Mr Ivor Richard: I do not think the hon. Gentleman understood my point. The criticism made in Salisbury—a criticism which I thought was being echoed by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire—was that the Commission did not get on with its work quickly enough and that the exercise took too long. If the hon. Gentleman did not say that I withdraw it, but that was certainly one of Mr. Smith's complaints. The...
Mr Ivor Richard: I have read the names of the Commissioners who carried out the assessments and I have given the experience which they had of the area, including that of the members of the two teams who worked out the method by which the intimidation was to be assessed. They were the people who assessed the intimidation, who viewed the comprehension of the Africans, and who finally came up with that...
Mr Ivor Richard: The Foreign Secretary will know that in his comments on the Pearce Report Mr. Smith said that sanctions had become much less effective since the proposed settlement with the United Kingdom last November. Does the Foreign Secretary share the view that sanctions have weakened within the last six months? If he takes that view, will he tell the House what he will do about it?
Mr Ivor Richard: Is it not totally clear that any possibility of reconvening the Geneva Conference has long since gone? Is it not also quite clear that the United States Government is bent on a process of extraction from Vietnam and is it not rather squalid that the best warriors in Vietnam at the moment seem to be, not from the United States of America, but on the back benches opposite?
Mr Ivor Richard: According to the Order Paper, I am supposed to be raising on the Adjournment of the House what is described as the subject of uniformity of detention for those convicted of identical crimes. It is true that what I shall have to say will have some general application, but what I propose to raise this evening can better be described as the specific sentences which were passed on the various...
Mr Ivor Richard: With great respect, Six Robert, I am reasonably well aware of the rules governing Adjournment debates. Had I not thought there was Ministerial responsibility I would never have asked for an Adjournment debate, and had there not been any Ministerial responsibility I am certain that Mr. Speaker would not have granted it. The second half of my argument will be devoted to trying to establish how...
Mr Ivor Richard: But no court has ever reviewed—indeed no court could ever do so—all the sentences which were passed on all the robbers at one and the same time. Nobody has sat down and compared the individuals, all of whom were convicted.
Mr Ivor Richard: I am not saying that. I am saying that in the case to which I have referred there is a clear unfairness and that in those circumstances it would be right for the Parole Board to try to correct that unfairness.
Mr Ivor Richard: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify two points? First, when can we expect the statement from his right hon. Friend? Will we receive it before the Whitsun Recess? Does he realise that hon. Members on this side and the country generally are anxious that this matter should be disclosed soon? Second, irrespective of what the report contains, may we have an undertaking on behalf of Her Majesty's...
Mr Ivor Richard: Will the right hon. Gentleman now publish, so that we can all read the memorandum which appar- ently The Guardian, half the States of Europe and half the foreign Press have read?
Mr Ivor Richard: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the Immigration Act of last year and, indeed, the very offensive concept of patriality which was introduced into the law by that Act causes much more difficulty and offence to British subjects trying to get into the United Kingdom than does the problem raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith)? Is the hon....
Mr Ivor Richard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware the recent events in Vietnam cause those of us on this side of the House deep concern? Secondly, is he aware that we adhere to our previously stated policy that the only way to bring this conflict to an end is by reconvening the Geneva Conference? Thirdly, is he aware that we would condemn in the strongest possible terms the Government of the United States of...
Mr Ivor Richard: The right hon. Gentleman is showing no sense of urgency on this matter. Is he aware that although some of us agree that this particular problem and others similar can, perhaps, not be primarily solved by individual solutions along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), we should wish to express our strong support for the Ostpolitik now being pursued so...
Mr Ivor Richard: I beg to move Amendment No. 71, in page 2, line 6 at end insert: Provided that in respect of local sound broadcasting only the Minister and the Authority shall from time to time draw up and publish after consultation with all interested parties a statement setting out the criteria they shall adopt as to programme content and quality, advertising duration and nature, and the extent to which...
Mr Ivor Richard: I am not sure whether I made the point clear, in view of the flavour of some of the hon. Member's remarks. When I use the phrase "minority interest programmes" I am talking about taste and not about an identifiable group of people marked out by race or language—
Mr Ivor Richard: If the hon. Member understands, then my intervention is superfluous. I was not sure he did.
Mr Ivor Richard: The hon. Gentleman is talking about what loosely we have described as Radio Scunthorpe, a small radio station in a relatively small town in which the death of Mr. X is an important piece of information to disseminate. That will not be the structure under the Bill. We shall have Radio London, Radio Manchester, Radio Birmingham and Radio Glasgow. The hon. Gentleman ran a pirate station and his...
Mr Ivor Richard: The hon. Gentleman is being less than fair to my argument. The fact remains that we shall not get Radio Scunthorpe but, for example, Radio London serving eight million people. I am asking him, with Radio London as a regional rather than a local commercial station, why should there not be a distinct obligation written into the Bill to ensure that balanced programmes are provided, including the...
Mr Ivor Richard: With permission, I will briefly comment on the right hon. Gentleman's reply. He said that we have had this debate before. We have indeed. We have often asked the same questions as we put to him today—in fact, ever since the White Paper was published in March, 1971. We had a debate in May, 1971. We then asked what sort of commercial radio network we were to get. We asked again on Second...
Mr Ivor Richard: The Minister will know that the extension of the B.B.C. local radio stations on to the medium waveband has been held up by the preparation of the general frequency plan. Even if he is not in a position to tell us a great deal about the overall position, if the frequency plan is likely to be seriously delayed, will he assure us that the B.B.C will nevertheless be permitted to expand its local...
