Lords Sitting of 21 July 1969

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The Chairman of Committees on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

UNITED NATIONS AND SPACE PROJECTS
Lord BROCKWAY: 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 the Security Council of the United Nations have considered proposals for the sharing of projects for the exploration of space.]
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Chalfont): My Lords, I am sure your Lordships' House would not wish me to miss the opportunity presented by my noble friend's very topical Question to add our congratulations to those already offered to the Government of the United States and to the three American space explorers.
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord CHALFONT: This is a magnificent project on which they are now engaged and which so far has been attended by such spectacular success.
In direct reply to my noble friend's Question, no such proposals for the exploration of outer space have been made or considered in the Security Council. The First Committee of the General Assembly and the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space have discussed ways of encouraging collaboration in the scientific investigation and exploitation by unmanned spacecraft of outer space.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for his Answer. While some of us have doubts about human priorities, may I ask whether my noble friend recognises that
650
all of us are deeply moved by the achievement of this morning? It is not so much historic as opening an entirely new era in history. In view of! this, cannot the opportunity be taken, through the United Nations, to accept the principle that air space should be a sphere shared by the world, with recognition of the rights of any people eventually found there, or any life that is eventually found there, in order to avoid Great Power rivalry, and the danger of the use of space for military purposes?
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, I find myself in great sympathy with the implication of my noble friend's question. As I have suggested, there is already a very high degree of international co-operation in the exploration of outer space, so far only by unmanned space craft. Joint projects for the manned exploration are in principle highly desirable, and we believe, as my noble friend obviously does, that this should be a co-operative rather than a competitive enterprise.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this question? Is there not encouragement in the statement of Mr. Brezhnev in Soviet Russia this morning congratulating America, and in the statement made in Moscow by Colonel Borman, the United States aeronaut, that he wanted to see laboratories orbiting with scientists from different countries working together?
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, any sign from any direction of a realisation that this ought to be a matter for international co-operation is, of course, welcome to us, and any move that is made by either side in this affair is also welcome. I would point out that manned exploration of space is still restricted to the two great super Powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, and I hope that they, too, will realise that it is co-operation and not competition we shoul all like to see in this sphere.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether international co-operation extends to telling us what Lunar 15 is doing at the present moment?
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, we have no direct information about the activities of Lunar 15, although we have had some indirect evidence supplied to

651
us. There was a very encouraging sign at one of the crucial stages in this operation when the Soviet Union made it clear that there was no danger to Apollo 11 from Lunar 15.

OVERCROWDING IN MENTAL HOSPITALS
2.41 p.m.
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 aware of the serious overcrowding of beds in the wards of many of our mental hospitals; and whether they have any proposals to remedy this situation.]
The MINISTER of STATE. DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and SOCIAL SECURITY (Baroness Serota): My Lords, improved methods of treatment have significantly reduced the number of hospital beds occupied by the mentally ill: nevertheless, higher survival rates among the handicapped and increased life expectancy have placed a strain on the hospital services, and overcrowding is still a problem in many areas, particularly the subnormality hospitals.
With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, we are vigorously pressing two lines of development to remedy the present situation. One of these is to emphasise the importance of early assessment and rehabilitation and to expand as quickly as possible the provision of general hospital psychiatric units, day hospitals, hostels and facilities for support within the community, all of which can reduce the need for in-patient admission, or lead to earlier discharge. The other is to give higher priority to measures, including the provision of more space both in the wards and other areas used by patients, designed specifically to raise the standard of amenity and the quality of life for long-stay patients.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask whether she accepts that the staffs of these hospitals do a splendid job in very difficult circumstances? Secondly, may I ask her
652
whether she is aware of the acute shortage of locker space in many of these hospitals? Furthermore, would the noble Baroness agree that the provision of lockers is of enormous therapeutic advantage, particularly to those who are not completely mentally subnormal? At the moment, many of them lack this amenity.
Baroness SEROTA: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me this opportunity of publicly paying tribute to the work of the staff of our mental hospitals, often in very difficult and admittedly overcrowded situations. I would also agree with the need to provide all patients with a place where they can keep their own private possessions.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, would not another way of reducing the number of people in the beds in the wards of our mental hospitals be to increase the amount that we spend on research into mental retardation?
Baroness SEROTA: My Lords, any advances in our knowledge in this field are bound to improve the services we can provide.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that this grave overcrowding in our mental hospitals not only is opposed to the best interests of the patients, but causes serious dissatisfaction among the nurses, who are in very short supply; and that therefore this is a vicious circle which should have immediate attention?
Baroness SEROTA: My Lords, that is the very reason why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and I are at present engaged in active discussions with the chairmen of Regional Boards throughout the country to see whether we can find ways and means of breaking what the noble Baroness has referred to as "a vicious circle".
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, could my noble friend possibly consider revising the period of training of nurses in general hospitals so that they can spend a longer period of training in mental hospitals?
Baroness SEROTA: My Lords, I think that that question is a little wide of the Question the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, originally put down.

CIVIL SERVICE COLLEGE
2.45 p.m.
Lord CHAMPION: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To asked Her Majesty's Government what progress they have to report on the accommodation of the Civil Service College recommended in the Fulton Report.]
The Lord PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shackleton): My Lords, my noble friend will know that the Civil Service College will be taking over non-residential accommodation in London and the residential centre at Sunningdale Park at present used for central Civil Service training. We have now decided that the third centre needed by the College will be in Edinburgh, and it is hoped that accommodation in Atholl Crescent and some nearby property will be available for use by the autumn of 1970.
Lord CHAMPION: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether any consideration was given to any other part of this country for the out-of-London location, and of course to Wales in particular, of which I am specially thinking?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, we gave, and I particularly gave, most anxious consideration to this matter. We sought information, through my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works, about suitable premises in all parts of the United Kingdom outside the Home Counties and in the Midlands. We inspected several properties before a decision was reached. But I personally have no doubt that Edinburgh is in fact the ideal location for this particular College.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is no question about that? While expressing my gratification, may I ask whether he can tell me how many people we may expect to accommodate and properly educate in Edinburgh?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am glad to have support from my noble friend. Edinburgh meets all the basic requirements—good communications; ready access to a university or technical colleges; strongly developing industry, particularly in the field of electronics, in the neighbourhood, and of course the proximity of the Scottish Ministries in Edinburgh. My noble friend asked me how many people we expect to accommodate. When the third centre is fully developed, we hope to have about 300 students under training at a tune on a variety of courses and seminars, and there will be a full-time cadre of academics and civil servants apart from the use of part-time teachers. It is a little difficult to estimate their number accurately, but it will probably be about 150 to 200.
The Earl of PERTH: My lords, would it be in order to congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the House on the choice of Edinburgh, both from the point of view that many civil servants are found from Scotland, and, perhaps at least as important, from the point of view; hat it ensures the preservation of an important part of Edinburgh; namely, Atholl Crescent and the New Town?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, let me hasten to interrupt the noble Earl to tell him that he will not be in order, but his remarks are none the less very acceptable.

CALDERDALE WATER BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments: a Special Report to be made and to be printed.
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendment;, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

WELLAND AND NENE (EMPINGHAM RESERVOIR) AND MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BILL
2.49 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name. The House will see that I am asking for agreement to two, I fear, rather long Resolutions standing in my name on the Order Paper, one relating to this Bill and the other to the Calerdale Water Bill. The purpose of these Resolutions is to enable these Bills to continue their progress through Parliament in the next Session. It is in no way the fault of the Promoters that the Bills have not been through both Houses before the end of this Session. I am therefore asking the House to agree to allow this Bill to be carried over into the next Session. I shall formally move the same Motion in connection with the Calderdale Water Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid:
That, if the Bill is brought from the Commons in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Commons in the present Session:
That the proceedings on such Bill shall, in the next Session of Parliament, be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply, in the next Session of Parliament, to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly: a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

CALDERDALE WATER BILL [H.L.]
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, the remarks I have already made in connection with the previous Bill apply equally in this case. I would therefore ask the House to agree to this Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the Agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly: a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (No. 2) BILL
2.52 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Stonham): 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 Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of Listowel in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Suspension of redistributions till next general reports of Boundary Commissions, and acceleration of those reports]:
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Before I call Amendment No. 1 I think I should point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 2.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("no") in line 6.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first Amendment which stands in the names of the Leader of the Conservative Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Opposition and two noble Lords who sit on the Cross Benches. In fact all the Amendments in their joint names on the Marshalled List are linked together and it may be to your Lordships' convenience if they are all considered together. It may seem a far cry from the magnificent achievement of the American people in landing men on the Moon to the discussion of these constitutional matters here this afternoon, but what the Americans have done on the Moon is no more important to American history than the creation and maintenance of a fair and just democratic system of Parliamentary elections is to British history, and it is that which the outcome of our deliberations to-day is going to affect.
It became clearer and clearer as the Second Reading debate on this Bill went on that so far as your Lordships' House was concerned there was only one issue
658
at stake: that is whether the rules relating to the holding of fair Parliamentary elections, which have been agreed to by all Parties, may be broken unilaterally by one Party. In last Thursday's debate the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge put his finger right on this spot, whereupon the noble Lord the Leader of the House rose and challenged him. It is the point at issue, even if members of the governing Party fail to see the significance of what they have done. These linked Amendments are designed to give the Government another opportunity to comply with the rules.
It. may be asked whether the simplest way of doing that would not have been to move Amendments writing into the Bill all the detailed recommendations of the four independent and impartial Boundary Commissions. The reason against attempting that is that it would involve eliminating every part of the present Bill and writing an entirely fresh one, and that might indeed have been described as destroying the Bill. The effect of the Amendments now before the Committee is not to destroy the Bill but to give it a flexibility where it is at present inflexible; to afford time to the Government to consider their policy further in the light of the almost universal criticism of that policy, and thus to bring it into accord again with the rules for holding the next General Election on a fair and just basis. And, last but not least, to indemnify the Home Secretary meanwhile, where at present he is thought by many people to be in breach of the law.
Amendments 1 and 3 and the first part of Amendment 4 restore flexibility to Clause 1 in the following way. The Bill as introduced suspends action completely and for all time on the recommendations which the Boundary Commissions for England and Wales have recently submitted for restoring fairness to Parliamentary constituencies where population movements over the last 15 years have made Parliamentary boundaries unfair and unsatisfactory, as they now are. The Amendments make this suspension last only to the end of the present Session of Parliament. From the beginning of next Session up to the end of March, 1970, they give the Home Secretary a renewed opportunity to do his duty under the 1949 Act and to lay draft Orders in Council before both Houses of Parliament, giving

