HL Deb 15 December 1969 vol 306 cc815-32

2.55 p.m.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

Moved, That the Report be received.—(Lord Shackleton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 [Establishment and status of Ulster Defence Regiment]:

LORD BOOTHBY moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 6, leave out ("Ulster Defence Regiment") and insert ("Northern Ireland Defence Regiment")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I am aware that the ground has already been well traversed in debate both in this House and in another place. Therefore I propose, simply and briefly, to summarise the arguments in favour of it. Before doing so, however, I should like to make it clear that I strongly support this Bill. I was deeply impressed by the Hunt Report which gave rise to it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, that the principle underlying the Report, that a military solution has to be found, is absolutely right and I am glad that such a solution has been found.

To summarise the objections, let me take the first objection—the fact that the title is a false one. The Province of Ulster contains three predominantly Catholic counties which are part of the Republic of Eire. From these three counties no recruits will be allowed: they are forbidden. I must quote once again from the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on Second Reading: Ulster, as we know, is a fact, a historic fact, but a fact which has strong Party political and partisan connotations, whereas Northern Ireland is simply a geographical fact of life. I am sorry that that name has not been attached to the force."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8/12/69, col. 332.]

The second objection is that there are no precedents for this. This is the first time the word "Ulster" has been used in an Act of Parliament. In Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has pointed out, the word "Ulster" has for long been associated with Orange organisations which have no statutory authority and from which Catholics are excluded. Nor can the name of regiments be called in support of this title. The Royal Ulster Rifles, in which the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery served, never confined its recruiting to the Six Counties of Northern Ireland. It recruited, as he himself told us, from far outside the Six Counties, and even from outside Ulster itself.

The third objection is that the use of the word "Ulster" is evocative of a past which, as I have already twice said to your Lordships, is really best forgotten. In this country it is forgotten. I remember it, because Lord Carson lived in the village of Rottingdean where I was at a private school before the First World War. Our headmaster, who was an Ulsterman, made us line up with Union Jacks to cheer Lord Carson as he drove down the street, and I remember very vividly, as a Liberal—which I was in those days—I was ten years old—the inflamatory passions that were aroused by the slogan, "Ulster will fight; and Ulster will be right". But, my Lords, none of this is forgotten in Ireland to-day.

I come now to the question of a "deal". On the Committee stage of this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, suggested that the title of the Bill was the result of a deal between Her Majesty's Government and the Stormont Government. This provoked the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to say that it was showing signs of "paranoic suspicion" to believe that there was some kind of mysterious deal. With all respect to the noble Lord—and I have a profound respect for him—I think this was going a bit too far. Of course there was a deal, and there was no mystery about it, and nothing wrong about it. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, went on to say: I should like to make it very clear that the British Government discuss the problems of Northern Ireland with the Government in Stormont. Obviously there are consultations on the name of the force and other points which relate to it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11/12/69, col. 750.] Obviously there were discussions in this case. I can understand, and even sympathise with, the desire of the Home Secretary not to go back on any part of an agreement which may have been reached with the Stormont Government. But there is an overriding consideration. If possible, this Bill must be made to work. I want to see it work. I do not share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that it is an unnecessary Bill. I think it is an admirable Bill, based on a very sound principle, but I submit that if the word "Ulster" is retained in the title there is a real danger that the Bill will not work: that the Catholics simply will not join the new Regiment and that it will become nothing more than a recreation of the old B Specials—which are also best forgotten; and in that case, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has pointed out to your Lordships, the new Defence Regiment will be nothing more than a farce.

In conclusion, my Lords, I would just say this. Much has been made of the fact that the title of this Bill is unimportant and that it should not be made a contentious issue. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, after a very brief visit to Ireland came back and told us that that was more or less his view. I am afraid I cannot accept it, from my knowledge of feeling in Ulster at the present time, and I do not think that that can be accurately gauged in the course of a visit of two or three days. My reply to the contention that the title in the Bill is unimportant is that by use of the provocative word "Ulster" you are raising it to the level of a contentious issue, and therefore to one of great importance.

