Lords Sitting of 12 December 1968

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

MENTAL HOSPITALS AND FIRE SAFETY
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the fire safety regulations are adequate in respect of mental hospitals and other establishments for mentally and physically handicapped persons; and how frequently, on average, fire safety drills, and other precautions are put in practice in those establishments under the jurisdiction of the National Health Service.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, all hospital authorities have comprehensive standing guidance about fire precautions, which takes full account of the fact that many of the people who would be at risk would be physically or mentally handicapped. No statistics are available showing the average frequency with which fire drills or other precautions are put into practice in individual hospitals, but the guidance I have referred to stresses the importance of holding such drills at least twice a year. The Government attach great importance to this matter, and earlier this year all hospital authorities were again reminded of the need to conform to the guidance issued.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that careful reply, may I ask him whether he is aware of the great concern arising out of the tragic fire at Shelton Hospital, in Shropshire? Can he say whether any of our older mental hospitals have barred windows? And can he further say whether
628
he is satisfied that there is adequate staffing of locked wards, particularly where smoking is allowed, as there is evidence, particularly from the tragic fire in Glasgow, that inflammable substances and cigarettes can be a major cause of these tragedies?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the report on the tragic fire at Shelton has been received by my right honourable friend. He is considering it at the moment and intends to place copies of it in the Libraries of both Houses very shortly. On the question of bars, the guidance to which I referred contains a comprehensive section on escape routes, which I commend to the noble Lord's attention, and both the guidance and a recent updating of it have sections advising the proper course to hospital authorities as regards smoking.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, does the noble Lord think that twice a year is sufficient, because both patients and staff are apt to change? Would not it be preferable to have these fire drills at least once a quarter?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I will bring that point to the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lords reply to the first supplementary, I did not quite understand whether it is now the policy to do away entirely with barred windows in mental hospitals or whether some mental hospitals keep their barred windows.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I was not asked that question. It is certainly the policy to get rid of barred windows and locked doors, and all such things, from mental hospitals. Whether there are still some hospitals with barred windows I cannot say without notice.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, apart from the question of barred windows, can the noble Lord say whether there are any mental hospitals for children where the children are restrained in their beds, as was the case in a recent fire in France, when some children were killed?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I cannot answer that question without notice.

GAMING LAW PROSECUTIONS
3.10 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majestys Government how many prosecutions under the existing gaming laws have taken place outside the London area in the past 12 months.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I regret that the figures for twelve months to the present date are not readily available; but I am obtaining, and will send to the noble Lord, the figures relating to prosecutions during 1967 and the first six months of this year.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask him a supplementary question? Is the Home Secretary satisfied that the police are doing all they can to prosecute under the present law?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords, quite satisfied.

GAMING CLUBS
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, whether, since the practical administration and control of gaming places by the Gaming Board will depend on the number of gaming places, they will consider reducing that number, not to 300 as recently mentioned in another place, but to 15 or 20, as in France.]
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is the intention that the number of clubs should be restricted to that necessary to meet the irreducible demand; but it is unrealistic to suppose that they could be reduced to as few as 15 or 20 without grave danger of driving gaming into criminal hands. The noble Lord is mistaken in his analogy with France, where there are at least 150 casinos, in addition to other clubs where gaming takes place.

IMMIGRATION: CONTROL OF LANDINGS
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, having regard to the scale of evasion in the landing from the sea and on the South Coast of a number of nationals from Pakistan, for which a British national was convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment, whether adequate facilities are available to the Customs and Coastguard services of the United Kingdom to prevent such breaches of the immigration laws]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the task of controlling immigration does not belong primarily to the Customs or the Coastguard. However, the Customs exercise a general control over the movement of ships around our shores, as a measure against smuggling, and they are concerned to prevent unlawful landings. The Coastguard and the police co-operate in this; and the case referred to by the noble Lord is a good example of that co-operation.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I am somewhat uneasy at his answer. Is the position really satisfactory when out of 21½ million people who entered and were cleared through British ports in the 12-month period to September 30 1968, only two persons were detected for illegal landing and evasion of control from the sea to the coast, and only one person was prosecuted and convicted? Would the noble Lord understand that what I am calling attention to is the colossal movement of persons and this one prosecution and conviction in the period I have mentioned. Can the noble Lord—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, the object of asking a question is not just to call attention. If the noble Lord would seek some genuine information, I think it would be more consistent with our procedure.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, could the noble Lord give some information of what steps are being taken to prevent evasions of this nature?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, first of all, the 1968 Act of course changed the situation considerably. It made it illegal for anybody to land and also made it illegal for anyone to bring over anybody illegally. It also extended the time in which the authorities could accost and send back persons who had landed illegally. Although there have been few prosecutions, the noble Lord did not quote the number of people who have been returned. That is one point. The other is that there has been a good deal of improvement in the co-operation between the police authorities and the Customs, and they are now much better equipped than they were with modern aids. I should have thought that the situation was now much more under control.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it not quite wrong to suggest that there is in fact large-scale evasion of the law in this matter? Is it not really a question of keeping it in perspective?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I quite agree, and I thought the figures the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, gave could indicate, not that we have been lax in detection but that there had been few cases to apprehend.

SHARING OF CHURCH BUILDINGS BILL [H.L.]
3.16 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the sharing and using of church buildings by different Churches and for matters connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is the customary Motion at this time of year.
Moved, That until the House adjourns for the Recess at Christmas, Standing
632
Order No. 35 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended so far as is necessary to give Government Business, except with the consent of the Government, precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day; and that Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended during the same period.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADVOCATES' WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
House in Committee: Clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª —(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Bill read 3ª: an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ARMY ACT 1955 (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1968
3.20 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, I beg to move that the Army Act 1955 (Continuation) Order 1968, the draft of which was laid before the House on October 30 last, be approved. In so doing, I will speak also on the Air Force Act 1955 (Continuation) Order 1968.
The Army and Air Force Acts 1961 and the Armed Forces Act 1966, continue the system of Annual Orders in Council and Quinquennial Acts brought into being by the Army and Air Force Acts 1955. The Orders which are before your Lordships to-day are the second to be made under the 1966 Act. Unless unforeseen circumstances arise, we shall not need to pass further legislation until 1971. To-day provides an opportunity to refer briefly to personnel matters. If I use the word "briefly" it is in a relative sense, because I though that it might be helpful if I gave your Lordships a certain amount of statistical information about both recruiting and discipline which might be useful for a future occasion when I understand we shall be debating defence in greater depth than we are able to do to-day.
In the Army, recruiting is currently our most difficult preoccupation. In 1966, the Army succeeded in recruiting 19,500 men from civil life. There was a fall-off in recruitment in 1967 to 15,440 and the trend has continued. The total intake for 1968 looks like being about 11,000 and on April 1 next year we shall have some 9,500 men less than we need. In the Royal Air Force recruitment is more satisfactory. There was a fall-off earlier this year in the number recruited to the ground trades, but this trend has now been halted. Since August the figures have shown some improvement, although we should like to attract more men, especially into the less popular trades. Recruitment of airmen aircrew is limited to air electronic operators, air engineers, and air quartermasters, and the targets for the current year have not yet been fully met. In all, we expect to recruit about 4,700 adult airmen in 1968 as compared with 5,300 in the preceding year.
634
As your Lordships will expect, we are examining all the circumstances which have given rise to these difficulties over recruiting. The main reason is the manpower reductions. Public attention has focused almost exclusively on the defence cuts and not on the many attractions a career in the Services still has. As noble Lords know, the Services offer as wide a range of career opportunities as any other comparable profession. Despite the cut in numbers, a young man joining the Army or Royal Air Force now—in the ranks or as a cadet—has as good a prospect of promotion as ever before. Moreover, he will be promoted on ability and experience and throughout his Service life will be most efficiently trained to cope with his next job. Training at all levels is very good, in quality and progression, and leaves men with many opportunities to use their initiative in their work.
My Lords, once the redeployment of the Services has been completed, the concentration of our Forces in the NATO area will bring a new sense of stability and of purpose and understanding of where they are heading. For at bottom this country's security rests in keeping the peace in Europe. If there is serious trouble on the Continent, there is serious trouble for Britain. The Services have played a full part in NATO's achievement of keeping the peace in Europe for the last twenty years. Their continuance with this vital contribution will be their major role in the 1970s. I am confident that these short-term difficulties can be overcome. But we still have to consider the effect of long-term social and demographic factors upon recruitment. These, I am afraid, do not run in our favour.
First, there has been in the past few years a decline in the number of young men aged between 15 and 19 years, compared with the early 'sixties. In 1966 there were 2·199 million of them: in 1968 it is reckoned that there will be only 1·997 million. The great majority of our recruits are drawn from this age group. The large decline in its numbers is bound to affect recruitment to the Army and Royal Air Force. This decline continues until 1973 and the trend reverses slowly. Secondly, the number of school leavers with higher qualifications and grater ambitions is growing. Traditionally, these men have not looked to the ranks of the Army or Royal Air Force as a career.

635
Not only do school leavers now stay longer in full-time education, but they are offered further training by civilian employers under the Industrial Training Act. Hitherto, one of the attractions of the Army and Royal Air Force has been the first-class trade training they can offer. Attractive conditions of service and work are now offered by civilian employers. The effect of all this is to place the Army and Royal Air Force in keener competition with civilian employers than hitherto. The two points I have mentioned are the most important long-term factors, but it is also interesting to note that the rising proportion of young men marrying early must also have an adverse effect on the number of recruits.
The House should not get the impression, however, that recruiting prospects for the future are of unrelieved gloom. In the first place, we are taking active steps to improve our recruiting procedures. Recruiting work for the Army and Royal Air Force will continue to be centred on Careers Information Offices, and new offices for the Royal Air Force have been opened at Inverness and Stoke-on-Trent. A programme is in hand to re-locate a number of badly sited offices in more suitable premises in town centres. The work of these offices will also be improved and their coverage increased by sub-dividing each area, and setting up local offices run under the direction of energentic warrant officers, as a joint venture by the three Services.
We are also conducting a pilot experiment in centralised selection for the Army in Southern Command. The aim is to increase the proportion of satisfied soldiers and to reduce initial wastage by careful testing and selection before the recruit is allocated to a particular regiment or corps. At the moment it is only when the recruits report to their regiment or corps depots that the process of specialised assessment begins and they are allocated to an appropriate trade or employment. In future this process will take place at the selection centre and there will be a better opportunity to fit round pegs into round holes. This experiment began in October this year, and we are hopeful that it will have promising results.
Second, our recruiting campaign to persuade people that the Services continue to provide a good career, and that
636
they form an essential part of our community, should start to produce results early next year. Third, one good feature of the present manning position is the prolongation of service in the Army continuing at the high rate reached in 1967 for the six-year-men—over 50 per cent. as compared with 42 per cent. in 1966 and 36 per cent. in 1964 and 1965. There has been an increase over last year in the number of applications for re-engagement in the Royal Air Force, with an average quarterly rate for the first nine months of 1968 of 1,116 re-engagements or extensions compared to quarterly rates of 998 and 1,035 in 1966 and 1967 respectively. Within the Services, Servicemen are convinced of the worthwhile nature of their task.
Another bright feature for the Army is that we are now recruiting boys at a rate not far below that of last year, although the proportion of apprentices compared with other juniors has declined. Up to the end of September last year, we had recruited 5,266 boys. So far this year we have recruited 4,978. The third quarter of this year is an improvement over the third quarter of last year. It takes up to two years for boys to enter man's service, but this trend is very encouraging. For the Royal Air Force, the recruitment of engineering technician apprentices has improved, though more are still needed to meet the full requirement. In discussing the problem of recruitment we should remember that we need an average of 16,500 men a year for the Army and 8,500 a year for the Royal Air Force to ensure that in 1974 we shall have a properly balanced Army and Air Force in age, rank, skill and experience.
The question is constantly being asked why we need recruits when men are being made redundant. The point is that soldiers and airmen can no longer be offered jobs in the same rank or trade because there are no vacancies for them in a smaller Army and Royal Air Force. We cannot suddenly ask them to become, for example, private soldiers in an Infantry battalion. The only fair treatment is to make them redundant. Nevertheless, the extent of redundancy has been kept to a minimum, because the drop in recruiting has enabled us to absorb many soldiers and airmen of junior rank to meet deficiencies elsewhere. Volunteers for redundancy are selected