659
effect to the recommendations of the impartial Boundary Commissions, with such modifications, if he wishes, as the law allows. The date of March 31, 1970, is chosen because that is the date already inserted by the Government in Clause 1 of the Bill as the date by which the Secretaries of State must lay draft Orders in Council to implement the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.
In other words, whereas the Bill gives the Secretaries of State authority up to March 31 to lay draft Orders before both Houses, reorganising constituencies in Scotland and Northern Ireland on a fair and just basis in line with what the Boundary Commissions for those countries have recommended as fair and just, the Amendments will authorise and require the Secretaries of State to do this for England and Wales as well as for Scotland and for Northern Ireland. This makes the Bill comprehensive whereas at present it is selective.
The first two subsections of Clause 1 as amended will then read as follows:
"No proceedings shall be taken under the Redistribution of Seats Act in the present Session of Parliament in consequence of the Reports submitted by the Boundary Commissions under section 2 (1) of that Act in the year 1969.
"Subject to subsection (1) above the Secretary of State, on or before 31st March 1970, shall, in respect of each report of a Boundary Commission submitted under section 2 (1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969, lay before Parliament the draft Order in Council required by section 2 (5) of that Act."
But the Amendments go further than the Bill, in that they also indemnify the Home Secretary against being found to be in breach of the law meanwhile. That seems fair. The Bill as introduced gives him no protection. I suppose the Home Secretary thought it might be rather odd if he introduced a Bill that included a provision indemnifying himself against any penalties he might have incurred through being in breach of the law. The remaining subsections of Amendment No. 4 fill up this gap and protect him against actions at law, provided that by the end of March he complies with the law.
The remaining Amendments are consequential. If Clause 1 is amended as is suggested here, Clause 2 and Schedule 1 will no longer be needed. Clause 2
660
appears in the Bill only because Clause 1 as originally drafted would destroy the power to carry out by Order in Council the reorganisation of Greater London constituencies in accord with the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions. Clause 1, as amended, restores that power, so Clause 2 becomes superfluous. I may add, in passing, that the next Greater London Council Elections ! are not due until April, 1970, so action can be taken under Clause 1, as amended, to bring the new Greater London constituency system into being in good time for that.
Clause 3 and Schedule 2 likewise become superfluous. That really calls for consequential Amendment to subsection (3) of Clause 4 to leave out a reference to Clause 3 there. But as that subsection is concerned with money, even a drafting change in it might be taken as a breach of Commons privilege, so it seems best to leave the necessary consequential Amendment to Clause 4 to be made in another place. Clause 3 and Schedule 2 become superfluous because they deal with nine selected constituencies, but the Boundary Commission for England made its recommendations not only for those nine constituencies but for a great many other excessively large constituencies also.
The Amendments to Clause 1 will render it possible for the Home Secretary to deal with the whole problem on the lines of the Commission's Report, instead of with only a little bit of it, as Clause 3 would do. I would remind the Committee that under the Bill as it stands—that is, as the Government propose—Wokingham with 99, 000 electors will return one Member to the next Parliament, and the Exchange Division of Manchester with 18, 000 electors will likewise return one Member. This exemplifies the unfairness which the Boundary Commission said ought to be corrected and which acceptance of these Amendments will correct. They still preserve power to the Government to do for England and Wales what the Government are already taking power to do for Scotland and Northern Ireland, but also will preserve the statutory right of the Government to modify the Boundary Commission's recommendations in some respects provided they give effect to those recommendations generally.

661
As I said, the one issue on this Bill, so far as your Lordships are concerned, is the matter of upholding the rules which have been agreed to by all Parties for securing that Parliamentary elections are fair. The law sets up independent and impartial Boundary Commissions which must report comprehensively at least every 15 years. And the law goes on to say this—I quote subsection (5) of Section 2 of the 1949 Act:
"As soon as may be after a Boundary Commission have submitted a report to 'the Secretary of State under this Act, he shall lay the report before Parliament together … with the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report."
In this case the Secretaries of State presented the Boundary Commissions' Reports to Parliament but did not lay them together with draft Orders in Council to give effect to them, as the 1949 Act, which I have just read out, requires. The Attorney General has sought to argue that the law has not been broken because the Secretaries of State, he says, have not yet laid the Reports before Parliament under the 1949 Act. He explains that they have simply presented to Parliament Blue Books recording verbatim what the Boundary Commissions have reported. He says these are not the Reports referred to in the 1949 Act and therefore he argues that the Secretaries of State are not in breach of their statutory duty through not having laid them together with draft Orders in Council to give effect to them.
I do not know what your Lordships will, each of you, think of that argument, but even if it is valid it does not dispose of the requirement under the 1949 Act which I read out: that the Reports of the Boundary Commissioners, together with the Government's draft Orders in Council giving effect to them must be laid as soon as may be. Those are the words in the Act—"as soon as may be". I find it extraordinarily hard to give the words "as soon as may be" such a stretched out interpretation as to condone the Government's having taken no action yet to comply with that section of the 1949 Act.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House may still maintain that there has been no breach and that the Home Secretary has to be treated as not in breach
662
of the Act unless and until a court finds otherwise. Many of your Lordships probably feel, in a great constitutional matter such as this, that it is no less important to comply with the spirit of the law than with the letter of it. It is the all-Party understanding which has lasted for 25 years now, ever since the all-Party Speakers' Conference of 1944, that the Government has now unilaterally breached, saying, as the Government do, that the next General Election is to be conducted on a constituency system which the impartial Boundary Commissions have found to be full of anomalies and unfairness. I do not think the British public approves of one side breaking the rules that have been agreed by all sides, and if your Lordships, by passing these Amendments, restore the rules, I believe the British public will say the House of Lords is right. I beg to move.
3.7 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for a lucid explanation of the Amendments which are before your Lordships, and I do not propose to speak at any length on them, but I have taken the unusual step of adding my name to the Amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the two noble Lords on the Cross Benches, Lord Tangley, and Lord Robertson of Oakridge, because I want to make it clear publicly that we on this Bench regard this not as a Party matter but as one which affects the Upper Chamber as a whole. And I want to appeal to the Government to think again. I am quite sure, if they do give it the serious thought which this matter of principle requires, that they will see the strength of the case and the strength of the feeling on this side of the House and among many Cross Benchers, and I believe among many Members behind the Government, who, although they may go into the Lobby in support, will do so with very uneasy consciences.
There is, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, an obligation on the Home Secretary to lay before Parliament the relevant draft Orders in Council as soon as may be to implement the findings of an independent Boundary Commission, and it must surely be—and I have always understood it to be—a convention of Parliament that the findings of such

663
an independent Commission, by which a fair representation of the electorate is to be achieved, are accepted, or at least are not varied unilaterally without an allParty discussion. Whatever the Government may feel about the propriety of bringing forward this Bill, no matter how strongly they may protest that they are not seeking Party advantage, there is a strong feeling in the country that the Labour Party stands to gain by pursuing this Bill and would stand to lose if the proposals were implemented in full. This is largely due to the built-in bias in country districts in favour of the Conservative Party. The one way to get over that, as I said on Second Reading, is to have a fairer method of representation. Nevertheless, this has come out of the Boundary Commissions from four years' effort, sticking to the rules that have been agreed. These are the proposals they make, and they are not, in my view, lightly to be put aside unilaterally by any one Party because it happens to be the Government of the day.
Certainly the argument put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that this is the sort of thing which the Tories would do if they were in Government reduces the argument from one of principle to one of Party advantage. I will not, unless I am challenged, quote the phrases used by the noble Earl and the noble Lord; nevertheless I think that that is the implication of what they say.
If the Government could show that the new local government boundaries would be implemented and the new authorities would be working by, say, 1972, there might be some strength in the argument that a short delay was justified. That might be the sort of thing which in an all-Party discussion one could agree to; but, again, that would be a variation of the principle of accepting the findings of an independent tribunal or varying them unilaterally, and in the light of the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, the chance of having new local government authorities by 1972 seems to me totally impossible. I do not know what the Government are going to say about the possibility which was alluded to by the Leader of the House, of fixing a time limit for the Boundary Commission to start work, but the more I have thought about it the more I think it will be re-
664
garded as an empty gesture, because the Boundary Commission cannot complete their work until several years after the local authorities have been set up, no matter when they start. Therefore, I should like to hear what the Government have to say on this point.
Finally, it will be said once again that this House must not use the in-built Tory majority to thwart the will of the democratically elected Chamber. I subscribe to that view. I was one of those who helped to devise the means to rid this House of the in-built Tory hereditary vote. But what happened? The Prime Minister would not let us do it. He preferred to leave things as they were so that he would have sufficient time to explain to the Commons his reasons for not introducing the Industrial Relations Bill. The Government cannot blame me if they are defeated by the votes of Conservative, Liberal and Cross-Bench Peers, of whom some will inevitably be just as hereditary as the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I am not responsible. We who are sitting on these Benches are not responsible for the reactionary decision to abandon Lords Reform. Moreover, if we were not talking in a reformed House, I would plead with the Cross-Bench voting Peers to amend this Bill, or to delay this Bill or to throw it out as a warning to any Government not to tamper with the conventions of Parliament and not to appear to be seeking Party advantage.
Even if this Government are convinced that they are taking unitateral action from the most saintly motives, it would be right for us to point out that that is not the universal feeling in the country and that this is the only House which can prevent action of this sort which, to the public, looks like a lowering of the standards of political life. Like justice, fair play in politics must be seen to be done.
I want to add only one thing in regard to my own Amendment. I do not propose to move this on the Committee stage, but I wanted to get it on the Marshalled List because, if we get no satisfaction from these Amendments in Committee, then I propose to move it on Report. It will then be for the Commons to accept or to reject it. If they reject my Amendment, which I will move on the Report stage if these Amendments are rejected, then I shall invite the House to insist upon my Amendment to impose

665
the delay which, under the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, was regarded as being reasonable and fair. I give my support to these Amendments.
3.14 p.m.
Lord TANGLEY: For the first time in my life I have added my name to an Amendment tabled by the Tory Party. I doubt whether this is ever likely to happen again. I have done it under a sense of necessity, and I believe that I can best help your Lordships by saying why I felt I had to do it. I need hardly say that I speak only for myself. I am not acting in concert with any of the other noble Lords who sit on these Benches, nor with either of the Opposition Parties. But I have a strong intuition that what I am about to say may accord with the secret thoughts of many noble Lords whatever Benches they may occupy.
Let me at once clear up one point. I do not believe that the origin of this Bill is an attempt by the Labour Party to gain or to retain some electoral advantage. Had that been so, there must surely have been some less controversial way of doing it. Nor do I believe that one can predict with any certainty the political consequences of some change of boundaries. Your Lordships may remember that I was Chairman of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London. The subsequent Bill was based on our Report. Many of your Lordships will recall the prolonged debate on that Bill. I suppose I must accept responsibility for more loss of your Lordships' sleep than any one man in living memory, I expect that record to stand until it is broken by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud.
During those debates some Labour Peers pilloried me and my colleagues as "Tory stooges". It was said that we had recommended the abolition of the London County Council and the creation of the Greater London Council in order to secure control of London government for the Tories. What happened? Labour won the first election. That was nice for me, because many of my critics seemed to think from then on that I was not such a bad chap after all. So much for. the fallibility of political soothsayers. No, my Lords: my guess is that the origin of this Bill was a bit of administrative tidy-mindedness. What is so sad is that
666
out of it has developed the present situation in which we find ourselves That situation is something that no one wants, that no one likes. If I may respectfully say so, the Government speakers in the Second Reading debate did their duty, if not with active dislike at least with a noticeable lack of relish. I should have been most surprised had it been otherwise.
The trouble is that the consequences of this Bill, unless it is amended, transcend any question of administrative convenience. They are something alien to the Constitution. They are something alien to the whole spirit of our national life. They run contrary to our history. They are a denial of the true basis of our political life. If we accept them we shall be untrue to ourselves. We shall be untrue to the genius of our people. That genius has made us a great and powerful nation, which we still are. It has made us also a self-governing nation, capable of withstanding the grievous stresses, internal and external, that have come upon us during the centuries without breaking our fundamental unity.
Let us not forget that this precious heritage is not the work of a moment, though it could be irreparably damaged in a moment. It is the work of many generations of our people of high estate and low. We have had the incomparable privilege of over 900 years freedom from invasion in which to work out our ways of living together in unity and in peace. We have had over 900 years in which to develop those laws and political institutions which are the outward and visible framework of our inward unity. The process has never stopped. It has rarely degenerated into violence; it is alive and it is at work to-day. This; continuing society is in the very fibre of our beings; it has made us what we are. Ought we not also to remember that our law and our political institutions are not something imposed on our life from above or from without? They are, on the contrary, reflections of our life in common. They grow out of it.
Most of our relationships are still governed by the common law, never written down, never finished and complete, always developing to meet new situations. What does the common law require of us? That we should act in a responsible, reasonable and neighbourly fashion. These tests are not imposed upon society.