What is wrong with "Northern Ireland"? It is a good name, an honourable name, and we hope that in the future it will be a happy name; and it has the overwhelming merit in this connection of being true. The noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, in a most impressive speech, said that if the title was a stumbling block to Catholics he himself would have no objection to its being changed. It is only because I want the Bill to work, I want it to succeed and to bring peace to this distracted part of the United Kingdom, that I beg to move this Amendment.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I am a Protestant; there are various doctrines and habits of Roman Catholicism with which I disagree strongly; and I sympathise wilh the Protestants of Ulster in their fear of possible Roman Catholic domination. But one must live and let live, and if one is going to try to placate the strong Roman Catholic minority, I feel that one must go the whole hog and not spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar. If this title is a stumbling block, I feel we ought to alter the title and do the thing properly.

LORD AMPTHILL

My Lords, I must first of all apologise to the House in that I was not able to be in my place for the Second Reading and the Committee stage of this Bill; I was under doctor's orders and still am to a certain extent. But my conscience compelled me to come here to-day and speak on this Amendment, because I agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and I do not think that this title, the "Ulster Deierice Regiment", will be very helpful. Some of your Lordships may know that I lived and worked in Northern Ireland for a number of years. For over thirty years I was connected with Northern Ireland, mainly concerned with factories. In all my business dealings there I never used the word "Ulster"; we always referred to the "Northern Ireland factories", the "Northern Ireland Government", the "Northern Ireland people" and so on. I think I was long enough in Northern Ireland to get to know the Northern Ireland people, to appreciate partly how their minds work, and partly to understand their fears and the things that move them. In view of that knowledge, I felt it was my duty to come here to-day and support the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and my noble friend, Lord Hawke, in this Amendment to omit "Ulster" from the title of the regiment.

3.4 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, one of the impressive aspects of our discussions on this subject has been the broad spectrum of support in the House for the proposal that the name "Ulster" should be dropped and "Northern Ireland" or something similar substituted for it. Because the discussion ranged so widely on the last occasion and there was such a measure of support, I thought it right to discuss the matter fully with my right honourable friends so that what was said in this House should be taken fully into consideration. At the same time, I was unable—and it would have been wrong for me to mislead the House into thinking that there was a great likelihood that I should be able—to make a concession; and, therefore, my noble friend, Lord Brockway, took the matter to a Division and his Amendment was defeated by a very narrow margin indeed. I make no complaint that the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, have brought the same issue before the House at a more convenient time of day, so that your Lordships may once again pass judgment on the matter.

Not only have my right honourable friends considered the matter, but I have also myself, in the light of the views expressed, considered it very carefully in terms of what would seem to be the best for Northern Ireland. I am well aware that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, as he says, supports the Bill but none the less considers that the Amendment would improve the usefulness and the prospects of the new Defence Regiment and would contribute to peace in Northern Ireland. We are all agreed that that is the object. I am bound to say, however, that some of those who have spoken against the Amendment also know Northern Ireland rather well, and I am to that extent reinforced in my own conclusion which, for reasons which I will attempt to give, is that we ought to stick to the name "Ulster". This is not in any way to underrate the arguments, particularly of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, who certainly knows Northern Ireland, or Ulster as you may wish, better than I do.