637
wherever possible, and the number of those made compulsorily redundant in the two Services has, up to now, been small: in the Army, 557 out of a possible total of 3,728; in the Royal Air Force, 248 out of a total of 1,416 who have left as redundant.
I now turn to officer recruitment. Here we are just about holding our own. For the Army, while there are some shortages most arms and services are up to strength in officers. The main exception is a shortage of doctors in the Royal Army Medical Corps and less serious deficiencies in other professional Corps. The recruitment of permanent Army Regular officers does not therefore pose too difficult a problem. But there are also nonpermanent officers who play an increasingly important part in the Army. The Special Regular Commission has made a promising start in attracting serving soldiers. We should like more applicants from outside the Army. For the ordinary three-year short service commission we have, as the house will know, made arrangements with the Confederation of British Industry whereby a Short Service Commission will lead direct to a career in industry. The scheme is already proving a success. It has resulted in an increase in the numbers and an improvement in the quality of candidates coming forward for a short service commission.
For the Royal Air Force, the position is much the same as last year. The level of recruitment for most branches of the R.A.F. is adequate, and sufficient candidates have presented themselves for the maintenance of a high standard of selection. The figures taken by themselves do not, of course, indicate the great care taken in selecting and training officers. The high cost and complexity of modern aircraft and weapons systems demand both from aircrew and from those supporting them on the ground the highest mental and physical fitness.
An officer to-day is given educational opportunities comparable to those that exist outside the Services, and is assisted in developing fully the intellectual qualities demanded by a Service career. It is our intention to increase as much as we can the number of officers who obtain places at universities throughout the country, and although the number of university cadets in residence is slightly increased it is not as high as we should
638
wish. We also recruit direct-entry graduates, and here the statistics are encouraging, especially when it is remembered that we are competing for their talents in a very crowded market. There has been a slight, very slight, improvement in recruiting for those branches requiring professional qualifications, but notably in the engineer and medical branches the deficiency still causes some concern. The shortage here reflects national shortages in this field.
I must now pass on from recruiting to discipline which, of course, forms the main subject matter of the Act. I am glad to say that the latest statistics show that the high standard of discipline within the two Services continues to be maintained. In the Army there have been no significant changes over the last twelve months in the overall numbers of officers and men convicted by courts-martial; the pattern of the last few years continues. Our only cause for concern is an increase in absence without leave offences. This offence has constituted a gradually increasing proportion d the total courts-martial convictions since 1964. The reasons for this are complex, but are undoubtedly associated with the return of units to this country and the increasing vulnerability of the m in to personal factors outside the Army. Every attempt is being made to mitigate the problem by sympathetic treatment, imaginative training, improved conditions and sound man-management and administration. There has been a slight decrease in the number of appeal petitions to the Army Board—15 as against 16 in the previous year—while the number of cases taken to the Appeal Court—eight—remained unchanged. No appeals were upheld by the Appeal Court last year, and there were no changes in sentence.
In the Royal Air Force, the number of courts-martial has again shown a considerable drop compared with previous figures, and proportionately far larger than the drop in manpower. Last year I said the figure was 2·45 for every thousand members of the R.A.F. This year it is 2·013. This means a total of only 240, in 228 of which the accused was convicted. The number of offences tried summarily by commanding officers has fallen to 116 per thousand personnel. In the year ending September 30, 1968, there were only two petitions to the Air

639
Force Board against findings and sentences of courts-martial. Both were rejected. Under the Courts-Martial Appeals Act, three appeal petitions were presented. All these were rejected by the Air Force Board and no appellants pursued their appeals to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court. Courts-martial, of course, represent only one extreme aspect of Service discipline and it is happily only a very small proportion of soldiers and airmen who are likely to face a court-martial at any time during their Service career.
To my mind, a much more important aspect of discipline is the self-discipline which springs from good morale and a sense of purpose, the "Service spirit" engendered by co-operative endeavours in training and other activities, and by the high standards set and demanded at all levels. Much of it depends on the common sense and wisdom of commanding officers, and the careful training of officers and N.C.O.s. Good leadership and intelligent persuasion are key factors in achieving the self-discipline which is as vital in the modern Army and Air Force as in modern society. In passing, I should like to pay tribute to the splendid manner in which the Services are responding to the challenges arising from the substantial changes in the numbers, deployment and roles of our Forces. I am confident that, at the end of the reorganisation, our Forces will remain as professional, efficient and highly trained as ever. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Army Act 1955 (Continuation) Order 1968, laid before the House on October 30 last, be approved.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
3.38 p.m.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, first of all, I should like from these Benches to say a word of welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, on now speaking in your Lordships' House on Defence matters. He has had great experience of all three Services, and himself served as a front line soldier in the war. In fact, he narrowly escaped serving under my command in Germany. If I had not got my Brigade completely bogged down in the Siegfried Line he would have been able to get away with his troop of armoured cars and capture the Rhine
640
bridges, which was his role. But I am afraid he was never able to get through the muddle and mess of my Brigade blocking all the tracks.
The noble Lord has had experience as a Minister in the Admiralty, he has been a Minister in the Ministry of Public Building and Works where, of course, he had to deal with barracks and married quarters, and now he is in charge of the R.A.F. By the time he has finished that task he will be ripe to be Minister of Defence in a Labour Government a number of years ahead, but unless he crosses the Floor of the House he may not reach that position in the foreseeable future. His attitude in answering our suggestions and proposals has always been sympathetic, and we are confident that he will give great attention to what we suggest from these Benches.
I want to make a few remarks on these Orders. We had planned to have a full-scale Defence debate on the problems of all three Services, but this we postponed. We had to postpone it because of other business and also because, as another place is having a full-scale debate on Defence on Monday next and are discussing Defence questions next week, it would be as well that we should have our full-dress debate at a later stage.
I am not going to follow the noble Lord in detail on his figures on recruiting, because they need to be studied. I shall have a little to say about them, but I am concerned with a number of rather broader matters which are giving us on these Benches considerable cause for worry. First and foremost, we are convinced that the Government do not appreciate the importance of the part that our defence forces play in the eyes of the world, or the very real apprehension that our friends and allies, particularly Australia and New Zealand, Malaya, Singapore and the Gulf States, feel as a result of the projected withdrawals, the disbandment of fighting regiments and amalgamations.
To-day, indeed, my Lords, the Colours of the Durham Light Infantry are being laid up in Durham Cathedral: the end of a very great regiment. We note the disappearance of what was certainly one of the greatest regiments, which raised more battalions in our hours of need (and, incidentally, kept the pits going at the same time) than any other regiment in the

641
British Army. The Durhams were the first soldiers that I knew as a little boy in Bishop Auckland; and I am glad that my old friend Jack Lawson, who spoke with such pride of his old regiment, is not here to see the sad demise. Then we have a petition of a million people to retain the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders which will be presented in another place at any moment now. As a former member of another Highland regiment already amalgamated, I deeply deplore the Government's decision to do away with such a magnificent and well-recruited regiment. And, of course, there are a number of others with great records of military prowess which are to go.
As regards recruiting, I am very glad to hear what the noble Lord has said about prolongation. I agree, from my own discussions and visits to units during the last six months, that this is very satisfactory. But the recruiting figures have dropped, and though I must study the noble Lord's figures my general impression is that in the last eight months the three Services obtained 25 per cent, fewer recruits than they need. That is a fairly rough figure. But it is useless for the Government to complain, when they are disbanding the good recruiting regiments which are ready to adapt themselves to any role to preserve their names and traditions. I wonder: are the Government satisfied that sufficient publicity is being given to attract recruits? I agree that the Services still offer a worthwhile career, but the reasons for poor recruiting are not hard to find: virtually the ending of the prospect of overseas service outside Europe; uncertainty about the future; frequent cuts in the size of the Forces, involving further amalgamations; four Defence Reviews in two years, and the abandonment of the Grigg formula for pay, being the main ones.
The Government have made the amazing assertion that, alone among all the nations of the world, there is no need for this country to have a Home Defence Force. We are now examining their new plans for the Volunteers, who are to get a small increase, but at the expense of all the Territorials. We should be grateful for fuller information before the Defence debate, so that in the Recess, in our various areas all over the country,
642
we can consider the effects of the proposed changes.
This year has marked the 50th Anniversary of the Royal Air Force—a wonderful milestone and a remarkable achievement of that great Service, when we consider what it has been able to do in the defence of the country in fifty years and the amazing progress of this magnificent Service. I am glad the recruiting figures are not too serious, though I understand there are some very serious gaps among important technical personnel. Though we welcome the announcement of more "Harriers" for the British Army of the Rhine, there are very serious gaps in our air defences caused by the cancellations which we have already criticised—the TSR 2, the F.111 and the A.F.B.G. So we have much to be concerned about.
Those of us who have known the Services through many Administrations contrast the present Government's lack of interest in and encouragement to the personnel of the Forces with the days of Lord Attlee, Lord Alexander and Mr. Shinwell, under whom I, as a Regular soldier, served with confidence and enthusiasm. To-day, in all arms, this is giving way to apprehension and uncertainty about the future. Though none of us would dispute the need for financial cuts in the national budget, our complaint is that the Government have their priorities wrong and are taking unjustified risks with our future security. They are neglecting to make full use of the great potential at our disposal, with those proud traditions of voluntary service which have served us so well when rapid expansion has been necessary. And who knows, my Lords, what the future holds?
3.47 p.m.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I must beg the pardon of the noble Lord who has just spoken if I unwittingly gave the appearance that I was trying to jump my place in the queue, but I am still unfamiliar with the ways of your Lordships. I had given my name in and had made inquiries at the barrier and I was told that there was no one else who wished to speak, so I got up. I beg the noble Lord's pardon.
Whilst I plead guilty to being a novice in the procedures of this House, I cannot make the same plea about the matter

643
we are discussing this afternoon. For two and a half years I served on the Select Committee which brought this procedure into being, and I want to remind your Lordships, particularly those noble Lords who are avid readers of The Times and, under the influence of Mr. Rees Mogg, have this week persuaded themselves that political Party controversy is an unfortunate thing, that this major reform of the Armed Forces of the Crown was brought about as a result of the most acute Party controversy. In 1952, those of us who were in Opposition were faced with an Army Act which was almost 100 years out of date. There had been 920 amendments to the original Army Act of 1881; and when we sought to amend it the Government of the day, I think very wisely, set up a Select Committee. That Select Committee was, as I say, born of the most acute and acrimonious discussion on the Floor of the House of Commons, which went on for many hours; but as soon as the doors were closed there was complete harmony. I never remember any single occasion during that two and a half years on which a vote was taken—and there were differences—when the split was upon Party lines. The Divisions were on Questions of fact; and it is from that point of view that I venture to address your Lordships this afternoon.
I share neither the optimism of the Minister nor that of the noble Lord who last spoke. The recruiting figures at present are disastrous. It is not enough to take just the intake: what noble Lords and the country must do is to face the fact that it is a question not only of what goes in but what comes out. The noble Lord who spoke last paid tribute to my old friend Mr. Shinwell. I was with him during those difficult years. But what followed? There followed the 1957 White Paper, the most disastrous Defence document ever to have been placed before this country. And the consequences of that 1957 White Paper have not yet worked their way out.
I am going to trouble your Lordships, even if I bore you, by reminding you of some of the contents of that White Paper. It set out to do four things. First, a Conservative Administration, for Party political reasons, decided to abolish National Service. It laid down a target of 375,000 as the strength of the Armed
644
Services. Mr. Sandys knew very well—it had often been stated; and stated by Conservative Members in another place—that 375,000 was a bogus figure. In 1957 he did not break it down; it was broken down one year later. And when it was, what form did it take?—165,000 for the Army, 135,000 for the R.A.F., and 88,000 for the Royal Navy; making a total of 388,000. Mr. Sandys had fixed a target of 165,000 for the Army which he knew very well was below the recommendations of a Committee of his own Department—because the test of a target figure is the commitments that have to be met. Mr. Sandys based his figure not upon the number required to meet the commitments but upon the number the actuaries told him he might be able to recruit if the recruiting trends stayed as they were.
Two years later things got a bit better. Fifteen thousand was added to the Army target, making it 180,000. The correct target figure was 182,000. As a result of that target figure of 182,000, an undertaking had been given to our friends on the Continent that Britain would maintain on the European land mass four divisions. That figure, again, was bogus from the day it was given. If noble Lords doubt my word I would commend them to read Lord Moran's Diaries, particularly his account of what Sir Winston Churchill had to say of his Foreign Minister's announcement. They will find it under the date October 1, 1954. Sir Winston said, "That! That! We don't mean a word of it." Of course General de Gaulle knew that. Anyone who complains about the intransigence of General de Gaulle should remember that he is a soldier, that he does not test you by what you say but by what you do. The promised four divisions became 77,000; 77,000 became 64,000; and that 64,000 became 55,000. Never from the day that pledge was given has there ever been any serious attempt to honour it.
To-day there are 45,000 in the British Army of the Rhine. But if I were to put down a Question to the Minister who spoke just now, I have no doubt what the Answer would be. He would tell me that the figure was 51,000. Why? Because the Sixth Infantry Brigade, which has been brought back from the Rhine Army and is now stationed at

