Britain.

That is why my right hon. Friend set up the Bennett committee. That is why I say that the House should wait for the Bennett report. This has nothing to do with imprisonment in the Maze prison. This is to do with people in police custody.

Sir Bernard Braine (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning security on Ocean Island following the breakdown of the recent talks in Fiji on the Banaban question.

According to the latest reports available, the security situation on Banaba is at present quiet. When I met representatives of the Banabans in Rabi and Tarawa a few days go, I expressed the hope that the expedition of 150 Banabans which was then shortly to leave for Banaba would conduct itself in the island in an orderly way. All Banabans have a right to enter Banaba whenever they wish, provided their intentions are peaceful, but I pointed out that further acts of violence would only alienate sympathy for their cause among their many well-wishers in Britain and elsewhere.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer does not remove the anxieties that many of us feel in all quarters of the House that a tragic blunder has been committed? Will he confirm that he admitted to the Fijian Prime Minister last week that his meeting with the Banaban community on Fiji had left him in no doubt as to their determined opposition to being included in a Gilbertese republic, but that he had come out to the Pacific with no mandate to listen to their pleas for separation? Will the hon. Gentleman also confirm that, following this, the Fijian Prime Minister told his Parliament that the British Government policy over the Banabans was unfair, that it had ignored Fijian representations, that Fiji could not be insensitive to Banaban claims, and that Fiji would not be prepared to act as guarantor in future disputes between Banabans and the Gilbertese over Banaban rights on Ocean Island?

In view of the fact that the Government's manifestly clumsy and insensitive handling of this matter over a long time has now resulted in 154 Banabans setting sail for their Ocean Island homeland vowing that they will die in defence of their own rights—and they may very shortly arrive—will the British Government, even at this late hour, reconsider their position with a view to preventing almost inevitable conflict and bloodshed?

Finally, since the Government have themselves provoked this situation, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what additional British security forces will be sent to Ocean Island to prevent conflict between Banabans and Gilbertese, and how quickly those forces will arrive?

I do not think that the British Government have at any time concealed the fact that there exists a major difference of views between the Government of the Gilbert Islands, on the one hand, and the people of Banaba, on the other. I have certainly never concealed the fact—I did not conceal it in my interview with Mr. Ratu Mara, the Prime Minister of Fiji—that we believe that a very large proportion of the Banabans seek separation of Banaba from the Gilbert Islands.

This has not been the problem. The problem has been that the Government of the Gilbert Islands have been totally opposed to that separation. That was the situation with which we were confronted, as a result of which the British Government, in November, made a decision that the Gilbert Islands would go to independence including Banaba. Therefore, as I told Mr. Ratu Mara, my own mandate was to discuss ways of safeguarding the interests of the Banabans in a united Gilbert Islands. That I attempted to do, both in my discussions with the Banabans and in my discussions with the Fijian Government and with the Gilbert Islands Government. I believe that my visit was useful in enabling me to clarify some of these points.

The hon. Gentleman speaks about the danger of conflict and bloodshed. I suggest to him and to the Banabans, whom he has so strongly supported, that it would be unwise of the Banabans if they thought that they would promote their cause by deliberately seeking to promote conflict and violence in Banaba. I do not know that that is their aim. I hope that it is not their aim. That is why I told them myself, when I spoke to them in Rabi and again in Tarawa, that I thought that it would be misguided of them to believe any such thing, and I expressed the hope that they would conduct themselves in an orderly way.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the use of British security forces. I hope very much that such a thing will not be necessary.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Banabans are Fijian citizens and that the perverse and obtuse behaviour of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the Banabans and Ocean Island is causing trouble not only with the Banabans but with the Government of Fiji and is souring our relations with a country with which we have long had very friendly and good relations?

Is my hon. Friend also aware that responsibility for Ocean Island is a matter not for the Gilbert Islands Government but for the British Government, who are responsible for the present situation by their arbitrary act in linking Ocean Island with the Gilberts, and that the Gilbert Islands Government do not have the final responsibility in the matter? That responsibility rests with this House.