The question before us is the name to be given to a military regiment. From the military point of view—and I stress that we are talking from the military point of view—certainly within the context of the delicate issues of Northern Ireland, "Ulster" is a much better term than "Northern Ireland", and there are several reasons why this is so. "Ulster" figures in the titles of a number of existing units, some of which have been formed quite recently. "Northern Ireland" figures in none. I will not, however, make too much of the argument as to whether the title should be Northern Ireland, as opposed to the other names proposed, because I know noble Lords had alternative suggestions. But it is worth reminding the House, since some noble Lords may not have heard the argument, that there are currently three major T. & A.V.R. units with "Ulster" in their titles, all of which were formed in 1967: they are the 102nd (Ulster and Scottish) Light Air Defence Regiment; the 40th (Ulster) Signals Regiment; the 152nd (Ulster) Regiment, Royal Corps of Transport. And, of course, in the Regular Army there was until recently, as the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, knows (I think he was called the Earl of Cork and Oratory), the Royal Ulster Rifles, which has now been integrated into the Royal Irish Rangers—a fairly historic name. One could go back further in time and give other instances, but I take the point that we are looking at the situation as it prevails to-day, and I have given enough examples to support my point.

There are admittedly many differences of nature and origin between these historic military units and the new Regiment, but that does not affect the essential point—and I am on the military point now—which is that "Ulster" is a term of military usage which is well known, well accepted, and recently applied, whereas "Northern Ireland" is not. These Ulster regiments, my Lords, are proud of their titles and they reflect their distinguished history and traditions: and I am sure no noble Lord would suggest that there is any element in those traditions and titles which is not a matter for pride.

The new Regiment—and this is the important part of the proposition—will be an integral part of the Army; its uniform. its organisation, its discipline, its administration, its training, its emoluments—all will be on Army lines. This is a fundamental matter. It is necessary to nourish and foster morale. esprit de corps and professionalism; and the military associations of the term "Ulster" will reflect and strengthen these links with the Army. It would be a pity if extraneous influences were to set this particular Regiment apart from Army tradition in the matter of its title.

I could also argue—and this is also important from a military point of view—that "Ulster" is a more colourful as well as a more historic term. These are unimportant considerations, I would agree, where a constitutional document is concerned, but they are very important indeed for the name of a Regiment. And, in this context it was the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who, on the last occasion said, This is the first occasion in all history that the term 'Ulster' has been used in a constitutional instrument …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11/12/69, col. 732.] First of all, however, I would hesitate to say that this is a constitutional instrument. To the best of my knowledge, although "Ulster" has not been used in main legislation, it has on occasion been used in subordinate legislation. I do not think this is an important point. For important military reasons, however, as it seems to us, "Ulster" is preferable to "Northern Ireland". I want to emphasise that it is extremely important that if noble Lords want to change the Ulster Special Constabulary into a Regiment, it is desirable it should have a name of a particularly appropriate regimental kind. I have talked about the title of the Regiment. 1 hope I have made clear that it will in fact be very different from the old B Specials. The whole object of the exercise is to produce something of a very different nature.

May we now turn to the use of the world "Ulster" by the people of Northern Ireland? I cannot accept that the term "Ulster" is not in general use in relation to Northern Ireland, and I would maintain that a generality of the people there do think of themselves as living in Ulster. There are very many organisations which use the word "Ulster" in their names. I have consulted the Ulster telephone book and I find that there are no fewer than six pages of names of organisations containing the word "Ulster". There have been important uses of the word "Ulster" in Northern Ireland Acts of Parliament, and I give these examples because they are very germane to my argument. The Finance Act, 1948, established the Ulster Land Fund; the Government Loans Act 1957 made provision for the issue of Ulster Loan Stock; the Ulster Folk Museum Act 1958 set up the Ulster Folk Museum (I would not make too much of that, because it may also refer to the three counties that are outside Northern Ireland); the Amenity Lands Act 1965 set up the Ulster Countryside Committee; the Transport Act 1948 actually changed the title of the Northern Ireland Transport Board to Ulster Transport Authority.

All those changes were made without any particular objection being raised to the title. There are other examples. There is, for instance, a student body at Queens University, Belfast, called the New Ireland Society, in which I am told a large number of Roman Catholics take part, which has in fact a Committee which is called the Ulster Award Committee and which deals specifically with the encouragement and development of amenities for the people of, and visitors to, Northern Ireland.