645
Colchester, has on paper been committed to B.A.O.R. Who are we kidding?—the Germans? the Russian Intelligence Service? Who? Ourselves. And the perfect confidence trickster is the person who "cons" himself. And that is exactly what we have done.
My Lords, coming back to the figures given by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, I thought he made an admirable speech. I congratulate him upon it, but I am going to examine it more closely. The recruiting figures for this year were accurately stated by him—more or less. His recruiting figure includes, of course, the number of young men who join as boys and who will come on to man service in their first six months. But, of course, his overall figure for this year of 11,000 has to be related to a wastage this year of 22,000. So the Army's manpower strength in 1968 sinks by 11,000. That is not the fault of the Labour Government, certainly not the fault of the Minister. This is the fault of Mr. Sandys, of Mr. Sandys in 1962. He doctored the figures; he reduced the age of intake, bringing it down from 18 years to 17½ years; he played around with the medical standards. He was seeking a purely political objective. He had to get rid of conscription by the end of 1962; and he did not care tuppence how he did it. So we, this country, are now left with the consequences of this bogus policy. And there is no hope, in my judgment, of ever putting this right very quickly. This is what we have to face.
The noble Lord, the Minister, spoke about publicity. I wonder whether he will be good enough to tell us what was spent on publicity this year and what was spent last year; and whether there has been any cut recently. But I do not believe that publicity is enough. The young men who join the Army—not always deliberately, but through their actions overall—tend to show a pattern. One of the things which happens so far as recruiting is concerned is that Gresham's Law shows its head. The noble Lord took credit, and rightly, for the increase in the number of prolongations. But what he did not tell us was the number of young men who join on nine-year engagements and those who join on six-year engage-
646
ments; for the gap now has narrowed until they are just about equal.
My Lords, what matters in this game—and this is a line which I took in the other place for many years, often unsuccessfully, although after six or seven years the penny did begin to drop—is that you must not count bodies. If you do the planning exercise on this, what matters is not the number of men but the number of man-years. Of course it is futile for the noble Lord on the Benches opposite to come along and dissociate himself with the cut-down in the number of regiments. When did this start? It was not with a Labour Administration. Sixty-one battalions of the line. 49 Infantry, eight Guards, three Parachute Regiments, and one S.A.S. were cut down a year ago. But that was not the first time it was done.
I am all for presenting petitions to the House of Commons; but if they present a petition for the 91st Foot, wry not present a petition for the 37th Foot, who saw the 91st and the rest off at Culloden Moor? Why not? Why should we not have a petition to a Regiment that wears the Minden Rose? The Hampshire Regiment is as near and dear to Hampshire men as the 91st of Foot is to the Duchess of Argyll. I do not want to see any regiment go. But it is no good complaining about regiments going if you have no soldiers to put in them. The first blame lies in the premature abolition of conscription in this country. That was a political crime, and it was a social crime, because it was something undertaken purely for political reasons.
What is the use of the Foreign Minister of this country going to NATO or to the United Nations and making brave speeches about how we are going to face up to the Czech crisis, about how we are going to do this and how we are going to do that, when we are the only country in NATO, with the exception of Canada, which has no compulsory military service in some form or another. What is the good of going to Commonwealth Conferences and paying lip service to the way of life of our kinsmen in Australia and New Zealand when they have selective service and we have none?
Of course there is another reason: there is a social reason. It is tied up with the procedure that we are engaged in

647
to-day, the whole procedure of this Continuation Order and the struggle in 1952 in another place which goes back to the 17th century. This was born of one thing, the determination of Parliament that civil authority shall be paramount over the military authority. Those who believe in democracy and the civilised way of life must believe in that principle. I certainly do. I have been a Regular soldier, a very humble one, and I am not ashamed of it: if I had to start again I would do it all over again. I started in the ranks, and I enjoyed every minute of it. While I do not want the military virtues to become dominant any society which completely ignores those virtues is virtually removing its vertebrae; because the qualities of loyalty and obedience and devotion to one's friends and to one's regiment or the company in which one happens to be serving are important in all aspects of our national life. They may not be highly esteemed now, but there may come a time when they will be vital. My Lords, I need not remind you of the words of Kipling:
"It's 'Tommy this' and 'Tommy that'"—
I will not repeat the rest. I read the military historians, and of course I pay great attention to the pundits who talk on foreign policy and strategy. I know the forecasts for the future, but I believe that the time may well come again when the country will need just those virtues; and what will then happen if they have been thrown away? That is one of the things that worries me and it is my excuse for coming and worrying your Lordships this afternoon.
I will not detain your Lordships much longer, but mention was made of the Reserve Forces and this is one of the things that worries me more than enough. We have got rid of conscription, and I agree that it is futile now to talk of restoring it; except perhaps in the shadow of some great cataclysmic event. Please God such an event will not happen, because I believe that if it did it would be too late to restore conscription. But having got rid of conscription we are forced to rely on the voluntary principle, and that voluntary principle is not working (or it does not work, according to how you look at it) in the Regular Forces. But it still remains the hair-spring of the Reserve Forces. We are told that T. & A.V.R.II
648
now exists for one purpose, to provide a back-up for the British Army of the Rhine. Very good. I accept the military necessity for that and I congratulate the Minister of State who, on November 28 put the Government's proposals to the House of Commons. I think they are right, so far as they go, but they do not go far enough.
In T. & A.V.R. III there are some thousands of young men prepared to give their leisure time for no very obvious, or at least not at the moment very obvious, military reasons. They give of their leisure time in the service of their country. "Blimp" I may be, but I believe that what they do is of the highest value to the community at large. I believe it is of fundamental importance to the Army. I believe it is also fundamental to the nation. Here I would part company with some noble Lords who have supported what I say. That is not because I believe that the T. & A.V.R. III has any great military value, for I believe that if an atomic war came that would be the end so far as this country is concerned. But if it does not come; if we are confronted by a kind of Czechoslovak situation; if we are faced with external aggression and we get some of the dissident elements which have been present in France cutting across the lines of communication and creating scenes of disorder at a time when the very narrow Regular Army Reserves would be wholly engaged in the business of reinforcing the B.A.O.R. At such a time the existence of a number of T. & A.V.R. III units—I am not pleading for an Army Corps but for about half a dozen units situated up and down the country where even they can be recruited—would marginally be a stabilising force.
Do not let us complain about the cost, my Lords. Those of us who are humble and poor, as I am, have to pay our fire insurance promptly, because if we do not we cannot face the consequences. But we do not complain that it is a waste of money if a fire does not occur. And our six battalions of T. & A.V.R. III are in fact a fire insurance. But there is something, and again I repeat this, of far more importance than an insurance. They are a stabilising force in the body politic. These are the young men who enshrine in their actions the military virtues. I am not asking for them to be given positions of civil authority, but I would ask that

649
they be respected. I would ask that the community at large respects the fact that in two great wars the Territorial Army has made a difference—and sometimes the margin was very narrow—between national survival and national disaster. I hope that the noble Lord will go back to the Minister of Defence and tell him that the message from this House this afternoon is that we want T. & A.V.R. III kept in some form; not necessarily in terms of a General Staff concept, but because we believe that the continuance of this Force is vital.
If I may detain your Lordships for one or two minutes more, I would come back to the Select Committee and the controversy which gave it birth; the circumstances in which it worked; and then apply it to the political situation. I have read with the greatest amusement the articles in The Times and its plea for a coalition; as if there is some great virtue in coalition, some great virtue in burying differences betwen honest men and sweeping them under the carpet. I do not share those views. What I say is that when there are great problems of vital national importance in which there is no political advantage to either Party, common sense demands that—behind closed doors if you like—the Leaders or representatives of the great Parties in the State should get together, if only to master the facts.
If a Select Committee were appointed I hope that Mr. Heath would be a member and that his senior colleagues would be members; and perhaps the chairman might be a senior Minister. They might meet together and come to common agreement on a picture of the Reserves and a picture of recruiting. The difference is reflected in the different emphasis given by me and by the Minister, because we cannot both be right. I am pretty sure that I am right. I am sure that my figures will stand up to the bowling. If they cannot, let them be exposed. But if I am right; if the present wastage continues and recruiting does not improve, we are faced with a Regular Army that cannot meet our commitments. We shall have an Army of about 120,000.
I am quite sure that the Conservative Party think they will win the next General Election. But I would remind them that manpower policies take ten
650
or twenty years to work through, so that there is considerable Political advantage, from their point of view in getting together now to establish the facts. Otherwise they will be left to inherit the situation just is the noble Lord and his colleagues inherited the policies of Mr. Sandys. So far as I am concerned, a coalition in the concept presented by Mr. Rees Mogg would be, if I may use a barrack-room expression, "just a load of cod'swallop". But a Select Committee of senior members of both Parties, seeking only the rational good and not Party advantage, could hammer out the facts and go back to their respective Parties and say, "Lock, this is the picture; this is what we have to do. There is not a single vote in it for either of us". That would be not only common sense but patriotism of the highest order.
4.9 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords. I think that, like the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, I should say that I did not put my name down to speak in this debate and therefore I will intervene only briefly. What I have to say is to support 100 per cent. what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. It gives me great pleasure to hear the facts presented in that way by a man who knows what he is talking about and who has his country's interests deeply at heart. I would add two points as regards recruiting. I am glad that more is to be done for publicity and greater attention has been given to the subject, but I am afraid that something more needs to be done yet. The Government have to show the people of the country that they really feel a need for an increase in our Forces and that recruiting is something to which they attach very great importance,. At the moment, young men do not feel that. They feel that the Army is a run-down show. And that goes for officers is well as for other ranks.
The other remark I would venture to make is this. I will not follow the noble Lord in attempting to apportion between the political Parties the original blame for what has happened, but I an sorry to say that one of the sections of the community that were responsible for the abolition of compulsory service at that time were the Generals—and obviously

651
this is true of the Admirals and Air-Marshals. They do not really like compulsory service, because it does not give a good peace-time Force, as all their men are engaged in training. That is a matter about which the Government should be careful. While respecting their military advisers and taking their advice, they should be careful on this subject. That is all I want to say. I wished chiefly to support wholeheartedly what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg.
4.17 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I look forward to the major debate on Defence which I hope will take place early in the New Year, because I think that that would be a more suitable occasion on which we could discuss in greater depth the various problems raised by the three noble Lords who have spoken to-day. Before I reply to what has been said, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for his agreeable remarks about myself? He really should not have taken the blame for a slower advance to the Rhine bridges than actually took place. The weather and the terrain were not too helpful for rapid movement, and what was important at the end of the day was that we got to the Rhine and crossed it, and ultimately all went well. He gave me warm encouragement for high promotion when I am about the age for entering Chelsea Hospital; but, like all good Generals, the noble Lord must not win the next battle before it is actually fought. Let us have that contest in due course and see what happens after it.
I cannot help but agree with all my heart with what all three noble Lords said about the importance of individuals who can influence public opinion on the Armed Forces using their influence to the maximum. The importance of the Armed Forces, in my view, is grossly underestimated. We can make mistakes in the social services and disaster does not necessarily follow, but a major mistake in defence policy can lead to national extinction. This is why the subject is of such profound importance.
I do not necessarily agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, said. I nearly said "my noble friend"—I hope he still is but he does not seem to be on
652
the right perch to be able to assure me that that is the case. What Mr. Sandys said in 1957 is not really relevant to-day. We have lived twelve years, or very nearly, since that White Paper, and we have to deal with to-day's problems and with the continuation of policies which were initiated some substantial time ago, and we have to make them succeed. What happened in 1957 does cause us difficulties to-day, but I should not like to look backwards and apportion blame. I want to solve the problems facing us now.
Again, with some humility, I would question whether the attitude taken by the noble Lords, Lord Wigg and Lord Robertson of Oakridge, on the subject of the ending of National Service is necessarily correct. In my comparatively short tenure of office in this field I have seen many things which make me feel that in the world of to-day, with its technical problems of warfare, all-professional Armed Forces are what we must have. May I illustrate this by one point? I remember when, in the early 1950s, as a member of the Estimates Committee I visited Technical Training Command at Brampton, where we were training young men as electronic experts for two years to get about six months' work out of them. That was grossly uneconomic in terms of skilled manpower. This is a field where professional expertise can be achieved only as the result of long training, and if the experts are busy training young men who can only give six months' service, that is surely a waste of professional effort.
I am much consoled by the fact that your Lordships' House as a whole can take a balanced and rational view of the problems of defence, and I look forward to the debate which will take place. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, made one important point. Like myself, he welcomed the fact that men who had entered the Services were prolonging their service within the Armed Forces. I think that is of the greatest importance. It means that the Armed Forces' training, personnel policy and the rest are on the whole right. I think that this is reflected in the very good figures relating to discipline. Discipline is clearly excellent and improving. But I think that the noble Lord did not clarify the picture—and probably this will come when we