667
They presume, they presuppose an existing society which is mature and selfreliant.
Is not the same thing true of our political institutions, and particularly of Parliaments? Long before Parliaments became a living force our people had learnt the essential arts, and the necessary procedures of public life in the world of local government. I suppose that it was in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I that Parliament first began to be a real force and to organise themselves accordingly. The fascination, for me, of Sir John Neal's books on those Elizabethan Parliaments is the way he shows how our Parliamentary procedures were shaped by men who had learned public life already, in their parishes, their counties and their boroughs. So equipped, the Stuart Parliaments entered on their great struggle with the Crown. Which is the supreme power, Crown or Parliament? The revolution of 1688 settled the question in favour of Parliament.
But almost immediately, and certainly inevitably, another great question arose: to whom are Ministers—the Executive—responsible, the Crown or Parliament; and, in consequence, who should effectively appoint them? This was the great argument of Queen Anne's day; the day of Godolphin and Marlborough, of Harley and St. John; the day of the great pamphleteers, Swift and Defoe. The great trouble in people's minds was: if Ministers were responsible to, and in effect appointed by, Parliament, was the country not being delivered into the hands of factions?
Lord MITCHISON: I wonder if the noble Lord would allow me to ask him one question. Does he or does he not think that a Parliament can bind a succeeding Parliament as to matters for its consideration?
Lord TANGLEY: I am not considering what Parliament can do; I am leading to what it ought to do. This was the great argument, of course, and it was the theme of Bolingbroke's Patriot King.
In true English fashion, the question has never been formally answered. But from the days of George I and Walpole a practical working arrangement has evolved. The Crown can only appoint Ministers who can command a majority
668
in the House of Commons. Party Government has arrived. The next Ministers will be those of the Party winning the next General Election. Power ultimately resides with the electorate, which now means virtually the whole population. There are the sources of power. The sources of power must be kept open and clean. How is that to be done? These sources would be choked or contaminated if any Party carried measures prolonging the life of a Parliament, or restricting the franchise, or altering electoral boundaries with intent to gain a Party political advantage—or even if they gave the impression of doing any such thing. Your Lordships' House, not having to rely on suffrage, has a particular duty to watch over the interests of the electorate; to keep the sources of power open and clean.
Conventions on these matters have grown up. Without them the Party system, which is the life-blood of politics, could not continue. Push Party too far and the whole system would break down. What we should put in its place, I do not know. While constituencies remained stable, while the franchise was limited, while the population was not very mobile, the conventions worked without too much stress. But these conditions have all disappeared, and the appointments of the Boundary Commissions were a necessary safeguard in these changed conditions and circumstances. They partially filled the constitutional gap that has existed ever since Walpole's day. They have removed from Parties temptations which in these times might prove too great. But the conventions remain. Even after a Boundary Commission has reported, inter-Party consultations should go on. The Boundary Commissions have reported; changes are needed. But for reasons of administrative convenience the Government, by this Bill, seek to alter the law. The great question in my mind is, "Have the Government, in this Bill unamended, crossed a line that no Party ought to cross?". My answer is, "Yes, they have". And the Bill, therefore, must be amended.
I have been at pains to show why, in my judgment, the Bill must be amended. It is vital to our political institutions that this particular line should never be crossed by any Party. I support the Amendment

669
because it gives time and opportunity for the Parties to return to their traditional ways of moderation and consultation. I ask no more than that. I would support any other Amendment, or any revision of these Amendments, that would reach the same end. May I end by appealing to the Government to accept this Amendment, or something like it. It offers them an honourable way out of an intolerable situation. It offers your Lordships' House a constructive way of doing its duty towards the electorate. Above all, it offers a chance to show to a growingly cynical population that their Parliamentary institutions can, and do. rise above the interests of faction.
3.27 p.m.
Lord STONHAM: I hope it will meet your Lordships' convenience if I speak fairly early in the debate to present the Government's point of view, leaving my noble friend Lord Shackleton to speak towards the close of the debate. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, will forgive me if I do not follow him in his interesting discourse on our political institutions and our traditional ways. I am bound to say, however, that I found his remarks rather strange in this Chamber, because it must be within the recollection of almost everyone that for some 70 years since 1867 all the political liberties and freedoms of the people of this country were won by Liberal and Labour Governments in the very teeth of the Opposition of the overwhelming non-elected Conservative majorities in this House. This, in part, is what the discussion is about to-day.
Several Noble Lords: No.
Lord STONHAM: If it is not in part, how is it that a noble Lord who is one of the fathers of the Amendments that we are considering has devoted so much of his time to it? Essentially it is so. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, for saying that the Labour Government did not do what we have done with any idea of Party advantage. That is the case. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, said that he does not regard this as a Party matter; and I welcome that statement, too. But noble Lords will concede that until this Bill came to your Lordships' House last Thursday the Government had been attacked on the most vicious Party basis, and the most in-
670
famous accusations of political fraud and skulduggery had been thrown at them. It was not until this matter came to your Lordships' House that the accusations of fraud were dropped, and the matter was discussed and debated in a manner which is worthy of a British House of Parliament.
I am very glad that this important question is to be considered by such a very full Committee. We do not often, in Committees of your Lordships' House, see noble Lords sitting in the gangways or congregated at the Mar, and it is nice to see so many new faces opposite This is particularly encouraging, because there is a legend that the Conservatives once sent down a three-line Whip and many noble Lords hurried from their fastnesses, listened carefully to the arguments and, misunderstanding what they had been sent for, voted against their Part>. Of course, I am hoping that history will repeat itself, because, despite the very careful manner of its presentation, the customary lucidity of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, his obvious and permanent sincerity and the respectable fatherhood of the proposal, I am bound to say that the totality of what has been put before us by the noble Lord is not an Amendment but a Parliamentary abortion which no noble Lord conscious of his public duty, can support.
Your Lordships will observe that although the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said that it was not the intention to destroy the Bill, if these Amendments are carried there will be nothing left of the Bill which you approved last Thursday, only two Parliamentary days ago, except three lines of Clause 1, Clause 4 and part of the Title of the Bill. Your Lordships could hardly have more complete destruction than that. As to adding flexibility, what flexibility would be left in the shreds with which noble Lords propose to leave us? In fact, we are being asked to approve to-day a completely new Bill, entirely different in principle from the Bill which we approved in principle only two Parliamentary days ago.
This, so far as I know, is entirely without precedent and it creates a serious situation. This House has a long history and has, I hope and believe, a long life ahead of it. But of what worth would our future discussions be if we committed such utterly irresponsible acts as this? It

671
is true that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, whom I regret I cannot see in his accustomed place today, was characteristically frank in his speech last Thursday.
"So long"—
he said—
"as it is understood that it still remains our unalterable purpose to prevent this Bill passing into law, I do not personally care very much what method is used for that purpose."—[Official Report, 17/7/69, col. 500.]
I do care. If your Lordships' House totally disagrees with the principle of a Bill, the Committee stage is not the place to express that total disagreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, is one of the sponsors of these Amendments, and on Second Reading, with a soldier's bluntness, he said:
"If there were to be a vote on the Second Reading of this Bill, I would walk into the Lobby against the Government on it; and, as to the consequences—be damned to them!"—[Official Report, 17/7/69, col. 495.]
Your Lordships did not follow that honest advice. You lacked the courage to do the straight thing, and are now trying the back door. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, the maintenance of a fair and democratic representation is at stake, then why did the noble Lord and other noble Lords opposite stay silent when the Question was put? That is a very important matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said on Second Reading that he was concerned to protect the public image of Parliament. But back-door tactics will do the exact opposite. They are a device, and one that we may rue in the years ahead. I ask noble Lords in this House: do they, or do they not, consider themselves bound by the decision which they took last Thursday, that the Bill should, in principle, be accepted? These are not Amendments. They constitute a new Bill—a Bill which an unelected majority is being asked to force on this Parliament, without time or opportunity for proper consideration.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, was of course a very interesting Second Reading speech. But we are supposed to be in a Committee stage, where we look at the details of Amendments, and the principles which we are to consider should be dealt with on
672
Second Reading. I regard this as the fundamental question which noble Lords must answer to-day. Now for some consideration of the clauses in what I regard as this new Bill.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? I effectively refuted the whole of the last five minutes of his speech, in my Second Reading speech explaining why it would be a mistake to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
Lord STONHAM: I have, of course, not only heard the noble Lord's speech but have read it with the utmost care. I intend to refer to it. But the noble Lord did not refute what I said. He uttered sentiments which he thought might be an answer to what I said, which is not the same thing.
To deal with the clauses, the new Bill leaves the position unsatisfactory on a major point. If your Lordships amend the Bill in the way suggested, Clause 1 will read like this:
"No proceedings shall be taken under the Redistribution of Seats Act in the present Session of Parliament in consequence of the reports submitted by the Boundary Commissions under section 2 (1) of that Act in the year 1969".
That is all that would be left of Clause 1. That means that the Secretary of State cannot lay draft Orders this Session. He cannot lay draft Orders till next November at the earliest, after the new Session starts. But he must lay them before March 31, 1970. Under the proposals which we are considering, the Orders have to be laid some time between mid-November and March 31 following. Amendment No. 4 then goes on to provide a form of indemnity or relief for the Secretary of State in respect of the breach of his statutory duty that he is supposed to have committed. This whole proposition relating to breach and indemnity cannot be sustained, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will deal with this when he comes to speak later in the debate. It cannot be sustained because it is misconceived in principle, for reasons which I shall outline in a moment.
At this stage, I am bound to say that even if the Government conceded—which we do not—that there has been any breach, the Amendments could not possibly be accepted in their present form.