Of course I am aware that many of the Banabans are or may be Fijian citizens, although most of them are also citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies at present. One of the matters that I discussed with Mr. Ratu Mara was citizenship matters of this kind.

My hon. Friend is right. We are concerned about our relations with Fiji. But I am glad to say that I can conclude from my quite long conversation with the Prime Minister of Fiji that I do not think that there is any danger at present that our long-term relationship with Fiji will be badly prejudiced by this particular issue, although Mr. Ratu Mara did not conceal his own opinions on this subject.

Of course I accept that this matter is at present the responsibility of the British Government. I spoke earlier about the decisions that the British Government have reached on the question. No one doubts for a moment that, until the Gilbert Islands become independent, the decisions are those of the British Government. That is precisely why I was sent to the region to try to discuss the question. In the final resort, of course, the decisions are for this House. The House will have an opportunity in due course to express a view on the matter.

I was sent to the region particularly in order that the British Government's views should be known and so that I could discuss with the other interested parties possible compromise solutions.

Does not the Minister regard it as regrettable that, on Commonwealth Day, the Government's handling of the situation should be meeting the severe censure of the Fijian Prime Minister? In view of the orginal appalling injustice done to the Banaban people, will the Minister attempt now to get nearer to meeting their wishes in this matter?

I cannot accept that in my interview with Mr. Ratu Mara he expressed severe censure of the policy of the British Government. Even the statement issued about that meeting—a one-sided statement—did not suggest that he expressed severe censure of the British Government's policy, and it certainly was not the tone of our discussion at that time.

The hon. Gentleman talked about appalling injustice to the Banabans. I am sure that the House, if it considers the matter, will realise that the British Government were faced—as any British Government would be—with a very difficult dilemma on this issue. The question was whether we should do an injustice to the Banabans or an injustice to the people of the Gilbert Islands as a whole. The fact was that the people of the Gilbert Islands and the Government of the Gilbert Islands, whom I have seen within the last few days, have at no time concealed their very strong determination that Banaba should remain part of the Gilbert Islands.

Therefore, it was on that principle, a principle which has been adopted by successive British Governments—that it should be the will of the Government and the people of the territory as a whole that is decisive—that we decided that Banaba should not be separated from the Gilbert Islands.

Several Hon. Members:

rose—

I propose to call those hon. Members who have already risen.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it may be very difficult to get the Kiribati independence Bill through the House so long as this question remains unresolved? Is he also aware that a peaceful solution is much more important that a rapid solution and the absolute adherence to deadlines? Did he explore with Ratu Mara and the Fijian Government forms of association with Fiji or Nauru as possible alternatives to the present alternatives set out in the White Paper?

My hon. Friend said that, as the matter was unresolved, we should allow further time for looking at other solutions. One of the main purposes of my visit was to consider what compromise solutions might be possible. I proposed to the various parties with whom I discussed the matter forms of self-government for the Banabans within their own island, further assurances that could be given to them that they would continue to enjoy their rights, which we have ensured should be provided for them under the independence Bill, and even the possibility of a treaty between the Gilberts and some other country which would help to ensure that those rights were protected. Those were reasonable compromises to explore. I do not believe that my journey was in vain.

I agree that we should not be too hasty about these matters. But the House knows that the Government of the Gilbert Islands have been promised that they will enjoy their independence in July this year. That is already a postponement from the date originally suggested, so I hope that we can reach a solution before then.

My hon. Friend asked about the possibility of association with Fiji, Nauru or some other territory. All these ideas have been proposed in the past. They were certainly mentioned in the course of my discussions. But I must make clear that I had a mandate. That mandate was to act in accordance with the decision that had already been reached by the British Government last November, which was that Banaba itself would remain, in some form, associated with the Gilbert Islands.

Would not the best way to prevent disorder be to restore the shattered faith of the Banaban people in the integrity of the British Government by saying directly to the Gilbertese that we cannot associate Ocean Island with Gilbertese independence in the way they propose? Would it not be fairer to the Gilbertese people to say that we in this House do not want to delay their independence but that it is likely to be delayed if this question is inextricably bound up with it?