I hope, therefore, that I have shown that "Ulster" is a term in general use. In the light of these factors, I cannot accept Lord Kilbracken's assertion—and I hope he will forgive me if I am misrepresenting him—that the term "Ulster" has become "a kind of password, a secret sign". I think some noble Lords have gone in this respect beyond the bounds of fact. I would not dispute that the word "Ulster" has latterly become objectionable to some because it is used in the name of certain extremist organisations. However, it is in the nature of extremist organisations to adopt names which will lend respectability to them. We all know that the Fascists in this country called themselves the "British Union of Fascists", but none of us suggested that the word "British" had suffered as a result.

My Lords, I believe that it is wrong to stigmatise a name which is commonly used by the people of Northern Ireland and that to do so is to build up barriers which we should be making every effort to break down. I fully acknowledge that there are two opinions on this matter. So far as I know—one has not taken a poll—a majority in Northern Ireland would prefer the term "Ulster" in the title of this Regiment. The question to which we must address ourselves is which of these two alternatives will, as of this time, be more in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole. It is necessary to consider this matter in a wide perspective. With the establishment of this Regiment the responsibility for certain military tasks will pass from the Government in Stormont to the Government in London. This will not be a merely nominal change; it will be a real change. I hope your Lordships are aware of the fundamental significance of the change. This was very much emphasised in another place.

But if it is true that the title does have significance as a matter of substance, I think we must face the full consequences. There are two communities in Northern Ireland, and the Protestants have their susceptibilities about the title as well, however much noble Lords with Northern Ireland connections and with liberal views may take a generous approach. If the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is right in his estimate of the effect of his Amendment upon Roman Catholics, I must point out to him and to those who think with him that there is a good chance that the Protestants will consider that the United Kingdom Parliament is determined to ignore their point of view and that Protestants will not join the new Regiment. And heaven forbid (and this is as far as I can safely go) that they should look for their protection to unofficial agencies because the official forces of defence are seriously undermanned!

My Lords, I do not believe that the question of the title is a matter of substance, but I think that to change it would be a matter of substance; and therefore I hope that those of your Lordships who think this change should be made will consider very carefully what I have said before the matter comes to a Division, if it does. As I pointed out, the situation in Northern Ireland is inflammable. The title was not chosen without a good deal of thought. In the long term, it is essential that the issue of religion should not enter into the argument where decisions in Great Britain have to be made, and are made, without reference to religion. A man's religion should, in general, have no effect upon his suitability for a particular job —we are all agreed on that, and that is how we understand it in the United Kingdom. Similarly titles of regiments should be decided, in my view, in accordance with normal Army principles.

My Lords, a great deal has been said on this subject: I will not say more, but I do think there is a danger of too much being made of this issue. For all these reasons I hope that your Lordships will not support this Amendment.

LORD KILBRACKEN

My Lords, I had not intended to intervene this afternoon but I feel that I must in view of what my noble Leader has just said and in view of his brief reference to me. He has spoken about the implications of the word "Ulster". I want to say, first, that what makes it the more objectionable to us is not merely the word "Ulster" but the conjunction of the two words, "Ulster Defence". This does not occur in the name of any other regiment, and it is this which makes it particularly objectionable. My noble Leader has sought to give the impression that the word "Ulster" is generally used in Northern Ireland, and he was able to say that there were six pages in the telephone directory listing the names of organisations in which that name was used. I suggest that he may well find that in a great many of those organisations the membership is in fact predominantly Protestant.

The word "Ulster" may be used, I admit, carelessly or designedly by some Catholics in the Six Counties; but it is not used by any nationalists and it is certainly not used in the Republic of Ireland, though that may be considered irrelevant. In inter-provincial football matches—and I mean here Gaelic foot-ball—there is an Ulster team, and this team, of course, is as likely to contain members from Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal as it is members from the other Six Counties. My noble Leader has said—and I am sure he is right—that the majority of the people in the Six Counties would prefer the word "Ulster" in the title; but surely the whole point is that we are not here concerned with what the majority want. The majority—the Protestant, Unionist majority—will come forward in strength to join this Regiment. What we want to consider are the wishes on this matter of the minority and whether, by changing the title along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, we are going to attract more men from that minority to join The Force.