673
As I understand it, the proposition is that the Secretary of State should be afforded relief from penalties in respect of a breach that has already occurred, rather than a breach of his duty under this Bill as it would be amended. But it is a curiosity, which I am astonished did not occur to noble Lords when they drafted this Amendment, that although under these proposals the Secretary of State is given until March 31, 1970, in which to lay the draft Orders and is prohibited from laying them until next Session, he is apparently precluded from relief until he lays the draft Orders, if that is what the word "compliance" in subsection (1B) is intended to mean.
Perhaps one of the sponsors of these Amendments will confirm this, and will also say whether the sponsors are content with an Amendment which creates such an unsatisfactory position. It seemed to me, as I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, that he had some doubts, because towards the end of his speech he advised the House to accept these Amendments, or something like them. It is getting rather late in the day for "something like them", and, in my experience, it is not customary in this House to accept Amendments if they are in themselves unsatisfactory or unclear or unviable.
It is not my object to go into the detail of the drafting and construction of these Amendments, because, in my view, they are misconceived in principle and should therefore be unacceptable to your Lordships. As I said, the question turns on whether or not there has been any breach of a statutory duty. Subsection (1B) rests on the assumption that a breach of duty has already occurred, because, having presented the Boundary Commissions' Reports to Parliament, the Home Secretary did not accompany them with draft Orders. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, the Attorney General dealt with this very fully in another place.
The noble Lord did not quote the speech exactly, but made references to some of the points which my right honourable friend the Attorney General made. I think, however, it would be much better if I quoted the relevant parts. The Attorney General said this:
"… I intervene only to deal with accusations that what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has done in relation to his
674
duties under the 1949 Act has been in breach of those duties. In my view, that accusation is unfounded".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/7/69, col. 507.]
After quoting from Section 2 (5) of the 1949 Act, the Attorney General continued:
"It is true that the Reports of the Boundary Commissions have been laid before Parliament but, as my right honourable friend has said, they have not been laid before Parliament in pursuance of Section 2 (5) of the 1949 Act. They have been laid before Parliament as ordinary Command Papers so that the House will be in a position to judge whether the reasons for which the Bill proposes to suspend the large and radical changes proposed in the Reports are or are not well founded. They have merely the quality of a White Paper".
The Attorney General concluded:
"There is no breach of statutory duty. There has been here a proper exercise of constitutional power by the Home Secretary. What he has done is not in breach of duty".
Noble Lords in any part of the Committee are free to disagree with the Attorney General if they feel it right to do so, but the Attorney General is a Law Officer. He has given this advice on the basis of the Acts of Parliament, and I rely on that advice.
Although I do not want to comment in detail on so many things the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said, I must point out that he was guilty of a number of inaccuracies. One, for example, was that he said that "the Bill"—that is, the existing Bill—"suspends the Boundary Commission for all time". That is not so. The Secretary of State is obliged under Clause 1 (3) of the existing Bill to lay a draft Order resuscitating the Commissioners as soon as it appears to him that, for local government boundaries, it would not be premature.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I must correct this. If the noble Lord will read Hansard to-morrow, he will sec that what I said was that the Bill as introduced suspends action on the 1969 Reports of the Boundary Commission for all time. That is correct.
Lord STONHAM: The noble Lord says, "suspends action", but I have just said that that is not correct because subsection (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill gives the Home Secretary power to order the Boundary Commissions to accelerate

675
action, to speed up action. It is astonishing to me that the noble Lord should have put that in his speech because I deat with this matter on Second Reading; and really this is not the kind of debate that I am accustomed to having with the noble Lord.
Lord BYERS: Is the Minister saying that there is no statutory obligation laid upon the Home Secretary under the 1949 Act? If not, what is the obligation?
Lord STONHAM: We have already dealt with the statutory obligation. The point I am dealing with at the moment is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, made; and he has just repeated what he says were the exact words he uttered. I say that those words are wrong because subsection (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill lays on the Home Secretary a duty to reactivate, if you like, or to speed up (that is the real expression) the work of the Boundary Commissions.
Lord BYERS: Will the noble Lord explain to the Committee why his Bill contains an indemnity to the Home Secretary if there is no statutory obligation to do anything?
Lord STONHAM: I propose to deal with that point, and I shall deal with it in a logical way. I know it is all good fun to interrupt and try to put someone off the point, but I do not mind. I am coming to that. I notice the laughter of noble Lords, and looking at the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I remember an occasion in this very Chamber when the same thing happened. We were discussing the Boundary Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, was sitting there and I was sitting over there and the Leader of the then Opposition said: "I always notice"—
Lord BYERS: No.
Lord STONHAM: Yes. The Speaker's Chair was at that end, and the noble Lord sat there. I gazed at it every year.
Lord BYERS: So did I.
Lord STONHAM: I want to remind noble Lords about history repeating itself, because on February 16, 1948, in a debate on the same subject, the Representation of the People Bill, when the
676
speaker from this side was getting the same treatment as I have been getting, he looked across the Chamber with his glasses down his nose and said:
"I always notice that the party opposite indulge in laughter which resembles the crackling of thorns under a pot whenever they are confronted with any mental proposition which their intelligence forces them to resent or to reject".—[Official Report, Commons, col. 863.]
That was Mr. Winston Churchill, standing here at this same Box. I do not propose to be put off.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: The noble Lord may say that this is all good fun, but I do not take it as good fun when he misquotes what I have just said in Committee, and I propose to read out what I said. I said: "The Bill as introduced suspends action completely and for all time on the recommendations which the Boundary Commissions for England and Wales have recently submitted for restoring fairness to Parliamentary constituencies." The noble Lord says that that is untrue. I challenge him to say in what respect that is untrue.
Lord STONHAM: It is untrue, because if the noble Lord will read subsection (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill before the Committee—not the new Bill he introduced but the Bill before the Committee—he will find in paragraph (a) of subsection (3):
"… the Secretary of State … shall lay before Parliament a draft of such an Order in Council for any part of the United Kingdom as soon as it appears to him that it would not, by reason of the prospect of local government reorganisation there, be premature to do so; … "
That is not suspending work for all time. It is the case that it is the Government's intention to reactivate the work of the Boundary Commission, and indeed to urge them on, as soon as the local government situation has been cleared up under the Redcliffe-Maud Report.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I am very sorry, but I am afraid the noble Lord who is expounding this Bill does not understand his own Bill. He is saying that subsection (3) empowers the Boundary Commission to be reactivated by Order in Council. Of course that is so. Nobody would ever deny it. But what subsection (1) does is to say that
"… no proceedings shall be taken … in consequence of the reports submitted by the

677
Boundary Commissions … in the year 1969 … "
That is what I repeated when I said that the Bill suspends action completely and for all time on the recommendations which the Boundary Commissions for England and Wales—
Several Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord STONHAM: The only point between us—and I would not dispute with the noble Lord about his knowledge of the Bill and mine—are the words "for all time". What I am saying—and I ask the noble Lord to accept this—is that it is the Government's intention, and this subsection provides for the fulfilment of that intention, that when these local government boundary questions are settled the Boundary Commission, having already made their recommendations on the basis of existing local authority boundaries, will be asked to speed up their work to relate those recommendations—the same recommendations they have made—to the new local authority boundaries. That is the entire situation, and I cannot credit that the noble Lord does not understand this.
At the time I was interrupted, very properly, I was quoting the Attorney General, and I had reached the end of that quotation, when he said:
"There is no breach of statutory duty. There has been here a proper exercise of constitutional power by the Home Secretary. What he has done is not in breach of duty."
I say to your Lordships that the Home Secretary is not in breach of his statutory duty. He neither needs nor wants your indemnity, which is just as well because he would not get much protection from the Amendment. In fact in my view, despite the faith expressed in them by very distinguished noble Lords, these so-called Amendments are a "mishmash" which I find it surprising the sponsors should call upon your Lordships to swallow. If the Amendments were applied, the practical consequences would be even more regrettable.
I intend to refer to something said by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor—I noted his words, and perhaps he will tell me if I am misrepresenting him now. It is only a paraphrase. I took him to say that "action can be taken to bring the new Greater London constituencies into being in good time for the elections
678
in April next near". Is that a fair representation? I am astonished that such a suggestion should be made. Noble Lords opposite opposed the original Bill on the grounds that it was imperative to implement the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions without delay. Now they are asking us to agree that there should be No implementation during this Session of Parliament. That means that no action will be possible until after the new Session begins in November. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, with hi; vast experience as Home Secretary, knows that the last qualifying date for the new register, the register to be produced in February, is October 10 this year. That means that no action could be taken until the new Session begins in November.
In our view, that would effectively prevent the holding of the G.L.C. elections in April, 1970, on the single-Member constituency basis for which the G.L.C. have been pressing and for which the original Bill provides. This is because (and I hope that noble Lords will follow me in this) if these Amendments were to be accepted no Order in Council could be laid before Parliament until after Prorogation; and that Order would have to deal not only with the Greater London constituencies but also with all the other constituencies. That is what noble Lords want.
Then there would have to be Aflirmative Orders in both houses; and that as any noble Lord who was a Member of another place—as I was—in 1948 and 1954 knows, would involve detailed and lengthy debates over a considerable period. By the time all this had been done it would be too late for the G.L.C. elections next April—because, as we all know, one does not do the job just by ordaining shortly before the elections what the new constituencies are to be. The constituency organisations must be given time to do all the preparatory work. At the moment, the position is that there are G.L.C. constituencies represented by three members. The proposals in this Bill propose 92 new constituencies each with one member. I assure your Lordships that the constituency organisations are asking about this now. They have a great deal of preparatory work to do. Candidates must be selected. The Parties must know whether the constituencies are to have one candidate or three. The organisations are already saying that if

679
this Bill is drastically amended or delayed the elections will have to be held on the basis of the old constituencies, with three members to each. Noble Lords who say that they want to hurry the implementation of the Boundary Commissions' recommendations will achieve exactly the opposite: they will prevent implementation in the 92 constituencies in Greater London.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has said that the purpose of the Amendments is to give the Government time to think again. But under the proposals now before us the only direction in which the Government are asked to apply their minds is to the implementation of the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions by March 31, 1970. So far as England and Wales are concerned, the circumstances will be no different by March, 1970, from what they are now. The Government, as was their duty, have already given very careful consideration to the special circumstances which exist.
On Second Reading I explained very fully why we had reached the conclusion that changes in constituency boundaries in England and Wales should not be made while unprecedented local government changes are imminent. I added that the only issue between us is this: Do we have a radical alteration of constituency boundaries now, and a further major alteration in a few years' time, when the new local government boundaries have been settled, or do we keep to the existing boundaries for the time being and have one major change of the political map when the new boundaries have been settled? The Government are convinced that it is the latter course which is the right one; and their conclusion accords with the view hitherto taken by noble Lords in all parts of the House, that frequent changes of constituency boundaries should be avoided.
So far as England and Wales are concerned, the Government cannot accept that for constituencies outside Greater London the recommendations of the Commission should be accepted either now or before March 31 next. We know all the facts now. We have assessed the implications of the proposals for local government reorganisa-
680
tion on the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions and we have come firmly to the view that it would be wrong to promulgate now new constituencies based on local government boundaries that are soon to be altered. In Scotland and in Northern Ireland the present Bill makes it possible to make these changes by March 31 next, which is what the Amendment proposes. Therefore the Amendment is not necessary. All we are waiting for is the Wheatley Commission Report, in the case of Scotland, and consideration of the White Paper of the Northern Ireland Government issued on July 2. The effect of the noble Lord's proposals would be to require the Secretary of State to lay a draft Order in Council implementing the recommendations for constituencies in both Scotland and Northern Ireland, no matter what conclusions were reached about the proposed local government changes. No one can argue that this is a rational or proper way to use the permanent majority in this House to force Parliament to proceed; and the Government cannot accept that they should be deprived of the right to determine the proper course of action following an examination of all the known facts.
I think that I have shown that these Amendments are in large measure misconceived. In my view, they cannot honourably be supported. Moreover, they seek not merely to wreck a Bill which your Lordships have already approved in principle but to introduce by the back door a new Bill to which your Lordships cannot give proper consideration, for you will not have the opportunity to do so. In these circumstances I call upon your Lordships to take the only course open to you, and to reject the Amendments.
3.58 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: I intervene shortly, and with some diffidence, partly because I feel that most of the things that can be said have already been said, and partly because I feel that at the end of my short intervention I shall probably have few friends left in the House. I think that there is a danger in discussions of this sort for many of us to adopt a "holier than thou" attitude.
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: Noble Lords behind me are saying "Hear, hear!"—but let them wait until I finish my speech. I do not think that there will be many "Hear, hears!" then.
I can well remember, when I was serving as a young man on a city council, getting into trouble with my Party—as I should do now, if I were not sitting as an independent on the Bishops' Benches—because I voted against my Party when it "pinched", as I thought, places from the aldermanic bench and the mayor's place in order to get a working majority. I got into severe trouble on that occasion when, on a matter of conscience, I felt that I had to vote against my own Party. It was difficult for me about three years later when the Party on the other side did precisely the same thing for the same reason. I remember that not very long ago I may have made myself unpopular with noble Lords opposite when I said that I thought we were failing in our respect for democracy by not speaking out on behalf of the people in Rhodesia. If we were to apply something similar to the present Boundaries Bill to the constituencies in Rhodesia, many of us would not support it as we would say that it helped the Smith régime.
I spoke against Rhodesia because I believed that people ought to have the right to express their views and to be democratically represented in their Parliament. Having said that on that occasion, I say to noble Lords on this side of the House that my views to-day have not altered: what I felt then I still feel to-day. Just as I felt then that people ought to have the opportunity in Rhodesia to express their views, and to have people elected to represent them in Parliament, so we in this country should do so on as fair a basis as we can. And unless there is anything fairer than the proposals of the Boundary Commission—there may be—and until something better has been found, let us abide by the Boundary Commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said at the beginning of his speech that he was glad he had come to this House, because, apparently, in other Houses people had behaved in an irresponsible way and had said unkind and vitriolic things. The noble Lord is glad that he has come here. But why is he glad, when
682
he goes on to say, so far as I can make out, that, having come here, we all ought to have lockjaw and say nothing at all? Apparently, the reason why we should say nothing at all is that we are a non-elected House; to which I would say to the noble Lord, "Whose fault is that?" As noble Lords on this side of the Committee will know, I have no wish to perpetuate a non-elected Chamber, but still, here it is; we are a non-elected Chamber because the present Government refused to go ahead with reform. We come to this matter before us as a curious mixture of Life Peers, non-Life Peers, Bishops and Judges, though that is not our fault. We just have to deal with the matter as it is before us. No matter what our political colour may be, or the colour of the Government, we have to make up our minds on the matter before us.
I would say that there are two things, so far as I am concerned, that will govern my vote. They are, first, respect for politics. May I ask noble Lords on this side of the Committee: suppose the Tories had been in power and brought in this sort of Bill, what would they have said? I know very well what they would have said because I have been with them in their Party meetings on occasions when this sort of thing has arisen, and when I was in local politics. They would have been as distressed by is as are noble Lords opposite, and as I am myself distressed, by what the Government are doing to-day. I believe that far more important than respect for any one particular colour is respect for politics as a whole. Let us to-day uphold our Western democratic way of doing things.
The second thing that will govern my vote (if I may speak to my noble friends on this side of the Committee who may not agree; I only hope that they will take this kindly) is that although I sit on the Bishops' Bench and take no Whip but vote as an independent, as members of this House will know, I have never tried to disguise my political allegiance. I am a Socialist. What distresses me is that in the speeches that have been made on this matter, so many of the values, so many of the standards, seem to me—I may be wrong—quite incompatible with everything that I understand by the word "Socialism". I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham will