653
debate Defence as a whole—in saying that recruiting was 25 per cent. down over all three Services. I am certain that his arithmetic is correct, but that figure does not illuminate the problem or find its solution. For example, the R.A.F., because of its fiftieth Anniversary, has been able to get in a lot of free publicity which we believe has resulted in quite satisfactory recruiting figures, and we are not at all discouraged about the R.A.F. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has said, the Army position is bad. I did not try to cover it up. What I said was that men who were in the Army were prolonging their service and young men were coming in. But the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, is quite right as regards the middle band, between the young recruit and the well-established Regular; there the position is unstable and unsatisfactory.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, asked me about publicity. Last year we spent £3 million on straightforward publicity in the Press, on T.V. and so on, and we are spending the same amount this year. Whether this is sufficient or not is another question. Perhaps when we come to debate the last quarter of this year, we may have evidence on which we may be able to form a better judgment. But there is no doubt that all of us who have a responsibility in this field and all who can influence public opinion must try to support the image of the Armed Forces and let the average man and woman know that the role of the Armed Forces is as important to-day as it was in 1939. We are not living in a peaceful world. For some obscure reason, people seem to think that we are. I believe that the Defence forces of this country are as essential to-day as they have ever been. That is really all I have to say. We are talking about a comparatively limited subject. I hope that I have been able to give your Lordships some hard figures which may be of use in a future wider and deeper debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIR FORCE ACT 1955 (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1968
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Air Force Act 1955 (Continuation) Order 1968, laid before the House on 30th October last, be approved.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SEA FISHERIES BILL
4.21 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly
[THE LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Provisions with respect to levies which may be imposed on the white fish and herring industries]:
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 36, at end insert ("in any manner specified in the directions, whether or not the application of those sums in that manner is authorised by the relevant provision or instrument.").
The noble Lord said: It happens is that the first Amendment on the Marshalled List of Amendments is the only one on which I have any point of substance to explain to the Committee. So it might be convenient if I made that point, and then said a very brief collective word about all the subsequent Amendments.
We have put down the first Amendment, that to Clause 4, merely in order to remove a doubt which we are advised might otherwise exist. Subsection (9) of Clause 4 provides machinery for dealing with the proceeds of any levy that might be put on something like meal or flour which can have both white fish and herring in it. Obviously one could have a situation in which some money collected by the White Fish

655
Authority should go to the Herring Industry Board, or vice versa. I am advised that without this Amendment there might possibly be obstacles to transfer payments like this; and clearly the doubt should be removed.
Now, with your Lordships' permission, I turn to all the remaining Amendments. Each one of these either tidies up the drafting of the present Bill, or paves the way for the draftsman to make a better job of the consolidation for which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, so persuasively asked on Second Reading. We have found that there is even more scope for removing dead wood, and for shaping the remaining branches, than had been thought at the time when I introduced the Bill here. I am sure the Committee will agree that this opportunity of tidying up the preparatory work is one that we should take. While, therefore, I shall be ready to give further explanations of individual Amendments if desired, I hope it will be agreed that I should move the Amendments formally when they are called, with the exception of No. 15, on which I think some explanation is needed. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Minor and consequential amendments and repeals, and savings]:
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 37, at end insert—
("(3) Any reference to boats in the Herring Industry Act 1935, the Herring Industry Act 1944 or the White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1948 shall be construed as a reference to vessels.")—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Schedule 1—Minor and consequential amendments]:
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 5, at end insert—
"The Herring Industry Act 1935 (c. 9)
1. In section 6(3) (offences by body corporate)—
656

(a) for the word 'approval' there shall be substituted the word 'connivance';

(b) for the words 'to have been facilitated by' there shall be substituted the words 'is attributable to';

(c) for the words 'officer of the body corporate' there shall be substituted the words 'similar officer of the body corporate, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity'.

In section 14 (interpretation) the definition of 'boat' shall cease to have effect.
In Schedule 2 (provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1931 applied with modifications to a consumers' committee and a committee of investigation appointed for the herring industry)—

(a) any reference to the products of the herring industry shall be construed as a reference to herring and their products;

(b) in section 9(6) of the said Act of 1931 as set out in the said Schedule the words 'or commodities produced wholly or partly therefrom' and the words 'or such commodities as aforesaid' shall cease to have effect;

(c) at the end of the said section 9, as so set out, there shall be inserted the following subsection—

'(7) In this Schedule "products" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Sea Fish Industry Act 1951.'
The Herring Industry Act 1938 (c. 42)
2. In section 2(1) (Herring Industry Advisory Council) the words 'and assistance' shall cease to have effect.").—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 10, at end insert—
("1A. In section 18(6) (offences by body corporate) after the words "similiar officer of the body corporate" there shall be inserted the words "or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity".").—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 31, after ("landed in the Isle of Man") insert ("in the first place where they occur").—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 32, leave out ("were to be").—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 35, after ("or") insert ("were to be").—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 2, at end insert—
"The Sea Fisheries Act 1868 (c. 45)
17A. In section 26 (sea-fishing boats within exclusive limits and British sea-fishing boats outside those limits, to have official papers)—

(a) for the words "such Order in Council" there shall be substituted the words "an Order in Council under section 373 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894";

(b) after the words "British Islands" there shall be inserted the words "within the meaning of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968";

(c) for the words "this part of this Act", in both places where they occur there shall be substituted the words "that section";

(d) for the words "sea fishery officer" there shall be substituted the words "British sea-fishery officer within the meaning of section 7 of the said Act of 1968".—(Lord Beswick.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 35, after ("Act") insert ("or byelaw").—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 7, at end insert—
("The Fisheries Act 1891 (c. 37)
24A. In section 13 (powers of taking legal proceedings) the words "the Sea Fisheries Act 1883 or any other Act relating to sea fisheries or by" shall cease to have effect.").—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 9, leave out paragraph 25 and insert the following paragraph—
("25. For section 373(6) (application of certain statutory provisions to registry of British
658
fishing boats) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(6) Sections 8 and 9 of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968 (general powers of British sea-fishery officers, and powers of sea-fishery officers to enforce conventions) shall apply in relation to this section and any Order in Council thereunder, and to any convention mentioned in subsection (5) above, as they apply respectively in relation to any order mentioned in the said section 9; and sections 10, 11, 12 and 14 of that Act (offences, and supplemental provisions as to legal proceedings) shall apply accordingly.").—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 51, at end insert—
("The Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966 (c. 38)
29A. In section 13(5) (powers of local fisheries committees), the words from the beginning to "1883" and from "the provisions" to "and of" and the word "other" shall cease to have effect.").—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Enactments repealed]:
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 36, at end insert—

("31 &32 Vict. c. 45.

The Sea Fisheries Act 1868.

Section 1.

In section 5, the definitions of 'person' and 'the Irish Fishery Commissioners'.

Section 67.

In section 70, the proviso.

25 & 26 Geo. 5. c. 9.

The Herring Industry Act 1935.

In section 14, the definition of 'boat'.

In Schedule 2, in section 9(6) of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1931 as there set out, the words 'or commodities produced wholly or partly therefrom' and the words 'or such commodities as aforesaid'.

1 & 2 Geo. 6. c. 30.

The Sea Fish Industry Act 1938.

Section 50.

1 & 2 Geo. 6. c. 42.

The Herring Industry Act 1938.

In section 2(1) the words 'and assistance'.")

—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 14.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 41, at end insert—

("14 & 15 Geo.6. c.30.

The Sea Fish Industry Act 1951.

Section 13(3).")

—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: Amendment No. 15 is again a tidying-up Amendment which repeals certain obsolete sections and parts of sections of the 1868 Act. It is an excellent Amendment, which I should entirely commend to the Committee were it not for the fact that in the last two lines of the Amendment shown there is a misprint that is to say, the words, "in the third place where it occurs", in the reference to section 70, should read "in the fourth place where it occurs". I therefore invite your Lordships to agree to this Amendment with the substitution of the word "fourth" for the word "third" in the last line of the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23 line 29, at end insert—

("31 &32 Vict. c. 45.

The Sea Fisheries Act 1868.

In section 5, the definitions of "Great Britain and Ireland", "United Kingdom", "exclusive fishery limits of the British Islands" and "exclusive fishery limits of France".

In section 57, the words from "or under" to "provided)".

Section 63.

In section 65, the second paragraph.

Section 66.

In section 70, the words from the beginning to "save as aforesaid", the words from "the seas adjoining" to "the whole of" and the words from "and to the seas" to "British Islands" in the fourth place where it occurs.")

—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 16.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 39, at end insert—

"In section 13, the words 'the Sea Fisheries Act 1883 or any other Act relating to sea fisheries, or by'.")

—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 17.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 41, at end insert—

("1 & 2 Geo. 6. c. 30.

The Sea Fish Industry Act 1938.

Section 54.

Section 59.

Section 61.

Section 62.

Section 63(2).")

—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 18.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 6, at end insert—

("1966 c. 38.

The Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966.

In section 13(5), the words from the beginning to'1883' and from 'the provisions' to 'and of' and the word 'other'.")

—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 19.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("and").—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 20.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("sea") insert ("to remove anomalies in certain enactments relating to sea fisheries and the white fish and herring industries and to repeal other such enactments which are obsolete or unnecessary.").—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
4.32 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 12 [Grant of certificate by trial judge]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 33, leave out ("trial").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. At the Committee stage of the Bill, your Lordships may remember that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, raised two questions of terminology, and I promised when he withdrew these Amendments which he had put down that I would give them further consideration. The first question related to the use of the words "decision" and "judgment" in the Bill in the various places where they occur. I have carefully considered those and, for the reasons which I ventured to give at the Committee stage of the Bill, I am of the opinion that those words are there properly so used.
The second question the noble and learned Viscount raised was as to the expression "trial judge", and he pointed out that, as was agreed in Committee, it would be right that in rare cases this procedure should be available in relation to a decision of a judge in chambers on an interlocutory matter. The expression "trial judge" does not now seem to me to be right. Therefore, in the case of other Amendments I shall come to later, it is proposed that the word "trial" should be amended. I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for having drawn our attention to this point, and I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 37, leave out from ("that") to ("and") in line 38 and insert ("a sufficient
662
case for an appeal to the House of Lords under this Part of this Act has been made out to justify an application for leave to bring such an appeal").
The noble and learned Lord sail: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to clarify one of the matters as to which the judge must be satisfied before he grants a certificate enabling an application to be made to the Appeal Committee for leave to appeal directly to the House of Lords. Clause 12(1), as amended in Committee, provides twat the judge may give a certificate where he is satisfied (a) that the relevant conditions are satisfied; (b) that it is expedient to enable an application to be made for leave to appeal directly to the House of Lords; and (c) that all parties to the proceedings consent to the grant of a certificate. Your Lordships may remember that at the Committee stage of the Bill the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, suggested that paragraph (b) left it doubtful whether or not the judge was required to form his own view as to the desirability of a direct appeal to the House of Lords. He might possibly think it expedient to enable the parties to apply to the House of Lords, simply because the relevant conditions were satisfied and the parties had agreed to the grant of a certificate.
It is not the intention that the judge should merely "rubber-stamp" the parties' application for a certificate, The object of paragraph (b) is that he should act as a filter and grant a certificate, only where he is satisfied that it is a proper case in which to allow the parties to apply for leave to appeal directly to your Lordships' House. In order to male this clear, the Amendment substitutes for paragraph (b) a provision that, before granting a certificate, the judge must be satisfied that a sufficient case for a direct appeal has been made out to justify an application for leave to bring such an appeal. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, has told me that he is unable to be present to-day but he concurs in this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 20:
Page 6, line 41, leave out ("trial")
Page 7, line 12, leave out ("trial")
Page 7, line 19, leave out ("trial")
Page 7, line 20, leave out ("trial")
Page 7, line 27, leave out ("trial")
Page 7, line 29, leave out ("trial")
Page 8, line 3, leave out ("trial")
Clause 13, page 8, line 8, leave out ("trial")
Clause 13, line 19, leave out ("trial")
Clause 13, line 37, leave out ("trial")
Clause 15, page 9, line 16, leave out ("trial")
Clause 15, line 20, leave out ("trial")
Clause 15, line 22, leave out ("trial")
Clause 15, line 29, leave out ("trial")
Clause 15, line 33, leave out ("trial")
Clause 15, line 34, leave out ("that") and insert ("the")
Clause 15, line 36, leave out ("trial")
Clause 15, line 40, leave out ("trial")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects, I would venture to move Amendments Nos. 3 to 20 inclusive together. As your Lordships will see, with one excepion they all consist solely in the omission of the word "trial" in the several places specified in the Marshalled List of Amendments, and the one exception is really consequential. The exception is this. On page 9, Clause 15(3) begins:
"Where by virtue of any enactment, apart from the provisions of this Part of this Act, no appeal would lie to the Court of Appeal from the decision of the trial judge except with the leave of that judge…".
If we are to omit the word "trial", then the words "that judge" should I think plainly be "the judge". Therefore, if none of your Lordships object, I will venture to move together Amendments Nos. 3 to 20. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 18 [Supplementary provisions as to wills executed under s. 103(1)(dd)]:
4.39 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 12, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("property") in line 10 and insert ("So much of subsection (3) of this section as provides for such a will to have effect as if the patient were capable of making a valid will—

(a) shall not have effect in relation to such a will in so far as it disposes of any immovable property, other than immovable property in England or Wales, and