My Lords, that is all I have to say except that I feel I must voice a protest at the fact that this business has been brought forward this afternoon without any notice being given to Members of your Lordships' House. I myself was expecting a Division, if there is going to be a Division—and I hope that there will be—round about half-past four or five o'clock, and it was only by chance that I made a telephone call a couple of hours ago and found out that it had been advanced to practically immediately after Question Time. I notice, my Lords—I do not know whether it is by accident or whether they will be turning up later—that neither my noble friend Lord Longford nor the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, are here. I know that my noble friend Lord Brockway is here already, and that others are present in the House at this moment. I feel that if the Government find it necessary to bring forward the time of important business on which a Division is to be expected, they should not do so unless those actively interested in the Bill have been given notice in advance.

LORD BYERS

My Lords, I had not intended to speak this afternoon, but the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, referred to me and quite rightly said that one cannot come to certain very important conclusions after a two-day or three-day visit to Northern Ireland. I accept that. But what I said in my Second Reading speech was that I hoped we were not going to do what in fact we have done, and that is to erect this question into a big political issue. This is where the danger lies. I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is right when he says that it may not have mattered in the first place; but if we are now going to change the title and make a big political issue out of it we are going to make far more of it than we should have done. I do not believe that this issue will affect the building up of what I want to see—a properly balanced force in the Defence Regiment. What will affect that is the attitude of the leaders of the Catholic movement; the way in which the vetting procedure is shown to be working justly, so that Catholics know they have as good a chance as anybody else of getting promotion; and the whole structure of the officer system in this force. These are going to be the factors which will affect it.

I want to add only this. I should like to see this force get a good, fresh start. I do not want to see it as the B Specials in disguise. I should perhaps tell your Lordships' House—perhaps this is typically Irish—that I was warned before I paid my visit there always to refer to "Northern Ireland"; but I pointed out that the Liberal Party in Northern Ireland consists of Catholics, Protestants and others, and it is called the "Ulster Liberal Party".

LORD LEATHERLAND

My Lords, I came here this afternoon with my mind made up to vote along with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. I felt that "Northern Ireland" was a more appropriate term for us to use than the word "Ulster". My mind went back to 1914 and 1915, when I was a soldier and had close relationships at one stage with a Yeomanry Regiment known as the North Irish Horse. Then I had contact later on with the South Irish Horse, and I found that those two Regiments got on fairly well with each other; and both were a credit to the British Army. But later on in that war I found that the name "Ulster" also appeared very prominently in Army records. I found that there was a Division—I think it was the 36th; I am not quite sure—which was known as the Ulster Division, and which had the sign on its shoulder of a red hand, and we were always talking about the red hand of Ulster.

There is, therefore, perhaps, when we come to matters of nomenclature, some case for both sides, and before I changed my mind this afternoon I had paid attention to the Judicial Standing Orders which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack introduced, and he referred to "Northern Ireland Judiciary". But there is one factor which has convinced me that "Ulster" is the right term. If we use the term "Northern Ireland Regiment", we seem to indicate to the broad public outside that this Regiment is an instrument of the Northern Ireland Government. It is not: it is an instrument of the Westminster Government. It will be answerable to the Army, which this House controls; and it will not take its orders at all from the Northern Ireland Government. Therefore I feel it would be doing a disservice to the Regiment and describing the Regiment wrongly if we named it the "Northern Ireland Regiment" and gave people to understand that it took its orders from the Legislature at Stormont.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I wonder whether I may intervene very briefly, above all to regret the fact, and to express my apologies for it, that I was absent from the discussion on this Bill in Committee. I had intended to be here, but the business ran on late and I had an unavoidable engagement which I just could not break. As I see it, a great variety of stances have been taken up in our discussion on this matter. There are those who wish to change the name and yet wholeheartedly support the concept of this new force. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is one of them; so is the noble Lord, Lord Wigg; and so is my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery, and, I hazard, my noble friends Lord Ampthill and Lord Hawke. And not least amongst that number there is the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, himself. But there are also those who dislike both the name and the whole concept of the force. It is fair to include the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and also the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, among that number. Finally, there are those who dislike the name but whose views on the force itself I am not quite certain about: for example, the noble Earl, Lord Longford.