683
believe me when I say that I regard him as a friend more than in the sense in which the word is used in this House, and that I respect him very much and value him as a personal friend. But I do not think that I have ever heard a weaker speech from him, or from practically anybody in this Committee—
Several Noble Lords: Shame!
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: Noble Lords may say "Shame!", but I believe it. I can understand the noble Lord having to put up a defence for a weak case. I have often been in the same position—
Lord STONHAM: May I make quite dear to the right reverend Prelate that whatever he thinks of me and the defence I made—I thought it was an attack—I believe every word I said. I was not under compulsion from anybody to say anything and, apart from advice, I wrote every word of it myself.
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: I do not question that for a moment. I know very well that when I have tried to speak up for a rather frail clergyman people have come to me and said, "Your clergyman gets drunk." I have tried to say my best for him, knowing my weak position. I have said, "Well, look, but you know he was just in an alcoholic haze"—
Several Noble Lords: Oh!
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: Yes, my Lords, you can say "Oh" and "Yes", but if the Party opposite had been in power and had done what noble Lords on this side of the Committee have done, and I had said against them what I have said against (if I may so put it) my own side to-day, there would have been whoops of delight and cries of "Hear, hear".—
A Noble Lord: Speak for yourself!
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: I do speak for myself, but I nevertheless make this point. I believe that here is involved not only one's respect for politics but also for the very integrity of Socialism. I know—this is my last point—that here in your Lordships' House we feel deeply involved in these particular matters. I hope to go further outside, where people are not so politically committed. I can think of various
684
groups in South London with which I have been in the past week or ten days, composed of older people and younger people. There one has come across a cynicism and a questioning, a feeling that when it comes to the last resort people care not for the wellbeing of their country so much as for the interest of their particular Party. I may be wrong, and I am sorry if, by what I have said, I have made bad friends with people on this side of the Committee; but I can only say to them that it is because I believe passionately in the wellbeing of our country and the integrity of British politics that I intend to support the Amendment and vote against the Government.
Baroness GAITSKELL: After what the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Southwark, has just said, may I quote from an article by David Butler, who is an expert on electoral practices in Parliament and who has read every word that has been written on this matter in the last century? This is the comment I wish to quote:
"Both parties have acted unilaterally and for partisan advantage, yet mercifully both Parties have shown moderation in doing so. Because Labour's current proposals fall within this tradition of moderation in the pursuit of self-interest I cannot feel deep indignation about them. I do not see them as justifying the excessive rhetoric they have evoked."
4.8 p.m.
Lord HELSBY: Perhaps I may be forgiven if I do not follow the line of thought of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark or of other noble Lords who have recently spoken. It seems to me that there may be some advantage in going back, as it were, to the beginning of this problem. One point on which I think there is general agreement is that there is advantage in linking local government and constituency boundaries. I feel that the coincidence in time of the Boundary Commission Report and the Report on Local Government produced a real problem for the Government. It would be idle to suggest that there was no problem and that the right thing to do would be to ignore this coincidence in time and go straight ahead as though it had not happened. It did happen and it did produce a real problem. But it is a problem limited in time, and I suggest that we should do well to concentrate our minds on the time factor.

685
Nobody would believe it wise to make two major reorganisations of constituency boundaries in a very short time, by which I mean, say, 18 months or two years. But when it becomes a bit longer than that, the argument begins to lose force. The argument has quite a lot of force up to the end of a period of three or four years, and then the force would begin to dwindle. After five years there would be practically none. This means that the vital point on which to fix our minds is how long is it going to take to settle local government in the light of the Redcliffe-Maud Report and thereafter to reactivate the Boundary Commission? The Government have said in effect, "Not so long as some people think". They have also said that they intend that the job shall be done pretty quickly.
I suggest that they were right in their attitude to this, because as a country we simply cannot afford to allow a prolonged argument about our local government situation, bearing in mind that while the argument goes on, and particularly if it is allowed to drag on for a very long time, local government will suffer grievously. Continuity of local government makes it highly desirable that the job should be done as quickly as possible. We were told the other day by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that this could be done in five or six years. I have a great respect for her judgment, but I know from experience in administration that there are many administrative jobs which could be done a great deal more quickly than anybody thinks. The Greater London Council was set up a great deal more quickly than people expected, and I think that, looking back, we would all agree that it was well that the job was done quickly, because government in London would have suffered grievously if it had been dragged out.
It may be that the job of reorganisation of local government can be done more quickly than seems likely now. I believe that it certainly could be done well within the longer time period that has been suggested. On the other hand, while expressing their firm intention to do the job quickly and their belief that they can do it quickly, and while arguing that therefore it is right to suspend the consideration of the Boundary Commission Report until the reorganisation has been
686
carried out, the Government have asked for a blank cheque. They have not put any time on it. They have not told us in terms that the time will be thus short. They have asked that everything should be suspended until the Home Secretary judges it is right to go ahead in the light of what happens about local government—a complete blank cheque.
This seems to me to be the weakness of the Government's position. If they would put a reasonably short time on this I, for one, would support them, but so far they have consistently refused to do that. I think it is illogical. I think it is also unwise, because it has laid them open to grave suspicions which may not otherwise have arisen. I plead with the Government even now to put a time on this. If they do not, I shall feel obliged to vote for the Amendment, simply because it does put a time on it—maybe not a very long time but at any rate a time within which something has to be done, if it is only a review of progress, and produced to Parliament.
Lord STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend. I am grateful to him for what he has said. But we are not considering an Amendment which fixes the time, and there will be no opportunity for the Government to do what he proposes.
Lord HELSBY: My Lords, I should have thought that even on Report stage it would be possible to introduce a time-table. I suggest that it is simply not right to ask for a blank cheque. To ask for a suspension, yes: I think that is far. I would support the Government on that line, but I think that they ought to tell us how long they think it will be, because otherwise we have no means of knowing that the time will be short enough to be covered by the argument that we must not have two constituency boundary devisions within a ridiculously short period of time.
4.15 p.m.
Lord MITCHISON: My Lords, if I may say so, the last speech largely answers itself. If the noble Lord, with all his experience and judgment, wants to put in a time limit and have it discussed, I think he is at full liberty to do so on Report stage. I can see no reason whatever for voting against the Government on that ground. So far as the right reverend Prelate is concerned, I think that

687
when he looks again at his speech, he will find that it, too, largely answers itself. I did not notice a single right reverend Prelate in the Chamber on Thursday, and I do not think any of them voted or abstained from voting. They were too occupied in a fratricidal conflict about the Methodists.
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord that I was not engaged in that particular conflict on that day. In any case, I was here for that debate.
Lord MITCHISON: My Lords, I apologise at once to the right reverend Prelate. I did not see him, although he is usually a fairly conspicuous person. If he reads his own speech I think he will find that it answers itself, even if he was here on Thursday.
This is not a Second Reading discussion; your Lordships passed this Bill on Second Reading on Thursday. In one of the newspapers we were called "Heath's poodle", and on Thursday "Heath's poodle" did not bite, did not even bark. The most it emitted was an unctuous growl, of which we have heard some repetitions to-day. It is nonsense to come here and talk about the principles of democracy, the principles of this, that or the other, what we fought and bled for and all the rest of it, when the Bill was given a Second Reading on Thursday. If all noble Lords who are sitting here now thought that way on Thursday, why did they not vote against it? Had your Lordships perhaps not the courage to do so? Or, as I think more likely, did not your Lordships think that there was some tactical, procedural advantage to be gained by waiting for an Amendment today, just as on the Iron and Steel Bill many years ago the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, waited for an Amendment, also about the timing, before wrecking the Bill?
There is not the least doubt that these are wrecking Amendments and that to vote for them is exactly the same as doing what your Lordships were unwilling to do the other day, in spite of all these high principles; that is, to vote against the Bill. I can hardly stand hearing one noble Lord after another getting up and saying that some high principle is involved, when in fact nothing whatever is
688
involved but a rather minor bit of Party tactics as to whether it is better to vote on an Amendment or on the Bill itself.
Lord MOYNE: My Lords, as a Back Bench Member who has considered this matter personally and quite independently of Party considerations, I thought that it would be highly illogical that we should oppose what we want to happen in Scotland and in London by refusing a Second Reading to a Bill which would make these changes. Therefore I think we adopted the logical course.
Lord MITCHISON: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not hear the noble Lord very distinctly, but if I understood him aright he said that he has some conscientious feeling which prevented him from opposing the Bill but allows him to support wrecking Amendments to it. What that conscientious principle can be, I am afraid I fail to understand. I stand here and say honestly that if any question of gerrymandering is raised, I have been told by my old friends, the present Home Secretary and Mr. George Thomson, who have also spoken on this matter that their motives were entirely honest, and if the Tory Liar or the Tory Party tell me the opposite, it is the former I believe and not the latter. I think your Lordships will understand that quite well.
I do not believe there has been any gerrymandering whatsoever about this Bill. I think, as the last speaker quite rightly said, that the Government were placed in a difficult position. They were placed in a difficult position which they had to try to solve by agreement with the Party opposite two or three years ago. The Party opposite refused to agree, because they wanted to exploit the difficulties of the Government for every Party purpose which they possibly could: and they are trying to do it now. I think they are making a mistake. I think this House cannot last for ever—cannot, indeed, last for very long. What emerges from it will, I think, depend on the way it has conducted itself.
When this matter was last discussed in this House I thought that the only serious difference between the Front Benches on both sides was that the Front Bench opposite wanted to choose the last ditch. They had one shot at choosing the last ditch on the Southern Rhodesian Order, but that was a bit too much for them.