The hon. Gentleman and perhaps the House as a whole seem to forget that this matter has been discussed, debated and explored over several years. There have been a number of meetings between the Banabans and the Gilbertese and between them both and the British Government. There was a long discussion of the question at the Gilbert Islands independence conference in London in November. There was about a week's discussion on the matter. All sides were listened to carefully. As a result, the Government reached a decision. There is no reason to think that by delaying the matter much further it would be any easier to reach a decision. Eventually, as Ratu Mara said to me, a decision must be reached. He urged us to reach a decision quickly on the matter.

Has my hon. Friend any evidence of external interference or aid in the disturbances which have occurred recently on Ocean Island? Will he ensure that a clear distinction is made between the question of compensation for the Ocean Islanders from the British Phosphate Commission and the question of independence for the Gilbert Islands, remembering that many Members are concerned about the Gilbert Islanders as well as the Banabans?

On the first part of my hon. Friend's question relating to external influence and aid for the Banabans—

The Methodist Church?

—they have decided, in their own judgment, to engage certain public relations firms and others who have been assisting them in promoting their cause. I am willing to say—it was the first answer I gave this afternoon—that most of the Banabans are sincere in their view about this matter. We have to take account of their strongly held views. My hon. Friend rightly says that the constitu- tional question with which we have been mainly concerned in the House today is distinct from the problem of compensation for the Banabans. As the House knows, the British Government have made what we believe is a fairly generous offer to try to resolve the financial question. We accept that the important matter of the constitutional future of the Banabans is something separate which the Government and I have been exploring on a separate basis in the last week or so.

Do not these instances of frustration arise from the Banabans' conviction that the British Government's mind has been, is, and will remain closed to their genuine grievance? Will those doubts be assuaged by the Minister's unprecedented eleventh-hour visit to the Pacific?

It would be unjustified to suggest that the British Government's mind has been closed at any time on these questions. I have already mentioned that we had a long discussion of the whole problem at the Gilbert Islands independence conference. We listened to arguments on both sides. No stone has been left unturned in exploring possible ways out of this dilemma. We have listened many times to the arguments on the question.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's remark that my visit was an attempt to go to the last limit in exploring all possible avenues and all possible means of compromise. I hope that I was putting forward some proposals that might represent a mutually acceptable compromise to try to meet positions that are almost diametrically opposed. By talking about autonomy for Banaba and about safeguards for the protection of their interests, I thought it might be possible to arrive at a solution acceptable to both parties.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is reminiscent of the Anguilla situation, when Anguilla was forced into a union that she did not want? The consequent history of that is still going on. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it would be far better to delay bringing forward independence for the Gilbert Islands until a solution has been found that meets the wishes of Banaba rather than putting the Government into an embarrassing position of having to go back again on a Bill which is unlikely to get the assent of this Parliament?

My hon. Friend mentions a parallel with Anguilla. I agree that there are some parallels, but there is one major difference which the House ought to bear in mind. We have no knowledge of what is likely to be the future population of Banaba. Over the last few years only about 50 or 100 Banabans have lived in Banaba. The great majority of the total population of 2,400 Banabans have lived in Fiji. In considering whether Banaba should be separated or remain part of the Gilbert Islands, we have to take account of the fact that it looks as if the future population will be very small—perhaps 100 or 200—and very much smaller than the population of Anguilla.

My hon. Friend also said that it would be worth delaying the independence of the Gilbert Islands in order to explore this matter further. This view can be expressed and I will report it to my colleagues in the Government. But we have discussed this issue for three or four years in many different forms. My hon. Friend knows that herself because she was concerned with the issue at one time. We could hardly have done more to listen to many expressions of views. We have tried to explore all possible compromise solutions that we could devise. That was the reason for my recent visit.

The tense situation on Ocean Island arises from the anxiety of the Banabans about their rights on that island. I acknowledge that the Minister, I understand, has paid a fresh visit to the Pacific area in the light of strong representations from this side of the House which arose from the comprehensive and forceful case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine),leading the campaign for justice for the Banabans—an all-party campaign—which reflects the genuine anxieties of the Banabans.