664

(b) where at the time when such a will is executed the patient is domiciled in Scotland or Northern Ireland or in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, shall not have effect in relation to that will in so far as it relates to any other property or matter, except any").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment cures a drafting defect in the new Section 103A(4) of the Mental Health Act 1959. Section 103A is inserted in that Act by Clause 18 of the Bill and deals with the manner of execution and effect of a patient's will directed or authorised by the Court of Protection. Section 103A(4), as drafted, modifies in the case of mental patients domiciled outside England and Wales the provision in subsection (3) that a will made by the Court of Protection under Section 103(1)(dd) of the 1959 Act (inserted in the Act by Clause 17) is to have the same effect for all purposes as if the patient were capable of making a valid will. It prevents the Court from making a valid will for a patient domiciled outside England and Wales unless his testamentary capacity falls to be determined by English law. The purpose of subsection (4) is to avoid the possibility of conflicting wills (that is, different wills being upheld in respect of the same person by two courts) by preserving the existing rules of Private International Law concerning capacity to make a will. The Court of Protection's power should be exercisable only where, by these rules, the patient's capacity is governed by English law as the domiciliary law (in the case of movables) or lex situs (in the case of immovables). Although the present draft of Section 103A(4) deals with the case of a patient domiciled outside England and Wales, it does not cover the case of a patient domiciled in England and Wales who wishes to dispose of immovable property abroad.
The Amendment is designed to rectify this omission. The substance of Section 103A(4), as amended, is the same as before, but in addition it precludes the execution for a patient of a valid will disposing of immovable property outside England and Wales, irrespective of his domicile. It is important that this limitation should apply to patients domiciled in England and Wales, as well as those domiciled outside the jurisdiction, as, under the rules of Private International

665
Law, capacity to make a will of immovables is determined by the lex situs; that is, the law of the place where the land is situate, without reference to domicile. The Amendment is designed to avoid another possible situation of conflicting wills. It does not involve any new principle. I beg to move.
LORD WILBERFORCE: My Lords, I do not wish to make any observation on this Amendment except to say that it appears to be technically correct, and only to express mild regret that it has to be in such complicated language. It takes an exception out of an exception and then prefaces it with a negative and then another exception. I feel it is a great pity that in a matter which is intended to be understood it should be thought necessary to use such elaborate language. However, possibly it was unavoidable and I agree that it is an improvement.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if your Lordships will accept the Amendment, in view of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, has said I will certainly see whether we can simplify the wording before the Third Reading of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Records of grants of probate and grants of administration]:
4.43 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 16, line 23, at end insert—
("(5) Where a calendar has been prepared under section 45 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1876 or under section 156 of the Judicature Act 1925 (as for the time being in force apart from this section), and a copy of that calendar is kept in the principal probate registry of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland—

(a) may direct that the copy shall be removed to the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, or

(b) in the case of a copy of a calendar prepared under the said section 45, may, with the agreement of the authority responsible for the management of the place in question, direct that it shall be removed to such place in Scotland as may be specified in the direction.

(6) Any direction under subsection (5) of this section may be given either in respect of a particular copy to which that subsection
666
is applicable or in respect of a class of such copies.
(7) In relation to copies of calendars prepared as mentioned in subsection (5) of this section which—

(a) are removed to the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland in Pursuance of a direction given under that subsection, or

(b) have been removed to that Office before the commencement of this Act,

the Public Records Act (Northern Ireland) 1923 shall have effect as it has effect in relation to documents which are Northern Ireland records within the meaning of that Act and which have been removed to that Office in accordance with that Act.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a slightly involved point. This Amendment enables the Lori Chief Justice of Northern Ireland to direct that copies of English and Scottish calendars be transferred from the Probate Registry in Belfast to the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, and provides for such copies to be treated as Northern Irish public records.
When Cause 25 comes into force there will be in the Belfast Probate Library, first, copies of English calendars already sent there in pursuance of Section 156(3) of the Judicature Act 1925, and, second, copies of Scottish calendars sent there in pursuance of Section 45 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1876. The Belfast Probate Registry do not wish to be able to keep these calendars indefinitely, but would like to be able to transfer them to the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland where they could be kept or, if not required to be preserved, be disposed of in accordance with the Public Records Act (Northern Ireland) 1923. Alternatively, they would like to be able to return to Scotland such Scottish calendars as are no longer wanted and for which the Scottish authorities may find use.
Under the current law, copies of English calendars sent to the Belfast Probate Registry in pursuance of Section 156(3) are subject to any direction which the President of the Probate Division may give under Section 8(3) of the Public Records Act 1958. Such a direction was in fact given by Lord Merriman in March, 1961, whereby any such copy is transferred to the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland when the latest grant included in it was made over five years before. But, with the repeal of Section

667
8(3), that direction will cease to be effective and it is therefore necessary to replace it.
Copies of Scottish calendars were, until recently, also sent to the Belfast Registry under Section 45 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1876. However, by the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Act 1927 (Calendars of Confirmations and Inventories) Order 1968, made under Section 19 of the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Act 1927, the obligation to send such copies to England and Northern Ireland was terminated with effect from February 2, 1968. There is no power corresponding to Section 8(3) of the Public Record Act 1958 and applicable to Scottish calendars, so that the copies now in Belfast cannot be transferred to the Record Office: they (like their English counterparts) are neither "Northern Irish Records" nor "Imperial Records" within the meaning of Section 1(2) of the Act of 1923 and, in the absence of some express statutory provision, the Record Office has no power to receive them. It has been represented to the Scottish Office that public libraries in Scotland might well wish to receive copies of old Scottish calendars now in Belfast which are not wanted by the Probate Registry or the Record Office. The return to Scotland of these copies would be a matter for agreement between the authorities of the two countries.
The Amendment deals only with English and Scottish copies which have been sent to Belfast. It does so, first, by conferring on the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland power to direct (i) that copies of English or Scottish calendars be transferred from the Probate Registry to the (Northern Ireland) Record Office, or (ii), with the consent of the Scottish authorities concerned, that copies of Scottish calendars be sent to Scotland instead of to the Record Office, and, secondly, by providing that copies of both English and Scottish calendars which are transferred to the Record Office are to be treated as Northern Irish records. This will enable such as are not required to be preserved to be disposed of in accordance with rules made under Section 8 of the Public Records Act (Northern Ireland) 1925.
The new subsection (5), inserted by the Amendment, confers the necessary
668
powers on the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. The new subsection (6) enables the Lord Chief Justice's directions to relate to specific copies or to a class of copies. Thus he could, as Lord Merriman did under Section 8(3) of the 1958 Act, direct that copies be transferred as and when they become five years old. The new subsection (7) provides for copies transferred to the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland to be treated as Northern Irish records, and it applies both to copies transferred to the Record Office in pursuance of a direction made by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and to copies transferred before the commencement of Clause 25 under Section 8(3) of the Public Records Act.
As your Lordships will see, the matter is so involved that it is perhaps not surprising that this point had not been seen before, and it will now be rectified by this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Reduction of period of apprenticeship for public notaries in London]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 16, line 24, leave out from ("to") to ("section") in line 25 and insert ("clerks and apprentices to persons who are members of the Incorporated Company of Scriveners and have been admitted to practise as public notaries within the jurisdiction of that Company,")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which was discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, at the Committee stage of the Bill. It ensures that only those members of the Incorporated Company of Scriveners who have qualified by apprenticeship in London will be able to be admitted to practice as public notaries after serving the five-year period of apprenticeship. Your Lordships will remember that the main object of this clause is that whereas public notaries outside London have to have a five-year apprenticeship those in London have to have a seven-year apprenticeship. The Society in question is of the opinion that the London rule should be brought into line with the provincial rule.
The Amendment is promoted at the request of the Society of Public Notaries of London, who feared that the present clause could be interpreted as also qualifying members of the Scriveners Company who have served their apprenticeship elsewhere. Membership can be obtained not only by apprenticeship but also by patrimony; that is to say, the right of sons of members to apply for membership or "redemption", that is nomination, election and payment. A person who has served an apprenticeship outside London and happens to be a member by patrimony or redemption should not be qualified for practice as a notary public in London, because he could not have undergone the appropriate training. London apprentices are required to undergo courses and pass examinations in a wide range of legal subjects and in a foreign language, whereas provincial apprentices do not have any formal training or examinations. The concern of the Society of Public Notaries of London to have the clause amended in this way—a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, at the Committee stage—has been met by this Amendment which meets with their approval.
Before formally moving the Amendment, may I just say (probably out of order), with regard to Clause 27, to which there is no Amendment down, that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, earlier expressed the hope that some shorter version of Clause 27 might be arrived at. We are still working on that. The difficulty is that this is a clause which puts a clause into the Superannuation Act, and therefore we have to see that it fits in with that Act. But I hope that on the Third Reading I shall be able to produce an Amendment by which that clause will be shortened, though I am not sure that it will be shortened by as much as both the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and I should have liked. Meanwhile, I beg leave to move this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

NIGERIA: BIAFRAN WAR AND RELIEF NEEDS
4.50 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER LORD RITCHIE-CALDER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what measures are now being taken through the international agencies to avoid famine and other disastrous consequences likely to follow the Biafran War. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In putting this Question or in discussing it, I am not intending to tread the grapes of wrath of the Nigerian Civil War; nor do I want to do or say anything to embarrass my noble friend Lord Shepherd an his present mission to Lagos. I am not going to indulge in recriminations, and I am not going to discuss here and now the rights and wrongs of the present military and political predicament, beyond agreeing with Mr. Katzenbach, the United States Under-Secretary of State, speaking on December 3, when he said:
"The ultimate decision of what will happen, the decision of life or death for millions, rests with the leaders on both sides. Without their co-operation or consent outside aid cannot be effective. But one thing is clear: if both parties remain recalcitrant, if both parties continue to put political advantage ahead of people's lives, then one of the most terrible famines in modern times is certain and inevitable …Millions, literally millions of people face starvation in the next few months unless the war is ended very quickly."
My Question is directed to the aftermath, the sooner or the later, when we shall have access to the starving people and when beyond the present inadequate efforts at relief we shall be confronted by the portentous problems of first aid and rehabilitation. The prognosis is grim. I have discussed it with international relief experts, whose opinions I value, who are not involved in the politics of secession, but who are agreed that the situation that has to be faced is one of the worst that the world ha:; ever had to face—a man-made situation, as surely as the extermination of 6 million Jews in the gas chambers was a manmade situation. Predictably 7 million people may face death by starvation before the summer of 1969.
I know that the figures for deaths are questionable because the present dead