689
and now they are trying to choose this as the last ditch. I think it is a very poor one. This is a difficult and doubtful matter. They are trying to add to the elections which the electorate will have to suffer, if I may put it that way, within a comparatively short period of years.
I quite see the difficulties, and I am not going back on them, but they seem to me to be typical of the kind of difficulties that the Government of the day have to face and have to answer, and that a responsible Opposition ought really to co-operate in dealing with. They ought not to try to make a Party advantage out of it. When it comes to this unrepresentative Chamber dealing with the constituencies of the House of Commons, then I say they have chosen the worst possible ground for fighting. I remember Bruce Bairnfather's cartoon:
"If you knows of a better 'ole, go to it!"
I say to the Conservative Peers opposite that almost any hole would be a better one for them than this one. It does not matter how noble Lords here vote; of course these Amendments will be carried, the Bill will be wrecked, and the consequences, which I notice the Prime Minister has been explaining to the Durham miners, will certainly follow sooner or later.
That is about all I have to say to the Tory Party. However, I want to say a word or two to the Liberals. Nobody ever says "Boo" to the Liberal Party nowadays; and I do not think they really mind. I see the noble Lord, Lord Byers (I hope that we are good friends), nodding agreement. I wonder whether he remembers the old Limehouse Liberal slogan:
"In good Lloyd George's palmy days,
When Peers were ten a penny,
David knew how to check their ways.
And see there weren't too many."
And it goes on:
"And nowadays and nowadays"—
and I leave your Lordships to finish the rest of that little Party song. They seem to have forgotten that it was their Party which passed the Parliament Act, including its Preamble.
Where are they getting to now? They are behaving like the B.O.A.C. line. They put up a large notice to say: "The Liberal Party takes care of you"; and they get to the remote parts of the
690
countryside, where people are not very good at political principles—indeed they themselves have only one solid one, and that is proportional representation—and persuade those people that that notice is what matters. It is not the old Liberal Party as I knew and respected it, and I hope that they will have a look at themselves in the looking glass and think again about what they are going to do. The whole business to-day, after passing the Bill on Second Reading, after passing the Bill on Second Reading, and I repeat for the third time, after passing the Bill on Second Reading, is rather cheap and rather humbug.
4.26 p.m.
Lord CONESFORD: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, is sincere when he says that he cannot understand it. That was made amply clear in the course of his speech. I know that he finds it almost inconceivable that anybody sitting on these Benches can possibly be sincere if he takes a different view from that which the noble Lord takes. Therefore I will mainly not devote myself to his speech, but I propose to say something about points mace in other speeches.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made the point that these Amendments, taken together, made this measure virtually a new Bill, and that if this was the intention, the right method—and, indeed, he almost implied the only method—would have been to vote against the Second Reading. I think he is wrong for these reasons. In my view there would be something in what he said, if my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor and my noble Leader had not made absolutely clear in the Second Reading debate the nature of the Amendments that they were proposing to put down. That seems to me to change the proprieties. Had we thrown out the Bill on Second Reading—and I agree with the noble Lord that there would be ample constitutional justification for such a proceeding—then there would have been no chance whatever of the Government's remedying what many of us believe to be a constitutional outrage, which we genuinely hope they will remedy.
The noble Lord said that this Amendment, if we pass it, will make it impossible for the Government to lay these recommendations, together with the

691
Orders, in the present Session. But that is already in his Bill, so he can scarcely complain of its being the effect of the Amendment. I think I am the first lawyer to speak in this debate.
Lord STRABOLGI: No.
Lord CONESFORD: I am sorry, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison.
The Lord PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shackleton): And the noble Lord, Lord Tangley.
Lord TANGLEY: He is a solicitor, not a lawyer.
Lord CONESFORD: I meant to speak of those on the other side, not those with whom I agree.
Lord LEATHERLAND: Need the noble Lord go on apologising for being a lawyer?
Lord CONESFORD: I really was not apologising. I apologise as little for that, as the noble Lord who interrupted me apologises for being a journalist. Apologies are not necessary from either of us; our professions are well known to the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, quoted the intervention of the Attorney General in another place, and I think I should say a word or two about that. The Attorney General, as I understood his intervention, which the noble Lord repeated, said that there had been no breach of the duty to lay the draft Orders because the Home Secretary had not even, under the Act, laid the recommendations. There is a dual obligation under the Statute of 1949 to lay the recommendation together with the draft of an Order. He said that there is no breach of duty because the Home Secretary had not complied with either part of the obligation. I think that was his argument. The Attorney General, as I understand it, went on to imply that the failure to do both these things, to lay the recommendations before Parliament under the Act and to lay the draft Orders, was not a breach of duty because the Government had instead brought in the present Bill. The Attorney General's view on that matter is obviously entitled to great respect, but it does not seem to answer the point that is being made against
692
the Government, because it says that this is a tolerable way of excusing the Home Secretary from complying with either half of his obligation. If that is the best that can be said for the Home Secretary, it does not get us very far.
Lord STONHAM: I wonder whether the noble Lord will deal with the point that my right honourable friend the Attorney General made: that it is true the reports of the Boundary Commission have been laid before Parliament, but they have not been laid in pursuance of subsection (5) of Section 2 of the 1949 Act.
Lord CONESFORD: I understood that to mean he had not laid them within the meaning of, and as required by, that Act. That is the point I am making. He gets out of the dual obligation by saying that the Home Secretary has not complied with the first part. I rather hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, and conceivably even the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, might agree with that.
I am sorry if I repeat an argument which I made on Second Reading, but this is the whole core of the argument as I see it and constitutes the necessity for these Amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Helsby, in his interesting speech this afternoon, said that although as now advised he supported the Amendment, his view might be changed if he thought, on the assurance of the Government, that the Redcliffe-Maud reforms might be carried into law at a very early date. I hope I can convince him that that is really not a proper ground for not voting for these Amendments. The whole question we have to consider is fairness to the electorate at the next General Election. The next General Election will elect a Parliament part of whose duties will be to decide whether to bring the Redcliffe-Maud reforms into law at all, and, if so, to what extent. There is no possible excuse for preventing the electorate at the next General Election from returning the most representative Parliament that can be returned.
Noble Lords in every quarter of the House are entitled to be as enthusiastic as they like in favour of the Redcliffe-Maud reforms. But, as I reminded the House last week, there are three facts about the proposed reforms which cannot

693
be disputed. The first—which is alleged by the Government in every speech they make—is that the reforms are probably the most important reform of local government that has been made for a hundred years. The second fact is that the reforms are highly controversial, and the third fact, which alone is sufficient for my purpose, is that the decision whether to give legal effect to those suggested reforms must be made by the next Parliament. The more important we think the Redcliffe-Maud reforms to be, the more we are bound to do our duty to the electors by enabling them to elect as representative a Parliament as they can.
I ventured to remind the House on Second Reading, as I now remind the Committee, that nobody disputes that the legal sovereign is the Queen in Parliament. In legislation, the sovereignty of Parliament does not mean the wish of the Government; it does not mean a Resolution of the House of Commons: it means a law carried by both Houses, and given the Royal Assent. That is what the sovereignty of Parliament means. In enacting laws, the House of Commons must always be the predominant partner. It is for all purposes very much more important, and carries more weight, than this House. Nevertheless, the Constitution says that we have limited powers of delay; and there must be a limited occasion when those powers can be exercised. Can any of your Lordships conceive a more proper occasion for the exercise of those powers than when this House is compelled to intervene to prevent the rights of electors from being diminished? That is the perfectly simple issue as I see it. Whatever else you think about these proposals, can you doubt that, if the recommendations of the Boundary Commission were carried out, a more representative House of Commons would result than if there were this wholesale disregard of the considered recommendations of this impartial Commission?
I reminded the House, as I remind the Committee, of what Dicey says. Members of another place, when they are addressing their constituents, or public meetings in the country, always treat the electors with the greatest verbal respect. They say that what the electors want matters overwhelmingly; and so it does. As Dicey says, while the legal sovereign is the Queen in Parliament, the political
694
sovereign is the electors. But, in the words of Dicey, this all-powerful body, the electors, have one legal right under our Constitution, and one legal right only. Let me quote the sentence again:
"The sole legal right of electors under the English Constitution is to elect Members of Parliament."
That is the reason why all these provisions about Parliamentary elections are so important. That is the reason why there has been all this concern always to seek the maximum agreement between the Parties; and always to try to see that, so far as possible, constitutional changes are made by agreement and not otherwise.
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, in his speech, used as a defence of the Government something that was brought in, I think, by the noble Lord the Leader of the House in his speech last week, saying that the Government had actually approached the Opposition a few years ago to ask them whether they would agree to postpone this whole business of the investigation of the boundary reports, and the answer was, "No".
Lord MITCHISON: It was not quite what I said. What was discussed at the time was the difficulty that was inevitably going to be caused for this Government, or any Government, by the timing of the Boundary Commission Report and the main Report, too. That was what was discussed. As I understand it, the discussion was quite general. We were told this in public on Thursday. It was an attempt to get a real difficulty solved.
Lord CONESFORD: I am sorry if I misrepresented the noble Lord's speech. I have no doubt that my Party would have said, "No" to that proposal. I have no doubt whatever that the Liberal Party would have said, "No" to that proposal. Why should we, for any purpose whatsoever, give up the right of the electors to be represented as well as could be after the next General Election? But if the Government thought otherwise, if the Government thought that this was a rotten answer by the Tory Part I, that was the time to bring in legislation; not to let the Boundary Commissioners go on, at the public expense, doing all this work, if all the time they intended to throw the Report into the wastepaper