I should like to make my position on this absolutely plain. I support wholeheartedly, along with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and others, the concept of this new force, and on the whole I favour the retention of the present name. I said at our Second Reading debate that personally I had no very strong feelings either way on the question of name, and 1 still have not. But I concede that there are arguments both ways, though I feel that the arguments in favour. the semantic, and the fact that this is in general usage, military and regimental, have been willingly and fairly put by the Leader of the House this afternoon. If I have a personal bias it is not uninfluenced by a personal experience. The only occasion on which I was captured in the war happened to be when I was serving alongside the Royal Ulster Rifles—though that was no fault of the Royal Ulster Rifles.

There is another consideration which weighs with me and with my vote on this matter if, as I hope it will not, this matter is taken to a vote at Report stage, and that is this. The Government have rightly or wrongly insisted on the retention of this title through a long debate in the Committee stage in another place, and through quite a long debate at our own Committee stage and now at Report stage, and the matter has been escalated into something of some importance, more important than I believe it intrinsically to be. The Government, in insisting on this, have insisted on retaining the title not only against those who wish to change the name but also against those who are against the whole concept of this force. It may be clear to us, or at least most of us in your Lordships' House when we vote on this matter and if we favour the Amendment, that we are voting against the name and not against the concept. But I am not sure that it will be as clear outside the House, in Stormont, or indeed in Northern Ireland. I believe that an affirmative vote in that sense would be liable to great misinterpretation outside your Lordships' House. Therefore on the whole I should like to suggest to my noble friends, knowing that I will not carry all of them with me, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, suggested at Committee stage, that should this matter be pressed to a Division they should vote in favour of the retention of the present name.

LORD BOOTHBY

My Lords, if I may ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, I should like to say, in the light of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that I do not think any useful purpose would be served by a Division in this House. It is clear that the Government are adamant on this matter; and although I cannot altogether share their views, and still feel a sense of considerable foreboding and misgiving, and some heart-burnings, I would in all the circumstances beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.35 p.m.

LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 7, at end insert ("but save as aforesaid references in that Act to the regular forces shall not include references to the force").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that during the Committee stage on the Bill last Thursday I undertook to consider further the reference in Clause 2, subsection (1), to officers of the regular forces. This was in connection with the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Kilbracken, the effect of which was to ensure that only officers of the Regular Army could be authorised to call out members of the Ulster Defence Regiment for emergency service under subsection (2) of Clause 2. We have given very clear assurances, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, that the power to call out the force on emergency service is to be confined to officers of the Regular Army, and it was with that object in mind that subsection (1) of Clause 2 was drafted. But when we came to examine it in the light of my noble friend's Amendment, we agreed that the point needed more accurate definition.

Clause 2(1) says that authority to call out the force on emergency service may be granted to officers of the regular forces within the meaning of the Army Act 1955". The expression "regular forces" is defined in Section 225(1) of that Act as meaning any of Her Majesty's military forces other than the Army Reserve, the Territorial Army (now the T. & A.V.R.) and the Home Guard, et cetera: it does not (without this Amendment) exclude in terms the Ulster Defence Regiment. The Regiment will, of course, be part of Her Majesty's military forces: indeed, Clause 1(2) of the Bill underlines this by declaring that members of the Regiment shall be members of the Armed Forces of the Crown. It could, therefore, be said that the reference to officers of the Regular forces in Clause 2(1) includes (or more precisely, does not exclude) officers of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Even so, of course, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would not be compelled to grant authority to call out the Regiment to any officer other than one of the Regular Army; nevertheless, it is in our view, as it is in my noble friend's view, most desirable that there should be no doubt about the effect of this provision.