Will the Minister make a full and complete statement as soon as possible about the mission that he has recently made to the Pacific and before the Second Reading of the Bill in this House so that hon. Members may assess the situation carefully? While we on this side of the House genuinely wish to see the aspiration of friends in the Gilbert Islands fully succeeding, namely, that they proceed to independence, we also believe that the British Government should give the highest priority to ensuring that the genuine anxieties of the Banabans are allayed.

The hon. Member asked me about making a statement. I got back only this morning from a fairly long visit to the area and I have spent most of the morning dictating my own report to the Government about my visit. That report will have to be considered, and then no doubt a statement will be made to the House and to the other place about the Government's conclusions as a result of my visit.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that we should give the highest priority to considering the apprehensions of the Banabans. I repeat that we fully recognise their concern. It was precisely because of our recognition of their strong feelings on this subject that the Government decided to send me to the area to see whether I could explore some compromise acceptable to all parties. Because, as I have said, the views of both major parties are diametrically opposed, it is very difficult, but I hope that in my report I shall be able to suggest one or two ways which might go some way to alleviating the difficulties.

Last Thursday, the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) raised with me the matter of the Draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (ECSC Decision on Supplementary Revenues) Order 1979. He suggested that the implications of the order were such as to it make its discussion and approval by another place a breach of the privileges of this House. I undertook to rule on the point that he raised.

As the House knows, the draft order seeks to give effect to a decision of the Governments and the member States of the European Coal and Steel Community allocating to that Community additional contributions for the financial year 1978. Among those contributions is one from the United Kingdom.

I have examined the matter with care since the hon. Gentleman raised it and I have two observations to make. In the first place, section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972 provides that draft orders of this type, defining certain Community treaties as treaties within the meaning of the Act, shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament. Indeed, section 2(3) of that Act expressly envisages a charge arising from an obligation under a treaty approved in that way.

Secondly, in his submission to me last Thursday the hon. Member said that there was a tradition that the other House should in no circumstances grant or refuse Supply. However, I have to say that all Appropriation, Consolidated Fund or Finance Bills pass through normal statutory procedures and so are considered by another place.

As for statutory instruments, their procedures are governed by the Acts under which they are made. If, as in this case, the parent Act provides that the instrument requires approval by both Houses or is subject to annulment by either House, that is the procedure that must be followed.

In the circumstances, I do not find that this is an issue that touches on the privileges of the House. However, I congratulate the hon. Member on being so keen to guard our rights and privileges.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that ruling, which I must confess I somewhat expected. I think that it shows that the House must be careful about legislation. When it passes a parent Act, it must ensure that it understands exactly what the implications are. I am not sure that when we passed the European Communities Act in 1972, after the imposition of a severe guillotine, we knew exactly what the implications were.

You said, Mr. Speaker, that there were ample precedents for this and that this statutory instrument is no different from many others that grant Supply. Nevertheless, is it not the case that even though the Finance Bill is discussed by the other place, it cannot refuse Supply? Is it true that if it refuses to pass this order the Supply could not be made? The answer to that question would be interesting.

Perhaps the Lord President, who is present, would like to consider my second point. The amount involved here is £3·25 million. Are we to suppose that at some future date perhaps £30 million or £60 million will have to go through the same procedure, thus giving the House of Lords the right of refusal of Supply to a significant degree? The Lord President should consider this and perhaps make a statement.

The point of order was addressed to me and not to the Lord President—who no doubt is counting his blessings.

The hon. Gentleman has raised two interesting questions, but they are hypothetical. By long tradition, no Speaker of the House ever rules on or answers hypothetical questions. We should get into too much trouble if we did so.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make a point that may be for you? If it is not, I hope that the Lord President will reply to it on Friday evening, when there is an Adjournment debate touching on this issue. You said that the European Communities Act contained a section that made provision for making a charge upon the Consolidated Fund under a statutory instrument laid under section 1(3). Is it unique that a statutory instrument of itself becomes the means of paying money out of the Consolidated Fund and therefore under the Appropriation Act?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this is not a precedent—that there have been other occasions when statutory instruments involving expenditure have been subject to proceedings in both Houses. There were the Hill Farming Act 1946 and the Agriculture Act 1967, both of which made provision for statutory instruments to go before both Houses.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I take your point that Consolidated Fund and other Bills go to the other place, but I think that I am right in saying that the other place has no power to reject them. If that is correct, is it the case that although this order may have to go before the other place, the other place cannot negative it?