695
basket. That was not the right action at all.
Lord PARGITER: Surely it was impossible for the Government to anticipate what the Maud Report would say until the Report had been published?
Lord CONESFORD: That may well be the case. And when they saw what it said, how far-reaching, how controversial and how impossible it would be to put the recommendations into force before the General Election, I should have thought they would have come to the conclusion that it was a reason for accelerating the carrying out of the Boundary Commission's recommendations so that the next Parliament should be as representative as possible.
We should not treat lightly the traditions and the conventions of our Constitution. This Bill diminishes the rights of the electors. It may be said, of course, that this is not the ideal House for deciding that issue. People may take that view. People often think that a jury is not the ideal body to decide questions of fact in the courts. But what we are really doing to-day is dealing with admitted facts. So far as I have heard, nobody, either in the other House or in this House, disputes that as a consequence of this Bill, if it is carried through in its present form, the electors will not be able to elect so representative House of Commons as will be possible if the Government do their duty, as these Amendments would enable them to do.
Lord PLATT: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that although I may be the only one in the Committee to do so, I dispute this contention. We have heard so much righteousness that I began to get a little suspicious from time to time, especially about the rights of the electorate. There are, surely, two ways in which the distribution of seats can go wrong. One is the one of which the Boundary Commission has obviously taken great notice: there are some constituencies with up to 100, 000 voters while others have 20, 000. But there is another way in which it can go wrong, and that is in the general distribution of seats between those who are likely to put in a Conservative representative and those likely to put in a Socialist repre-
696
sentative. The distribution has surely gone wrong in this respect.
I am not in any way blaming anybody for this, but we know that more than one Conservative Government have had a quite significant majority on a minority vote of the whole country. We are told—and all this argument to-day would not be going on if it had not some substance—that the Report of the Boundary Commission is likely to give the Conservatives a further majority, which has been said to be perhaps between 15 and 20 seats. Therefore, I suggest to noble Lords that either the Boundary Commission has not taken notice of both these points, or else perhaps its terms of reference require revision. For that reason, I shall support the Government on this Bill.
Lord CONESFORD: May I put just one point to the noble Lord? It is perfectly true that it is theoretically possible, if all these recommendations are carried out, for one Party to have more votes in the country and for the other to form a Government. But the bias of which the noble Lord complains, if it exists, is the direct result of the Boundary Commissioners working to certain rules. The Bill before us does not propose to alter any of those rules.
Lord PLATT: I agree. I think that if some nonsense comes out of a report the course to take is to alter the rules.
4.46 p.m.
Lord CHAMPION: I have a tremen dous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, but I am bound to say that when he was arguing for the Amendments and against the Bill, it seemed to me that his arguments were wholly tortuous. The fact is that this is a series of wrecking Amendments, and I hope that the Government, and certainly the other House, will treat them as such. This is an attempt to use the overwhelming Tory majority in this House for a purely Party political purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Tangley, mentioned the Greater London Government Bill, and was rather proud of it. I took a considerable part during the proceedings in the House on the Greater London Government Bill in 1963. I honestly do not think that during the whole of the proceedings on that Bill and its passage here I ever used I the word "gerrymandering", for I recognised that something had to be done

697
about London local government. The local government of this great area had outgrown the L.C.C. and the county borough structure. No one could have pretended that anything disastrous would happen to London if the proposals were postponed for 10 or so years. Although I did not use the word "gerrymander", or make speeches opposing the Bill on that ground, I was not so naive as to think that the Bill had been discussed in Cabinet and among Tory Ministers of the day without someone using words to the effect, "It will also help to break Labour's hold on London government", with the rest who were present at that meeting at least nodding their heads and accepting it as a very worthwhile, possible by-product of a reasonable scheme. And it was a reasonable scheme. But I would have accepted, had they told me so, that they would look upon it only as a byproduct.
or am I so naive as not to think that somewhere along the line someone might have said about this Bill, "Of course, it is impossible to forecast the results accurately, but it might be that additionally there is some political advantage to us". We are dealing with human beings in a political situation and these are the things that happen. Even if that were said, the fact remains, as I see it, that the postponement of constituency boundary changes until the local government boundaries are changed to fit with what might be done about the Redcliffe-Maud Report, appears to me to be wholly justified.
During my period in the other House I experienced two boundary changes. Both happened to be against me. I started with a nearly 23, 000 majority in 1945 and ended up in 1959 with a majority of 12 against me. I know something about boundary changes. I certainly had no complaint at all to make about the first, for in 1945 the constituency was numerically one of the largest in the country, just escaping the division of the 100, 000-elector constituencies in 1944.
The second boundary change was made in 1954, and I managed to live with it until 1959. Throughout the whole of that period of six years that boundary change appeared to me to be a quite stupid one, although it brought about a little move towards "one vote, one value" as between the voters residing in
698
the two Derby County Borough constituencies and the voters in the surroundingrural district council area. What happened in 1954 was that both the county borough constituencies spilled out over the borough boundary into the rural district council constituency area. There were then three Members of Parliament representing one rural district council area. The two other Members, with myself, who were involved were actually members of my own Party; and fortunately we were on good terms—which is not always the case, even in a brotherly Party. So we never clashed. But I am positive that all three recognised the wholly unsatisfactory nature of the arrangement. This is bound to happen in large towns—it is inevitable--but it ought not to happen any more often than we can possibly avoid.
The other aspect of those two boundary alterations was the major upsets inevitably brought about in the constituency organisations of the three major political Parties. Difficulties were involved in all three of them. There was a complete reorganisation in 1949, which meant for my constituency party cutting off a large part of the constituency party membership and a consequent loss of income and personnel. Then, after a short period of six years, there was another major upset affecting nine political Party oganisations in three constituencies, and this meant that nine political Party organisations representing three constituency parties were interested in the election of councillors for the rural district council that I have mentioned. For the sake of the working of our Party system—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, that we know of no better; the party system works in this country and I believe we always have to remember this—a reasonable degree of continuity of structure and historical association in the constituencies and with local government is something which, in my opinion, justifies some sacrifice of numerical perfection.
The situation that I have described is something which I am sure ought to be avoided if at all possible, and had I still been a member of the Government at the time I would, arising from my personal experience, unhesitatingly have urged the action contained in this Bill, despite the inevitability of the sort of charge that is now being levelled. As indeed, had I been

699
a member of the Tory Government faced with the proposal to do something about London Government, at the time, despite the inevitability of charges of gerrymandering, I would have said "Go ahead" if I thought it was the right thing to do.
This afternoon I have listened to all the speeches. I was particularly struck by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Helsby. It seemed to me that he got to the heart of the matter. I, too, would urge upon my noble friend that he should try, before the end of the passage of this Bill through this House, to give us a firm date. I believe that it would be right for this House to ask for that—to pass the Bill but to ask before the end of the proceedings that a firm date should be given by the Government for the implementation of the Redcliffe-Maud proposals, or some part of them.
I appeal to this Committee not to let this reasonable Bill become a source of conflict between the two Houses. The Parliament (No. 2) Bill, which was dropped, was designed to reform this House in a comparatively painless way. That is why I supported it. It was about as far as I should wish to go in the direction of reform. That Bill was dropped eventually, mainly because of the opposition of those on the Labour Benches who wanted something more drastic to be done about this House than that Bill proposed. I do not want to see that happen. I read yesterday an article by David Butler in the Sunday Times. He ended by saying:
"The Lords are not popular"—
hateful thought, my Lords, but there it is—
"Mr. Wilson must rejoice that they are making their own position an issue. In 1909 Mr. Lloyd George snared the Conservative Peers into an impossible position. In 1969 Mr. Callaghan may have snared them into what is at least an impolitic one."
I do not know whether David Butler is right about Mr. Wilson's feelings or Mr. Callaghan's wiles. All I do feel is that to pass these Amendments—particularly following on the heels of the circumstances of the dropping of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill—would be for your Lordships a very unwise action, and I sincerely hope that this House will not take it.
4.54 p.m.
Lord DENHAM: I was hoping, as I am sure were most of your Lordships, that Her Majesty's Government and noble Lords opposite would not try to obscure this important issue by suggesting that your Lordships would be acting improperly if you used your constitutional powers of delay, and by uttering threats of reprisal, even if done with as much charm as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has used. There have been suggestions—or at least implications—from the other side to-day, that noble Lords on this side of the House, especially hereditary ones, have no social conscience on a matter of this sort but will tramp through the Lobbies at the behest of their Whips. I have been a Tory Whip in this House for the last eight years, and I can assure your Lordships that this simply is not true. Members of this House will not vote against their consciences. Very few of your Lordships have not, on occasion, voted against your Party Whip, and I hope that nothing I say as a Whip, either inside this Chamber or outside, will ever persuade your Lordships to vote in a way in which you think it is wrong to vote.
On Second Reading the noble Lord the Leader of the House said:
"I am bound again to question whether this is a matter in which the House of Lords ought to hold up the decision of the House of Commons."—[Official Report, 17/7/69, col. 548.]
He went on to refer to
"the fourth or fifth year—the fatal years which they always use for this purpose".—(col. 549.)
In parenthesis I would ask the noble Lord to give one example of when your Lordships have ever used the fourth or fifth year for this purpose. The fourth or fifth year argument applied before the passing of the 1949 Act, when your Lordships had the power of two years' delay. Now, only the fifth year applies.
When the Party of noble Lords opposite forced through the 1949 Parliament Act by invoking the 1911 Parliament Act, they assured your Lordships that it would not be improper for you to throw out a Bill in the fifth year. In his speech on the Second Reading of the 1949 Act the late Lord Jowitt said:
"In the fifth year, by common consent, the consent of this House to any legislation is necessary."—[Official Report; 8/6/1948, col. 451-1

701
I have taken these words out of their context, but not, I think, unfairly so. If it is proper for your Lordships to hold up a Bill until the end of a Parliament, how much less questionable is it for you to delay a Bill only for the statutory year?
The 1949 Act was represented to your Lordships, and through your Lordships to the country, as an instrument to cut this House's powers of delay from two years to one, and it was never suggested that these powers should be done away with altogether. Indeed, when my noble friend Lord Swinton suspected that the intention behind the Bill was to achieve what would in effect be single-Chamber government, this was hotly denied by Lord Jowitt. In his winding-up speech for the Government on the Second Reading in your Lordships' House after the Bill had come to your Lordships' House under the Parliament Act—the last official pronouncement upon the Bill before it was forced into law—the noble and learned Earl answered my noble friend in these terms:
"I will tell your Lordships why I, at any rate, am in favour of a Second Chamber, why I believe and hope that for many years to come we shall have a Second Chamber, and what, in my view, its functions should be."—[Official Report, Vol. 165, col. 1036.]
The noble Earl gave two preliminary reasons, which will be well known to your Lordships but are not germane to this particular issue; and he went on (col. 1037):
"Thirdly, its functions should be the interposition of so much delay (and no more) in the passing of a Bill into law as may be needed to enable the opinion of the nation to be adequately expressed upon it. This would be specially needed as regards Bills which affect the fundamentals of the Constitution or introduce new principles of legislation."
It is clear that your Lordships have not only a constitutional but also a moral right, and indeed a duty, to hold up this Bill, should you so think fit. What is more—and let not this be forgotten—should you do so, Her Majesty's Government and another place will have a constitutional duty to consider the Bill and their attitude to it again. If they do nothing but question your Lordships' rights and threaten your Lordships' future they will clearly not be carrying out this duty. Who then will be behaving unconstitutionally? I hope your Lordships' consideration of this important
702
issue will not again during its various stages be distracted by such side arguments, which are irrelevant, unconstitutional and improper.
5.2 p.m.
The Earl of ARRAN: My Lords, may I get in a short word sideways? I found myself first of all in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, when he said that if we were going to oppose this Bill we should have done so on Second Reading. I think my noble cousin, Lord Salisbury, felt the same. In fact, I absented myself on that occasion because I felt that I should have to try to divide the House. However, I am here 10-day, and if it is, apparently, the general wish to amend, and if need be, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, suggested, to destroy by the death of a thousand cuts, I leave it to my political friends to choose the field of battle.
We are taking the Amendments in toto rather than seriatim, and of course the result has necessarily been a detailed discussion, a general debate in which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has played a prominent part. That being so, I shall be excused if I concentrate on what I think to be the general intention of the opponents of the Bill; namely, to change it from its present form, as unconstitutional and drafted in the interests of the Socialist Party, into an instrument we can all accept.
The constitutional arguments have been ably put forward by my noble friend Lord Byers and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and, if I may say so, somewhat apologetically by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, I do not need to make use of them again. I simply repeat what was to me the most cogent statement in the course of both debates, that made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who said:
"That is the constitutional issue here, and it is a grave issue. For if independent and impartial bodies charged with keeping the electoral system fair are ignored, what safeguards for the public interest are left? None, except your Lordships' House, which, however it may be composed, is specifically armed with the most important constitutional power of all, power under the law to stop a majority in the elected Chamber from changing the law so as to prolong the life of a Parliament."—[Official Report, 17/7/69, col. 482.]