671
are uncountable. By conservative estimates a million people have already died—mostly children—and half a million more will probably die during this our Christmas season. The figures vary according to the experts, between 12,000 and 20,000 a day: the equivalent of an army division. Even if we accept what is called the "stabilised" figure of 6,000 a day—and "stabilised" does not mean "constant" but merely statistically tolerable for consideration of relief calculations—it means that 12 children have died since I rose to my feet. The civilian deaths—the deaths of the innocents—in Nigeria have already exceeded the military deaths in the Vietnam War, and are at least three times as great as the total deaths, military and civil, which Britain suffered throughout the whole of the Second World War. I repeat that these are conservative estimates, and highly reputable experts place them much higher—as high as 2 million by the end of this year.
During the first three weeks of November the airlift of the International Committee of the Red Cross flying to Biafra from Fernando Po averaged 43½ tons a night. The airlift operated by the Church Relief Agencies out of Sao Tome averaged about 57 tons each night. This combined tonnage of about 100 tons per day getting into Biafra has been inadequate to provide the supplement sufficient for all those suffering from protein deficiency—supplemental, that is, to the carbohydrates. When the carbohydrates stocks begin to become exhausted, the most conservative estimate of food to be flown in is reckoned at 2,000 tons a day, 700 tons more than the Red Cross airlift put in in the whole month of November. During the nightly flights to Uli in the heart of the Biafran redoubt about 30 food sorties can be made. One recalls that hundreds of aircraft were required on the Berlin airlift to transport 8,000 tons of supplies a day for a much smaller population. The population in the Biafran enclave is between 7 and 8 million; again, the figures are unreliable because circumstances do not allow careful census of those who fled from Northern Nigeria and of those who abandoned their lands over large areas of Eastern Nigeria and herded together as displaced persons in the beleaguered enclave.
My Lords, all the evidence that I have been able to get from reliable sources shows that they are now eating their seed-grain and their seed-roots. Your Lordships will know what that means. We have been using these terms, rather frivolously, in economic discussions. It means that they have eaten their next season's harvests. And that does not apply only to the Biafrans. The war has ravaged the surrounding areas. Millions more have already prematurely gathered their harvests, in the flux of war, and they have eaten their yams and their casavas—their source of carbohydrates, their belly-fillers, incidentally short of the higher proteins. Normally the yam crop which is gathered in October would last until May. The sowings would be about March. What is now left, including the seeds of the next harvest, will be finished by the end of January.
This is the dry season in Southern Nigeria. It is also the season of measles. Measles under conditions of undernourishment is a fatal disease. An epidemic will massacre the vulnerable infants and toddlers. UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund, has helped to provide inoculations against measles, but the problem remains how to get such aid there under present conditions and how the overworked medical staffs will be able to administer it. Those of us who have seen the horrors of famine know that the first to go are the children and the pregnant mothers, feeding their unborn babies from their own under-nourished bodies. Commendable attempts are being made to organise airlifts of babies and expectant mothers from the embattled areas, but even on the basis of a shuttle service—food in, children out—it would need an airlift of far greater proportions than that now operating to make any significant impression on the situation.
My Lords, that is the present situation. It is advancing remorselessly and ruthlessly towards a holocaust—like the Punic women throwing their babies into the fires of burning Carthage—a holocaust of proportions such as the world has never witnessed. And I use the word "witnessed" advisedly: because while perhaps even worse famines have happened in the past, they were not seen by a watching world, by Governments and peoples who, if they do not act, are accessories before the fact.
Therefore, I ask: what are the Government doing through the international agencies to avert the disastrous consequences of an already disastrous war? This is far beyond the resources of flag-day tins and the sales of Christmas cards; far beyond voluntary donations, however generous—and I hope that they will be more than generous in this case. This is beyond the finest efforts of the International Red Cross and the Churches, and all that they are doing at the moment. This is a matter for inter-Governmental action on the highest level. It calls for immediate planning on a scale equivalent to the massive preparations we made during the war for civil affairs in North Africa and the liberated countries of Europe. It calls for another UNRRA operation—the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Agency, which at the end of the War salvaged the war-ravaged countries, brought relief, prevented famine and stopped the pestilences which seemed inevitable: circumstances, I repeat, which exist in the present situation in Nigeria.
Some of us were involved in the planning. We know the foresight. the insight, and the logistics involved. It calls for forward ordering. With the best will in the world, it needs at least two months from the indent to delivery of the right kinds of food and equipment, because, and I repeat, rehabilitation will mean equipment, not only for the ravaged farmlands but for the industries by which Eastern Nigeria—a food deficiency area, I would remind your Lordships—earned the food it imported from other parts of Nigeria and elsewhere. It means not only packaged protein and carbohydrates; it means seed corn, seed yams, seed cassava for the harvests that hungry people have already eaten.
My Lords, it needs a "Calamity Force" at the ready. It means depots and cargo ships, small craft, road transport, aircraft of the right kind for delivery, and helicopters standing off-shore if need be—all of it standing off-shore if necessary. No doubt other parts of Nigeria can and should be able to supply food to the depleted areas. They should be given the post-civil war resources and physical means to do so. That needs planning, too, because at the moment it would be politically misunderstood. The situation, I repeat, is now completely out of hand. It calls for the greatest imagi-
674
nation and determination on the part of the Government. We need professional personnel, as UNRRA had, car able of dealing with the clinical consequences of hunger and of disease, and of helping to deal with the restoration of tie war-ravaged regions.
My Question refers to "international organisations". The heirs of UNRRA still survive in the United Nations in the Specialised Agencies—UNICEF, which took over UNRRA'S responsibilities for children; the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agriculture 07ganisation, to deal with disease and food restoration. However, this needs co-ordination; it needs planning; it needs imagination; it needs drive.
In this present situation UNICEF has been very active. From the very beginning it has worked in closest conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross and with the Churches and the other voluntary organisations. UNICEF received authority from its Board—and we have a British representative on this Board—to spend 2·4 million dollars, and it has received contributions it kind, mostly food and drugs, totalling 10·6 million dollars. This very substantial aid, as it would look on paper, has been made available to the war victims on both sides of the fighting line. But however substantial it may seem on paper, it is quite inadequate. At this moment UNICEF is operating five helicopters in those parts of Eastern Nigeria which have been occupied by the Federal troops. It can operate there because Nigerian Federal troops happen to recognise the United Nations. For Biafra, on the other hand, it has had to reply on the services of the voluntary agencies.
But I should tell my noble friend on the Front Bench that UNICEF is new eating its seed-corn. In spite of the substantial voluntary help, the extent of the suffering and the prospect of worse, could mean that it would have to draw on its own regular budget to a crippling extent, so depriving other developing nations of the help already committed to them. I know that the Government have inc-eased their regular contribution to UNICEF, but I would suggest that they should give also to its Emergency Fund, which now has to face still greater demands.
The United Nations and its Specialised Agencies have been grievously handicapped by the politics of the Nigerian situation. We all know why. I would earnestly suggest to my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government should now, through the United Nations, take the initiative in proposing and participating in the planning of a massive United Nations relief and rehabilitation operation. When we offered, as proof of our oft-repeated loyalty to the United Nations, to provide the logistic support for six battalions of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force, I welcomed it in this House, but I suggested then that it should be regarded as a "Calamity Force", beyond military connotations. I suggest it again. There has been no Peacekeeping role in Nigeria, but there is a calamity. My Lords, the implications behind my Question are appalling. Since I put it, the clock has ticked away another 65 lives.
5.8 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am sure that we are all very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has put this Question down. As we approach Christmas and think of the appalling suffering which is going on, it is difficult not to be emotional. I shall do my best not to be, but to be practical and, I hope, in some small way, helpful. I remember so well the words of advice of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when he addressed us on the subject of Nigeria in August. If he will allow me, and if your Lordships will bear with me, I would read from Hansard of August 27, col. 709, the words of Lord Hunt. He said
"It is sheer nonsense to talk, and to attempt to act, as though a legal Government, wielding its legal powers and conducting a military campaign, can be treated as though it were some dependency or some local authority of ours, as some people seem to think and write …"
Of course, when this dreadful war comes to an end it will still be a question of dealing with a sovereign Government who will wish to run their own affairs. I am quite certain that in all the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, said as to what he was looking forward to, this point had not escaped his notice. There is the question of national pride; there is the question of normal ordinary human
676
jealousies; and all these things will have to be taken into account.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has drawn his Question very finely deliberately in order to avoid any question of the rights or wrongs of the case, and has applied his mind and his arguments almost entirely to the future. Perhaps he will not think that I am straying from the point if for a moment I ask your Lordships also to consider the present, for the alleviation of this dreadful suffering surely must now have a bearing on what is to be done later on. I think that it will be helpful to all of us if more of the authoritative information which is available were published. There is in The Times to-day—and I hope that noble Lords on the other side of the House are not so opposed to The Times as not to have read it—a very interesting and helpful article by Brigadier-General Sir Bernard Fergusson —I see that in fact it has been read by noble Lords on the other side—in which the writer has tried to bring this terrible problem into proportion. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who is to reply, could tell us when the report of the international observer team is to be published. Perhaps it has already been published, but I have not been able to find out and I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell the House about it.
At the moment the dreadful position is that, despite all the good will available, all that it appears to be possible to do is to fly supplies into the Ibo hill territory by night on to one airstrip. This is all, apparently, that we are able to do. I know that there are terrible difficulties, and I know about the efforts which have been made. But is it not possible to put other airstrips at the disposal of these aeroplanes of mercy? Surely somehow this could be arranged. I know that the Federal authorities objected to daylight flights. I have heard rumours—they may not be correct, and perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply may be able to tell me whether they are right or wrong—that there is now a possibility that they may allow daylight flights. Equally, I have heard rumours that the Ibos are not prepared to accept daylight flights. Of course, if this is true it is a tragic state of affairs. I do not know whether it is true, and perhaps the noble Lord could help us on this point.

677
In another place on December 10, a Question was put asking whether the International Red Cross had sufficient funds, and also what decision was being taken over the appeal for more funds for next year. I understand that a world-wide appeal has been made for more than £3 million to finance the continuation of their work up to the end of February, 1969. The reply given was that this matter was urgently being considered. I should like to know from the noble Lord in his reply what Her Majesty's Government's decision is. I hope that we will be generous and that we will make a large contribution where it is needed.
I do not, of course, wish to say anything which will make the task of Mr. Foley in Addis Ababa or the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in Nigeria in any way more difficult. Obviously as much as any one of your Lordships I wish them well, and hope that their mission, whatever it is, will be successful. But I wonder whether ways and means have been discussed with the Nigerian authorities, between us and them, to find out whether they are doing advanced planning on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder. Of course, they are in the grips of an appalling situation and it may be that they find it difficult to cast their minds ahead to what will happen after. But it will be through them that all our efforts and the efforts of the civilised world and of the international agencies will have to be channelled. Therefore, I hope that some preparatory work is being carried out now. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will be able to tell us something about that. Has the question of technical advice been considered? No doubt it will be necessary to have men of great experience, men of the calibre of the UNWRA teams to help in the chaotic situation which inevitably must follow a settlement. I wonder whether this is being discussed with the Nigerian authorities. I cannot lay too much emphasis on this since I feel that it is vital to discuss this matter with the Nigerians themselves. We certainly cannot do it without their participation.
There was a letter in The Times on Monday, December 9, signed by Mr. Robert Chambers and others, which spoke of a massive air drop. Has this idea been really carefully considered? It seems
678
to me a terrible thing that we should be sitting here while thousands of people are unnecessarily dying, when we have the power to help them. We have the Royal Air Force at our command; we have the money and the supplies. Could we not somehow get the agreement of the Federal Nigerian authorities to allow aircraft to fly off from Nigerian aerodromes and drop food by parachute or any other means—just free drops into the relatively small 70 by 50 mile area, which is the Ibo redoubt? Is this not possible? Could we not invite Ibo representatives to be there to see that the food is right? Could we not ensure that every cargo is supervised to see that there is no question of anything other than food and medicine being flown in? Has this been carefully and exhaustively discussed and gone into? It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will prefer not to answer some of these questions, and I shaft understand if he does not wish to do so. I do not, of course, want to make the situation more difficult, but I ask these questions hoping that at least they may be considered.
We know that in the Federal-he d parts of Nigeria there are still areas where there is near-famine and dreadful distress. What is the excuse for this? Can it really be necessary? Can it not be overcome? I am not talking about the Ibo-held territory, but about the Federal-held territory. Have we discussed with the Nigerian authorities ways of overcoming this? Have we, perhaps, offered to them the means of overcoming it, if the means is really all that is wanted? I put these questions to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, hoping only that the greatest possible effort will be made. I do not want to be emotional this evening. I know we all feel that this is a terrible situation. But, after all, it is Britain who created Nigeria, and surely we have a greater responsibility to Nigeria in this hour of need than any other country in the world.
5.20 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has placed us very much in his debt by the horrifying yet unemotional way in which he has placed this situation before us. I think that all of us knew of the problem. He has brought in home to us, and brought home, in particular,

679
the urgency of the need for previous preparation for the action which must take place the moment it is possible to give the necessary relief.
All of us in this House, as elsewhere, pray that peace may be restored to Nigeria, but we do not wish to say anything that would in any way make the work of the representatives in Addis Ababa and elsewhere more difficult. We have to face the problem of the restoration of peoples and the prevention of famine. One has merely to consider the facts which we have been given, that an airlift of something like 2,000 tons a day would be necessary and that the existing airstrips would be totally incapable of taking that amount of food, to realise how difficult, if not well-nigh impossible, it is to meet the immediate situation. I believe that there are at this present moment 4,500,000 people almost totally dependent upon external aid for food and medicines. We know that this number is bound to increase as the seed crops are destroyed and the hope of the next harvest is removed. What more can we say, except to urge the need for immediate action and preparation by international agencies?
The noble Lord referred to the work of the voluntary agencies in helping, mainly, the Ibo-held territories, which they alone were able to do. That is a remarkable exercise in inter-Church cooperation, which the World Council of Churches started in October, 1967, in the very closest co-operation with the Red Cross and in which Churches from many nations have combined. The efforts of our own voluntary agencies—Christian Aid, OXFAM, War on Want, the Save the Children Fund, and so on—have not been negligible, though they have been totally unable to meet the greatness of the need. Now, as we look to the immediate restoration and rehabilitation of the peoples and the avoidance of famine, I want only to add that, though the voluntary agencies know they cannot carry out the task themselves—it requires something of the magnitude and skill and expertise of UNRWA to do it—they are nevertheless ready and anxious to help.
The World Council of Churches is already engaged in a survey of needs and
680
priorities in rehabilitation. Christian Aid in this country has contributed money and people to that survey, and has already set aside a substantial sum of money to be used for that purpose the moment it is possible, with of course the support and understanding of the Nigerian authorities. The voluntary agencies will help to the utmost of their power. They believe that the generosity of English people will enable them to play their part, though it is only a subsidiary one. I would add my voice from these Benches, and say that a massive effort in planning, beginning now on the scale of UNRWA, should receive the urgent consideration and support of all. We should also be looking forward to the longer-range rehabilitation, making good, for instance, the leeway in education, and making good the destruction of equipment. But all these measures must be subsidiary to the immediate need. Men and, above all, women and children are dying, who perhaps need not die if action can be taken. I think we should all pledge ourselves to give what support we can to that international action the moment it becomes possible.
5.26 p.m.
LORD HUNT: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, was right to raise this Question at this time, and in the terms in which he has chosen to put it down. I feel sure that all of your Lordships will be glad, as the noble Marquess was glad, to know of the initiative taken by Her Majesty's Government in sending two Ministers at this time to attempt once more to solve this problem. It could be deemed imprudent to be speaking in your Lordships' House on this subject while this political initiative is being taken. Others could take the view that it was improper to discuss in this House, or in another place, the problems of another independent country. As some of your Lordships will know, this view has been expressed in Nigeria. But I believe—in fact, I am sure—that within the terms of the Question which has been put down, it can only be helpful to our own Government in their task and to the people of Nigeria that we should be looking at this problem now.
Whatever we may feel, or may have felt, about the rights or wrongs of the conflicting ideals on either side in the