All I know is that it has to go before the other place; we shall find out afterwards what happens to it. I really do not know any more than that at the moment.

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific, urgent and important matter, namely, the television programme yesterday known as ' Weekend World ', which, because of inaccuracies, distortions, biased opinions and uncorroborated and untested statements making serious allegations of dereliction of or failure in duty, in the total absence of balance as required by statute, must bring into disrepute the law in Northern Ireland and its enforcement by undermining the integrity and the authority of the judiciary, the police and the Army, as well as encouraging terrorist prisoners convicted of serious crimes to defy the prison authorities and giving aid and comfort to the terrorists of the Provisional IRA, an illegal organisation. Those are strong words, but I propose to stand by each and every one of them. I have in my possession an advance press release from London Weekend Television. It claims, amongst other things, that the programme was the result of six months' research into the whole operation of the law in the Province, and it comes only days before the expected publication of a report by the Bennett committee. The programme was badly researched and lacked the balance required by the statute. There appears to be a belief that if there are Protestants and Catholics on a programme it is balanced, regardless of the substance of what they say.

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I want him to advance his case, but I shall be grateful if he will state his reasons why these things should be discussed in an emergency debate.

I was coming to that, Mr. Speaker. The programme cast serious aspersions not only on the judges of Northern Ireland but on the entire legal system. It cast aspersions on the police and the Army. In the difficult situation in Northern Ireland, that can have dreadful consequences. It is important that those misleading and erroneous statements should be corrected before there are sad consequences in our Province.

There were many disastrous allegations that were inadequately researched. The centrepiece was the so-called evidence given by a police surgeon, Dr. Robert Irwin, who manifestly failed to convince anyone that he was speaking with real authority. He alleged that between 150 and 160 cases that he personally examined involved brutality. But he did not indicate—nor was he asked to do so—that he had performed his statutory duty in reporting what he found. Indeed, we know from the Minister today that he did not report anything like 150 or 160 cases. We shall no doubt have more accurate information as the police investigation continues.

Dr. Irwin went on to say with remarkable carelessness, if nothing worse, that he had seen five cases of punctured eardrums. The advance press release states that ruptured eardrums are one of the most serious injuries and could not possibly be self-inflicted. Neither you nor I, Mr. Speaker, have medical qualifications, but many of us have had ear troubles and ruptured eardrums. Ruptured eardrums can be a self-inflicted injury. Anyone who has brought up children knows that there is a danger of their sticking things in their ears. Those who have served in the Royal Air Force and suffered ruptured eardrums will know that by holding the nostrils and blowing hard the rupture can recur. What the doctor was saying was manifestly not true.

Order. Again I regret interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but he must not make the speech that he would make if I had granted the application for an emergency debate. He should be making out a case for an emergency debate.

I apologise, Mr. Speaker, if I have been over-zealous in proving the vast scope of the programme and the harm that it has done, but I have a duty to stand by what I say. There are other examples of what I can only conclude to be a deliberate bias by the producers. People were asked to give their views on confessions. One of them said that the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act has provided a legislative mandate to allow the police to obtain confessions at a standard lower than that in Britain. A natural effect of that is that they will apply extra pressure to obtain a confession. I gave a filmed interview for the programme on the law as I saw it.

Order. The House is getting restless. The right hon. Gentleman is answering yesterday's television interview, which is what he would do if we had an emergency debate. He must advance arguments about the serious consequences if we do not have such a debate, if I may put words into the right hon. Gentleman's mouth.

The right hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely, the serious allegations made in the television programme ' Weekend World ' which brings into disrepute the law in Northern Ireland. I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman and also to the exchanges in the House earlier this afternoon. I have no doubt about the importance of the matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but I have to take account of several factors set out in Standing Order No. 9 and I am required to give no reasons for my decision. I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.