The Amendment which I now propose achieves this by adding the words printed on the Order Paper to the end of subsection (3) of Clause 1. The subsection, as thus amended, will provide that, except as regards references to the Regular forces in certain provisions of Parts II to V of the Army Act 1955 (where it is appropriate that members of the Regiment should be on the same footing as members of the Regular Army), the references to the Regular forces in that Act do not include the Ulster Defence Regiment. The words to be added will accordingly ensure that the reference to "officers of the regular forces" in Clause 2 subsection (1) means only officers of the Regular Army.

LORD KILBRACKEN

My Lords I am most grateful to my noble friend for moving this Amendment. My intention at the Committee stage had been to ensure that no officer would be entitled to call out the force, or have the authority delegated to him to call out the force, who is a Regular officer merely by virtue of his being a member of the force. This was an undertaking given in another place but which seems to be not in the Bill. I understand from my noble friend that, as a result of this Amendment, the wish behind my Amendment will be effected. I am grateful for the Amendment and feel some gratification in having been responsible, I think I may claim, for the only Amendment to be accepted on this Bill in either House by Her Majesty's Government.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 [Liabilities for service and training]:

3.38 p.m.

LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 3, line 13, at end insert— ( ) The Secretary of State shall, on the relevant date for the purposes of this subsection. report to Parliament the occasion of any calling out of the force or any part of it in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2) of this section. ( ) The relevant date for the purposes of the foregoing subsection is the first day of March, June, September or December immediately following the exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2) of this section, or, if Parliament is not then sitting, the first sitting day thereafter.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have been asked by the noble Lord Lord Wigg to move this Amendment on his behalf. He has indicated that he expresses great regret that he cannot be present. He has other duties, as the noble Lords are aware. I do not know whether I should be in order in apologising to the House for the fact that I was not here when an earlier Amendment was considered. Something must be wrong with the loudspeaker arrangements in the House because I was near at hand and I did not know that we had reached this stage. I have also been asked by my noble friend Lord Longford to apologise for his absence. Unfortunately he has been struck down by the prevalent epidemic of influenza.

At the earlier stages of this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, raised the issue which is reflected in this Amendment. As noble Lords will know, he is a great authority on defence matters. He has an enthusiasm for the Armed Forces which I do not always share, but he is very insistent that Parliament should have authority in defence matters and that there should be supremacy by both Houses over the military. In his earlier speeches he recalled that under the Reserve Acts when the forces were called out Parliament should be informed and, if it was not in Session, should be recalled for this purpose. The noble Lord placed emphasis on the fact that it was not until the start of the cold war, when it was feared that it might be undesirable to provide information to a potential enemy, that there was a limitation on this right of Parliament. I do not think it will be suggested that events which have occurred, or are likely to occur, in Northern Ireland would be useful to any potential enemy if the cold war became extended. I want to plead very strongly that Parliament should have authority over the Armed Forces in this and similar matters.

When this point was raised earlier we had assurances from both the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that the matter would be looked at again. They indicated that on the Report stage they might be able to make some statement indicating a response to the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, moved. I very much hope that such an assurance may be given by the Minister when he replies. I want only to add this comment. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, pressed very strongly indeed that there should be a statutory declaration in this matter, and that it would be unsatisfactory to have only Parliamentary assurance; because that would be going back upon the Parliamentary control over the Armed Forces which was the precedent and which was followed until the time of the start of the cold war—with which Northern Ireland has little relevance. Therefore, on Lord Wigg's behalf, as well as on behalf of many of us, I would strongly press the Government to accept some statutory obligation in this matter. I will hear what the Front Bench have to say in response to their promise to look at the matter again, and I will reserve any decision as to whether this Amendment should be pressed further. I beg to move.