681
Nigerian civil war, our political sympathies must now be subordinated to the overriding need to bring to an end the suffering of human beings. Many of them want only to live. When I spoke in the emergency debate at the end of August, I deplored the extent to which the suffering of these wretched mothers and children was being exploited, both in this country and elsewhere, wittingly or otherwise, to promote a political cause. Thank goodness! that trend is now receding. Now we are all, or we all ought to be, concerned only with suffering and how to bring it to an end. I think it is most important, and I was very glad to hear the noble Marquess speaking in those terms, to see the present situation in sober perspective and in due proportion, compared with what it was and with what it may become.
I have here the Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross which was written at the end of August. I could quote a great many figures—a great many figures have already been given and there will no doubt be others—but I do not propose to confound the problem with figures which might not exactly tally with those given by the noble Lord who put down this Question and with those which may be used later by the noble Lord the Leader of the House who will answer this Question. But it should be said—and I hope it will not be felt to be complacent on my part—that the situation is in some respects greatly improved over that when I reported on it last July, and, indeed, over what it was when we discussed this matter in your Lordships' House at the end of August. The whole relief operation, mounted under the direction of Dr. Lindt, with the splendid material support of many countries and many voluntary agencies, and to no small degree encouraged by the lead given by our own Government, has developed in a most impressive way, and no praise is too high for the 42 relief teams—including, of course, those from this country—who are the front line troops in this war against famine.
I noted what the noble Marquess had to say about the situation in the areas controlled by the Federal Military Government troops, but I believe that it is generally true to say that in the war zone occupied by the Federal Military Gov-
682
ernment the minimum requirement of food and medicine is being supplied to most of those who are most in need. Evidence from relief workers shows that the death rate, particularly in the Northern area, has dropped dramatically. At least this is on the credit side of the account. It is certainly a far better situation than when I was there in July, when I and my colleagues were at least as concerned—except, of course, in regard to numbers—with the state of need of the million-odd (the International Red Cross gives it at a slightly lower figure) civilians on the perimeter as we were about the much larger numbers we knew to be inside Ibo territory.
I think, too, that we should recognise the astonishing feats accomplished both by the International Red Cross air fleet and by the Church organisations which are based on the island of Sao Tome in stepping up and maintaining the remarkable and regular scale of relief, amounting to about 100 tons each night, into Biafra itself. I must admit that this is far more than I thought to be possible under the hazardous conditions of war and weather, using only one improvised airstrip on the very edge of the encl we at night. The amount, of course, is tragically insufficient: it is less than half the estimated minimum needs, even in the present period of available local produce. But it is in my view a quite tremendous achievement of courage, devotion and skill. I believe that credit is also clue to General Gowon for continuing to permit these mercy flights the whole time into the besieged fortress.
So much for the present. There is nothing basically wrong with the organisation of relief in the context of war, still I less with its command, and less again with the splendid men and women who are working in the field. From the time when Dr. Lindt took over, the organisation began to develop rapidly and on the right lines; indeed, so far as I am concerned, the confidence I expressed in him during the emergency debate has been amply justified. I think that these are important points in looking, as the Question asks us to do, for further action in the future.
But, my Lords, in one other respect the situation is, even now, potentially Norse, far worse, than it was last August—and, of course, this leads us to the future. Last August there was at least an expectation

683
of a quick military solution, admittedly as a bad second best, in the stubborn absence of a glimmer of hope of a political settlement. The fear of many people—which I did not share—that there would be a bloody massacre of the Ibos by the Federals has not happened, and it has been discounted as a future probability by Sir Bernard Fergusson, to whom I have just spoken, when he returned to this country.
The point is, however, that nothing significant has happened to change the military situation in the past four months—indeed, for very much longer than that. So far as I am able to judge, it is highly unlikely that force of arms will bring the war to an end in the next few weeks—and this is the really crucial point. This is why the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, was right to direct our thoughts mainly to the horror ahead and to focus our thinking on Biafra. If I have not entirely agreed with the noble Lord on the current state of affairs, I join hands with him at this point. We must concentrate on the impending threat in the beleaguered, grossly overcrowded Ibo heartland.
If the need hitherto to supplement the food and other requirements of some 3½ million Ibos (and this, again, is the International Red Cross estimate) cannot be met by more than half now, what of the position in a matter of weeks ahead in a continuing siege situation? I am told that the crisis, on the basis of the exhaustion of local food stuffs, can be firmly forecast for the end of January. If the political and military situations remain unchanged, the numbers in dire need will have more than doubled, and may in fact include the whole Ibo people. My Lords, it stands out a mile that no airlift on a scale adequate to meet such a need could possible cope with a problem as appalling as this one bids fair to become—not in this tiny, ill-equipped area of Nigeria. Nor, even if it could be, could the financial cost be sustained.
I have nearly finished what I wanted to say under the terms of this Question, and I hope it will not be deemed to be departing too much from those terms if I just say this. I have never taken sides in this war, and I do not propose to do so now. But the point is that a military solution is not in sight—in fact,
684
it seems to be a very faint hope in the near future—and time is crucial. If the war were to end in the next few weeks the problem—the grim problem, as it was painted by Lord Ritchie-Calder—and the prospects which he forecast would be radically reduced for the better.
My Lords, it is bad enough to contemplate death for many by bullets: it is a far worse prospect to contemplate death for all by starvation. I believe that the time has come when both sides should accept that a cease-fire is the only way to avoid catastrophe, and to save the fair name of Nigeria and all concerned with its destiny and with each of its several peoples—and I suppose we should be thinking particularly of the Ibos themselves. Only in the conditions of a ceasefire is an augmented relief operation possible, based on the present one but not replacing its excellent structure, by the only method appropriate to the dimensions of the problem and capable of being sustained; that is, by road. Despite all that has been said about airlifts and possible airdrops, and despite everything that has been achieved by airlift, the road-relief corridors have always been the right answer.
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, that a great international effort is urgently required to step up the supply of relief to Nigeria. But an even more urgent need is a great international effort to bring about an immediate cease-fire. A good deal has been attempted, and there have been several conferences in which some of the African States themselves have played a most notable part; but political considerations have so far deterred a larger, more widely-based and more concerted initiative. Recognising, as I do (and I was grateful to the noble Marquess for reminding me of what I had previously said), the complete independence of Nigeria; recognising that any outside help, in whatever form, must first be asked for by that country; respecting as I do the ideals, and understanding as I do the suspicions, of both leaders, I earnestly hope that, for the sake of humanity, both will seek further and wider sources of very willing help to stop the fighting before it is too late.
5.40 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to those of earlier

685
speakers to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for drawing our attention to this absolutely vital issue. This famine transcends any problem faced by the United Nations or any of its Specialised Agencies over the last twenty years. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, drew our attention to the whole situation and portrayed it is a picture so grim and dark as to transcend all the issues before us to-day. This question, as the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, said, has received very little publicity. In fact, over the last few months, with the exception of two newspapers, it has almost entirely departed from the headlines. This is a matter of great regret; but surely no issue could test the sincerity of the nations within the United Nations as a whole more than this issue of the famine in Nigeria.
My Lords, as a representative of two of the agencies concerned, the British Red Cross Society and OXFAM, I should like to turn to both the short-term and the long-term issue in Nigeria. We have heard already from two great experts. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, whose mission enlightened us enormously. The present mission, the third undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to Nigeria will further add to the enlightenment of your Lordships' House. I am sure that we all send our great good wishes to him on his important mission.
My Lords, the short-term, immediate problem is, of course, money. At the time of the appeal by the International Red Cross on November 8 it was estimated that the immediate needs (for continuing the programme for four months only) would be £5·3 million. Thanks to immediate promises of contributions £2·1 million were available; that left £3·2 million to find. Thanks to the very generous contribution of the United States of America, one million dollars has been added to the sum and this has substantially reduced the gap. Thus, a month later, on December 9, the Commissioner-General, Mr. August Lindt, was able to say—and this was reported in The Times of December 10:
"This is thanks to the generosity of Governments and voluntary agencies. Everybody appreciates that the operation cannot be allowed to stop because of insufficient funds.
686
But we still lack resources to guarantee continuation for a longer period."
My Lords, long-term planning and the budgetary considerations are vital issues. With the Commissioner-General, we believe that the Churches and the voluntary agencies are covering approximately only 50 per cent. of the needy at the present moment. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London referred earlier to an estimated number of 41- million people who are in specially desperate need. Mr. Lindt, who returns to Lagos next week, said that as regards carbohydrates the pinch would probably come towards the end of February; but I should be more inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who set it at a very much earlier date. I also agree wholeheartedly with Lord Hunt that any increased supply of carbohydrates would be out of the question in view of the fact that in present circumstances all air space and cargo space is taken up by the carriage of proteins.
My Lords, I should particularly like to emphasise that on the present budget the intricate pattern of co-ordinated activities of the voluntary agencies cannot hope to continue beyond the end of February. If hostilities have not ceased by then, the acute shortage of carbohydrates and protein deficiency wilt take the problem beyond our reach. At the moment this is purely a holding operation. The voluntary agencies can plug the gap between now and perhaps the very early weeks of next year; but the vital missing ingredient is a cessation of hostilities. Last week, Mr. Borsinger, in the company of Ambassador Paul Ruegger, made a special mission to this country and laid before Her Majesty's Government the particular circumstances and emphasised the existing need within the International Red Cross programme. Further, Mr. Borsinger informed the Disasters Emergency Committee in London last week that even if the hostilities ended very shortly the International Red Cross believe that the relief operation must continue at least until 1969.
What is so necessary for any form of effective planning is to have a budgetary consideration of at least 12 months—and not one of three months or four months in the hope that this

687
will be sufficient. Let us not blind ourselves to the fact that this operation is one of enormous proportions, far beyond any we have known before. A special problem concerns the four medical relief teams recruited by the Save the Children Fund and partly financed by Her Majesty's Government. The total cost of keeping four medical relief teams in the field, it will be remembered, was £185,000. This runs out on March 31, 1969. The Government contribution was £127,000. The Save the Children Fund, from their own resources, gave £58,000 which will be exhausted by that date.
I should like to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House this specific question: Will a further Government contribution be allocated to enable the Save the Children Fund to keep the medical relief teams in the field for a much prolonged period? I am informed by the Director of the Save the Children Fund, Sir Colin Thornley, that to date no indication has been given by the Government of their intentions. Far greater experts than I have already spoken on this problem. I feel that I can add nothing further.
5.47 p.m.
BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has given us some very relevant facts and figures telling us what help is being given at the moment and how far the money is going; but I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that it is really impossible to make any detailed rehabilitation plans until hostilities cease. Then it will be possible to assess the situation. When this happy state of events occurs I think it will still present a problem that perhaps can be solved only by what I would call old-fashioned diplomacy. By that, I mean consultations with another sovereign State conducted privately and not under T.V. lights or with constant Press coverage. I am sure that all the help must be given on the principle of working with the Nigerians and not just for them. Also, I am sure that it will be essential to find out what is really wanted in cash, kind and people, and that it is vitally important not to overload the Nigerians with unwanted or unwelcome help in the form of goods or people.
688
I think we must be very careful to recommend our advice and on no account to dictate. This help must be organised. I suggest, by one organisation and one organisation only—and that, I think, should be the United Nations in some form. And, of course, the procedure must be acceptable to the Nigerians. General Gowon has already emphasised that although he is very grateful to the Churches and to the International Red Cross for their present help, when the conflict is over the responsibility for rehabilitation will actually rest with the Nigerians, and very largely with the Nigerian Red Cross. As a result of this the International Committee of the Red Cross has sent an important member of the Committee to Lagos to plan future help and advice with the Nigerian Red Cross, to enable them to play their part in a massive rehabilitation programme. The Nigerians are a proud people. They have a background of tribal rites and customs. They are learning the problems of government the hard way. I am sure that voluntary organisations and the Government can help best to ensure that the Nigerians have the means to help themselves, and I hope that the noble Lord in his reply will be able to agree to this.
5.51 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I do not intend to keep the House for more than a few minutes, but I wish to add to the expressions of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and others who have spoken, for dealing with this great but most sombre and tragic matter. It is certainly heartening when one finds eminent Humanists like the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, taking the initiative provided by this debate to link up with the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London, and others here of various religions, faiths and political Parties, all joining together on the one simple issue: to find how, through human compassion, we can meet both the immediate and the long-term situation in Nigeria. We are divided in many ways. Sometimes a great gulf appears between us. But there are invaluable bridges, and the bridge of compassion is one of them. I am very glad, as I am sure we all are, that we are unanimous to-night in endorsing all the recommendations and

689
urgencies expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder.
Certainly we all deplore the continuation of this ghastly strife. That being so, it seems to me that we need to pay attention to the immediate situation as well as the future. One possibility, I understand, is that of bringing out a number of the children into some neighbouring territory. I hope that will be done. At least it will take them away from the sound of strife and the immediate incidence of starvation and even worse. I wonder whether we could not ourselves give to these recipient countries adjoining Nigeria and Iboland some assurance that they will be helped in caring for the children that are at last deposited on their territory. I put that forward as an idea upon which I hope that my noble friend Lord Shackleton will say a few words. That would ease the immediate situation. So far as the long-term situation is concerned we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for reminding us of the appalling conditions that will exist when at last this war comes to an end.
Meanwhile we have a number of voluntary agencies to whom no tribute can be excessive. The Save the Children Fund was mentioned by a previous speaker. I was reminded by that reference that the Save the Children Fund began just after the First World War. It then existed to try to save some of the children who were starving to death in Germany. There were only critics of that movement at that time, and I am glad that that organisation has grown through the years until now it exists to meet the needs of children everywhere. Other voluntary organisations are doing the same thing, but obviously much more than all the voluntary agencies can do is urgently required. I trust, therefore, that our Government will take the initiative in this matter.
I suggest that it might be as well if our own Government sought consultation with the Organisation for African Unity. Africans are very jealous of their own continent and perhaps apprehensive, if not suspicious, that whatever help is given from Europe to Africa has some ulterior motive. I believe they are entirely wrong, but at least we should consult this body, which is of some sig-
690
nificance and has some influence. I submit that suggestion to my noble friend and perhaps he will give some information and advice on it later.
My Lords, the only other thing I wish to say is that we are at this time reminded of the approach of Christmas. There is an ancient story that Herod massacred all the infants under two years of age in a large area. I am sure we feel that that massacre is now being continued. Because of that, and in view of all that Christmas signifies, trust that the whole House will not only endorse the moving, but sane, plea of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, but also will urge the Government to do all they can, unilaterally if necessary but with others as well if possible, to try to meet the immediate and the long-term necessity.
5.55 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Leader of the House replies to the debate, may I be permitted to make, not a speech, but an interjection? We have listened to a most moving debate. We have listened to many suggestions, all of them good. We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richie-Calder, for having raised the matter. But what we have been discussing is relief; or perhaps I m ay put it in another way: we have been discussing the methods by which we can get the fire brigade to work in Africa, to help to put out the fire and to indulge in urgently needed rescue work.
The situation is stark tragedy, but we ought never to lose sight of the fact that there is only one solution to this problem and that is to stop the fighting, or rather, to stop the fire. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will pay some slight attention to that. You can talk about the International Red Cross, or this or that or anything else, but what matters is: Can we use our influence, which is still great, more effectively to put a stop to the fire? That is what we have to do—stop the war. I beg the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to devote a few minutes of his speech to telling us what the Government are trying to do to stop it.
5.58 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, having listened to the words of my noble

691
friend Lord Ritchie-Calder and other noble Lords, I feel it is almost impossible to find the appropriate expressions with which to reply on this tremendous and, in our more recent generation, unique tragedy. As I listened to my noble friend, Lord Ritchie-Calder, saying that there has never been anything like this, or at least that there had never been a famine which had been so "visible"—I think that was his word—to the eyes of the world, I recalled the sayings of a very great man in a similar situation. Then there were no television cameras but at least the world knew what was going on.
Describing the situation he said:
"A heart-rending appeal for help went out to all the world, and eventually a great many people in this and in other countries helped, and helped generously. But many more were busy trying to find out first who was to blame. Was it the drought? Or was it the political system? As if that could ameliorate the terrible suffering or make any difference whatever to those who were dying of starvation."
He went on to say:
"There is something rotten in the condition of the world."
There is still ample scope for improvement. The action he took was to send the following telegram to the Save the Children International Union, the predecessor of the Save the Children Fund:
"Hundreds of thousands of children are dying of hunger. Millions of others are threatened with the same fate. Convinced that an unprecedented effort immediately undertaken can save them. I request the Save the Children International Union should appeal to men, women and children to give quickly to the little famished ones in Russia."
I make no apology for quoting from a book I wrote myself—a biography of Fridtjof Nansen. The passage I have quoted is from his famous address as Rector of St. Andrews University, as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will know. In those times, the tragedy was the indifference of Governments. And they were not only indifferent; they even regarded those horrors as a proper punishment for people. At least there is some improvement in national attitudes, although it does not seem to be achieving very successfully the purpose we all acknowledge and the morality we all recognise.
I will try to deal with most of the points that have been made. Some have already been answered by my noble
692
friend Lord Hunt. I wish that my noble friend Lord Shepherd was here to reply, but he is in Lagos at this moment, dealing not only with the problem of starvation but also, along with his colleague, Mr. Foley, who is in Addis Ababa, desperately looking for a solution. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is right. The time has come when we should talk not only of relief, although we need to do that, but of finding ways of stopping the fighting. I agree with my noble friend Lord Sorensen about the importance of O.A.U. The Government attach the greatest importance to this and that is why Mr. Foley is in Addis Ababa at the moment for consultations with the Emperor of Ethiopia, who is chairman of the O.A.U. Consultative Committee on Nigeria.
There is a further link with the quotation that I gave in the fact that Mr. Lindt is the successor of Nansen as High Commissioner for Refugees. I was glad to hear the tributes paid to him, because I know him well. It is a particular source of encouragement, both in regard to the integrity of the operation and its efficiency, that Mr. Lindt should be in charge of the operations of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
I should like to inform your Lordships straight away of an announcement which was made by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in another place earlier to-day. As many noble Lords know, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, who has been involved in this, the I.C.R.C. is responsible for co-ordinating and organising most of the relief aid which is flowing into Nigeria on both sides in the civil war. Early last month the I.C.R.C. launched an urgent appeal for new funds to finance the extensive relief operations which are necessary. The appeal was directed to Governments and to Red Cross Societies and other relief organisations in many parts of the world. The Government have been considering this appeal urgently—perhaps it would be inadequate to add "sympathetically" because the sense of horror almost overwhelms these familiar phrases—and earlier this month M. Ruegger had discussions with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and other colleagues. In the light of this the Government have announced that, subject to the approval of Parliament, they will make a further

693
contribution to Nigerian relief of £700,000. This will take the form of a direct grant to I.C.R.C. Taking into account the earlier sum of £270,000 which the Government have already contributed, the total comes to something a little under £1 million. I would not dream of saying that this is an act of generosity. We are not concerned just with generosity but with saving life.
I cannot answer the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, as to whether there will be a contribution to the Save the Children Fund to enable their teams to continue. Everybody who has worked with the Fund, as I did for a period on one of their committees, is aware of the value of their work and the need for an assurance of continued support for their teams in the next financial year. I am afraid that at this moment I cannot give any commitment, but the Government are well aware of the value of the work of the I.C.R.C.
If I may, I would comment on certain points which my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder made on the extent of the tragedy, not in any attempt to repudiate what he has said but merely to give the best information that we have. My noble friend quoted some horrifying figures about the rate of starvation in Nigeria, especially in the areas under the control of Colonel Ojukwu. There have been a lot of statistics in the Press and elsewhere, some lower and some higher than those my noble friend gave, as he himself said. Of course, there is an element of guesswork but, as my noble friend Lord Hunt said, there is one point on which there can be some certainty.
The supply of proteins and drugs in recent weeks has brought about a considerable improvement and led to a reduction in the rate of deaths by starvation, especially among children. It may be that some of the figures that have been quoted do not adequately reflect the improvement; but it does not really matter whether it is 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. We cannot measure the degree of horror that is involved by saying 50,000 or 100,000. I certainly agree with my noble friend that the situation is as grave as it could be; that nothing like sufficient supplies are reaching those in need, and that in the coming months there is a prospect of a severe hydrocarbon shortage, particularly in the secessionist
694
held areas; and that to bring in big supplies to relieve that shortage would inevitably be beyond the capacity of the existing night airlift.
My noble friend quoted some figures of the supplies sent in recent months by the I.C.R.C. and the Church organisations. I should like to give the figures that have for the Record. From April up to the end of last week, the I.C.R.C. was able to deliver 5,500 tons of supplies to the areas controlled by the secessionists by airlift, and in the period from December 1 to 10 inclusive the total was 700 tons. The Church organisations had by the end of November delivered a total of 6,500 tons. But the amount that can be delivered on any one night depends on the aircraft available and, what is much more important, on conditions at the airstrip at Uli where the relief planes land. So the amount does fluctuate. Recently it has been possible to deliver a total of some 150 tons a night from Fernando Po and Sao Tome. However, night airlifts certainly would not be able to cope with carbohydrate shortage that we have to expect.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. Calder, put forward an interesting and far-reaching suggestion consistent with suggestions that he has made in the past; namely, that there should be an international Calamity Force, along the lines of UNRRA, created especially to deal with the situation, although I realise that he wishes it to be a permanent part of the apparatus of the United Nation:. The advice that I have—and I think this is may, to some extent, be borne out by what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said—is that the obstacle to a larger-scale relief effort is not the existing international machinery. The I.C.R.C., as the principal co-ordinating agency, have teen extremely effective, and I should like to add my tribute to those dedicated people in the field whose work we all wish to praise. But the obstacles in the provision of sufficient supplies of food and drugs are principally yin the political field.
The fact is, my Lords, that what is needed, above all, is facilities to bring these supplies by land into the rebel-held area. Only by land can sufficient quantities be brought in. The Federal Government of Nigeria has offered arrangements for a land corridor for

695
relief supplies into the area controlled by Colonel Ojukwu. Unfortunately, Colonel Ojukwu has not so far felt able to accept this offer. Similarly, the Federal Government has offered arrangements for daylight flights which would at least permit some increase in the tonnage that could be carried; but here, too, Colonel Ojukwu has not so far made any positive response.
Clearly, the best solution to the immense problem of starvation and malnutrition would be an early end to the fighting. I am assured that if there were to be a cease-fire arrangements could be made to bring in the supplies around the war-areas—and this may to some extent deal with one of the points made by my noble friend Lord Sorensen. All these supplies are already available in the hope that land routes may be available either when the fighting stops or when it is possible for Colonel Ojukwu to agree to arrangements for supplies by land.
I have already mentioned that my noble friend Lord Shepherd is at this moment in Lagos for discussions with General Gowon, and that my honourable friend Mr. Foley is in Addis Ababa. Both, of course, are hoping that their discussions may reveal some possibility of progress being made, both in the search for an end to the fighting and in the field of removing obstacles to the effective provision of relief for the starving and the sick. Certainly if these talks reveal that there is any possibility of an initiative which the British Government could take in that direction, we shall be ready and eager to take it. I assure noble Lords—and I make no political point of any kind—that every member of the Government who has studied this problem feels as strongly about it as do Members of your Lordships' House. It is no good sitting back and saying: "Is our policy right?" Somehow a solution must be found by the world.
The noble Lord directed an important part of his speech, and indeed his Question, to the problem of rehabilitation and reconstruction in Nigeria once the war is over. The Federal Government has already begun to set up the necessary institutional arrangements for the reconstruction programme which will be neces-
696
sary, and there is a Federal Commissioner for Reconstruction who has already begun his work. The World Bank has also initiated discussions with the Federal Government about the international aid effort in support of reconstruction which will undoubtedly be necessary. The British Government have made it clear that they hope to discuss with the Federal Government the situation which will emerge after the war ends, and to make an appropriate contribution to their needs when the time comes. Once the war is over, the International Red Cross will transfer its responsibility for the co-ordination of relief to the Nigerian Red Cross and the League of Red Cross Societies, and to a great extent the co-ordinating role will no doubt devolve on the Federal Government itself.
My Lords, I hope that what I have said answers the noble Lord. It is our view that the institutional arrangements for dealing with the present needs are very adequate, and indeed that the resources of food and medical supplies, and even to a great extent of transport and other logistic facilities, are equal to the task. And there is more that can be provided. There have been any number of generous donations of money and food from Governments, from private organisations, United Nations Agencies, including the World Food Programme and UNICEF. The International Red Cross itself estimates that it has sufficient resources of supplies to maintain its relief operation at about the present level for several months. But the urgent problem is how to bring the available supplies to those who need them.
Again, I can only stress that the best solution must be the end of the fighting. Short of that, we should hope that some agreement could be found, even at this eleventh hour, for a land route for relief. The primary responsibility for mediation and a search for a settlement and an end to the fighting rests, in our opinion, on the Organisation for African Unity. We believe that the O.A.U. is the best body to do this: that this is an African problem, to be solved by Africans. I am sure that all noble Lords will share the Government's devout hope that the efforts of the O.A.U., and the current discussions which my noble friend Lord Shepherd and my honourable friend Mr. Foley are having, will lead to some progress.

697
The Government are determined to do everything they can. We will listen to any initiative that may be suggested. If it is open to us, and we think it is likely to lead to the prospect either of the relief of starvation or of ending the war, the Government will be only too ready to take the action that is necessary. I should perhaps say to the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne (I think he is aware of it), that the International Observers' Report has already been published; in fact, they published several Reports, and there is a consolidated copy in the Library.
If there are any points with which I have not dealt (there may be a number, and I apologise), I can only say that we
698
shall study closely what your Lordships have said. I think this is a matter that we now need, as this tragedy unfolds, to keep almost under continuous review. The degree of national reaction across every creed and interest in this country is something that makes me still hope that it will be possible to find solutions. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend, Lord Ritchie-Calder, will feel that, even if my reply in many ways may have been inadequate—and we shall consider his suggestions—we are all united in recognising the terrible nature of this tragedy and the importance of doing better than we have done.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past six o'clock.