703
There is a constitutional issue here. I will not put it, naturally, on the level of Magna Carta, but if the proposals of the Government are put into effect we shall indeed have a new Runnymede, a "Power Carta" directed by Barons—we will not specify who they are—aimed not at restricting the power of the King but at strengthening the power of a Government, a Socialist Government.
What right have the Government to tell us, the other House, to "toe the line or else"? As the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said:
"The sovereignty of Parliament … is not the whim of the House of Commons; it is what Parliament expresses in legislation. An Act of Parliament does express the sovereignty of Parliament. A Resolution of the House of Commons does not; a Resolution of the House of Lords does not."—[Official Report, 17/7/69, col. 515.]
Do the Government really regard us as a pack of whipped curs to be put through our paces at their behest? Are we going to allow ourselves to be browbeaten? We face a grave constitutional issue and there comes a moment when I think we must cry "enough". I did not think we should fight over the Rhodesian issue because it was perhaps not a matter of prime concern to the electorate, but as the noble Lord, Lord Strange, said in a very remarkable speech: this is it; it is now or never. Either we buckle under—I am using my own words now—and admit that we are toadies and lick-spittles or we stand firm and fast and obey our only constituents which are our own consciences.
To-day we declare our independence and our integrity or we go down with no band playing and no colours flying except the White Flag. To-day, either we stand for our principles or we abjure once and for all our tradition and our inheritance. If the Government should wish to appeal to the country on the issue of Lords versus Commons, which I profoundly hope they will not do, I believe that they will be soundly thrashed, for it is not a question of the Lords versus Commons, it is a question of the Government versus the people.
I have the right to say this, from my experience throughout Britain, especially among the youth. I think I have told your Lordships I have debated this subject in almost every university in the
704
country. I am reluctantly convinced that the electors are so fed up not only with this Government, which is not tragic, but with the other place, which is sad and wrong and tragic, that they would prefer an institution like the House of Lords, which at least stands for integrity and for the common man. I am politically a centrist; I have no axe to grind, but I will wager your Lordships that we the Queen's Peers will find ourselves in our seats long after Mr. Wilson and Mr. Callaghan have been forcibly evicted from their seats in the other House by the people.
5.8 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, if I may intervene briefly, I have always thought that we have two types of law in this country: the ordinary law enacted by Parliament, ordinary Acts of Parliament, and our constitutional law. I was always of the opinion that the constitutional law is the law under which the statutory rights of the Boundary Commissions surely come. The constitutional law is entrenched in very definite clauses, and I was always of the opinion that before the constitutional law could be changed there had to be a majority in both Houses of Parliament and the approval of the other Estates of the Realm.
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, appears to think that we have no rights at all in this question. He calls it a minor Party squabble. If we have any rights at all we have rights here, because as this country has no written Constitution an unscrupulous Government, with a large majority in the House of Commons, could—I am not suggesting of course that the present Government are unscrupulous; far from it—by enabling Acts through ordinary legislation eventually destroy the whole Constitution of this country and turn the people of this country into complete serfs. Therefore, this Committee has a definite duty to legislate in this matter. I just wanted to make that point plain. Having done so, I will now sit down.
5.10 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: May I say half a dozen sentences in expressing the position of an individual Back-Bencher on this side of the Committee? I shall oppose this Amendment because it amounts to a

705
direct negative, and I am opposed to this House in its unreformed state reversing major decisions of the other place. This does not mean that I am at all happy about the Bill itself. I find myself in close agreement with the forthright suggestion, most courageously put forward in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Ben Whitaker, that matters of boundaries should be taken out of political dispute and should be settled with an automatic seven-year review. But this is hardly the moment to bring up that suggestion.
My worries are that I find it intensely disheartening that we on our side should have allowed the real problems—which I do not underestimate—of the Redcliffe-Maud Report to persuade us to throw over the precious quality of visible impartiality; and I think our argument has been slightly weakened by the rather impressive timetable put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, which to my intellect was on the whole more plausible than the one my side has been adopting. Nevertheless, these are questions of judgment over which honest men can differ without rancour.
This is not the position here. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been assailed in the most violent and crude way. His honour and the honour of the Government have been attacked quite openly—not I am glad to say in this House; but they have been attacked in a way that no supporter of the Government could possibly fail to go into the Lobby and vote on their side in this matter. In order to endorse the propriety, if not perhaps entirely the wisdom, of my Government's proposals, I shall support them.
5.13 p.m.
Lord ROBERTSON of OAKRIDGE: I have already made my speech on this matter; I made it on Second Reading debate. I have really nothing more to say, but I just want to stand up and say two or three words in case noble Lords think that I am afraid of the Amendments to which I have put my name, which I certainly am not. During the debate on the Second Reading I made a quite simple speech—I am rather a simple person. In it I said,
"that as I see it this Bill breaks the rules."—[Official Report, 17/7/69, col. 494.]
706
I was immediately sharply taken to task by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, and asked to explain how the Government were breaking the rules. A bit flustered, I said:
"I understand the law to say that the recommendations of the Boundary Commission must be laid before Parliament within a reasonable period"—
whereas the Bill seems to me to make it
"an indefinite period; and that, I consider, is wrong."
The noble Lord the Leader of the House later said that I should read the Report of the Boundary Commission and the Act of Parliament which requires Reports and the necessary Statutory Instruments to be laid. Well,: [have done what I have been told to do; I have done a lot of reading. I have also read Hansard, and in Hansard I note that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said:
"No one disputes or can dispute the undoubted fact that the Home Secretary is under a statutory obligation to lay drafs: Orders in Council before Parliament, with such modifications as he may think necessary, to implement the Boundary Commission's proposals, and to do it ' as soon as may be'". [col. 538.]
Well, nobody did contradict that statement, although I am bound to say that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, seems to have said what I said, only more tidily. But I can well understand: hat he is a more formidable person to attack because I have seen him retaliate pretty sharply when he has been attacked.
Said the noble Lord the Leader of the House:
"I find it hard to see that the Government having broken the rules in this matter"—[col. 546.]
I hope he will forgive me if I say that I find it hard to see that "as soon as may be" can properly be interpreted by a Bill which in fact, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Helmsby, "asks for a blank cheque".
5.17 p.m.
Lord HANKEY: I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, has said. I, too, have read the Report of the Boundary Commission, and there is the fact, which I think has not been brought out in the debate, that there are major changes on every single page except one of Appendix C, and on many pages there are a number

707
of major changes recorded by the Commission. It is quite clear that the speed of change in our country is increasing. I believe that it is basically wrong to let our Parliamentary system get out of date. A strong point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, when he said that the next Parliament will have to decide the question of local government reform and it ought to be brought up to date for that purpose. I do not think it ought to be beyond the wit of man to administer the next election, or, for that matter, the next election beyond that, on the new boundaries now proposed. I have spent most of my life in administration, admittedly largely overseas; but I have derived a great respect for our administrators and I do not think it is beyond their capability to arrange an election in this way. In any case, it is done mostly by the entirely local authorities.
I have been shocked by the way in which this question has been handled. I do not think it ought to have been a Party matter. I personally have been greatly shocked by the use of the guillotine to force this matter through the Commons in a way which has made it difficult for Party agreement to be obtained. You have only to look at the Report of the Boundary Commission to see with what infinite care it has been formed, with Mr. Speaker in the Chair and most eminent people, at whom it would be quite impossible to cast any sort of aspersion, in order to ensure its total impartiality. I believe this is a most important point of our Constitution and that it should not be allowed to go by default.
Therefore I think that the Government ought to have handled this matter like Caesar's wife and be totally above suspicion. I am sorry to say, speaking from these Cross-Benches, that I do not feel that the way in which this matter has been handled has given us much assurance in this case. I am sorry to say this, but I really feel that to be the case. Therefore I shall vote for the Amendment, in order to give the Government time to think again and preferably to bring forward a Bill before next March which will enable agreement to be cerned. I earnestly appeal to the achieved between all the Parties con-
708
Government to handle the matter in this way.
5.20 p.m.
Lord SHACKLETON: I think it would probably be the wish of the Committee that we should now bring this matter to a conclusion—
Lord TREFGARNE: Guillotine!
Lord SHACKLETON: I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne (who probably does not know what a guillotine is) that this has been one of the oddest Committee stages I have ever known in this House. With that I am sure noble Lords will agree. But we have all been resigned to the fact that we were to have the equivalent of another Second Reading debate. Without precisely echoing the words of my noble friend Lord Stonham about the welcome we give to those whom we do not see so often, it is noticeable that at least on this occasion there are not so many Bishops as we had on the Rhodesia Order, and I confess I could have done without the speech of the one who did speak. That is no personal reflection, but I think he was misguided. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, started off at a tremendously high level—indeed, he started on the Moon—and he almost likened the importance of our discussions here on Earth to what is going on on the Moon. I agree that what we are discussing is important, and our decision is important; but what has been said is rather characteristic of the way in which the whole issue has been blown up and exaggerated out of all proportion.
I say to noble Lords that the Government have a very clear-cut case. It may not be open and shut, and many noble Lords may not agree with that case, but I ask your Lordships once again to listen briefly to the basic arguments and consider the matter not in terms of the extraordinarily high-flown language of the noble Earl, Lord Arran—who waited so patiently and spoke such stirring words that I almost felt that at any moment the shot and shell would rain down from another place and that the noble Earl would be there to ward it off. He does, of course, move with enormous rapidity from one Party to another. I am not quite sure whether he is a Liberal—in fact, I do not believe the Liberals really identify him as one. May I also just say

709
very briefly to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, that a short talk with his noble friend Lord Conesford would help clear his mind a great deal on some of the points he raised.
The real issue is—and before the Opposition cheer, may I say that there will only be counter cheers—whether the Government are committing a constitutional enormity in what they propose in the Bill. There has been such a welter of indignation that it has been difficult to get the arguments into perspective—notwithstanding, if I may say so, the characteristically excellent behaviour of your Lordships in this matter. But it has been difficult for nice and honest noble Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, to say, "A plague o' both your Houses. I suspect the Government are doing something they should not. I wish they were not going to and it is my duty to stop them."
I say to the noble Lord that I slightly resent his suggestion that I interrupted him because I was frightened to interrupt the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps he did not mean that. I did not pick him because he was an easy target; I picked him as somebody who was capable of redemption, and this is something I can never hope for the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. What the noble Lord. Lord Robertson of Oakridge, said is," We have rules, and this Bill, it seems to me, is a breach of the rules." I think even the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, would say that that must be a nonsense, and that is why I asked him to read the Boundary rules. I do not want to be offensive to him, and I hope that he will read them once again.
There is just a little bit of common sense coming through. A number of noble Lords who sit on the Cross Benches thought that perhaps, after all, there might be something in the Government case. They thought that even if it was something they did not entirely like, there was something reasonable in what the Government were doing, and I think they began to realise that the high sounding phrases about "One man, one vote" did not come with great conviction from noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord. Lord Brooke of Cumnor, even referred to the former Chief Justice, Earl Warren, and talked about "The votes of the
710
electorate being fair and equal". Yet he knows perfectly well that the Conservative Party—and I have to repeat this again—supported the continuation of the City of London and the university votes. That was entirely in contradiction of the views that have been expressed to-day.
Lord CONESFORD: Would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? The noble Lord mentioned the university votes; would he also say that their continuance was the unanimous recommendation of the Speaker's Conference?
Lord SHACKLETON: Luckily Parliament decided to reverse that decision, and no attempt has been made by the Party opposite, despite a pledge that they gave, to restore the university seats. We also had the business vote, and that was in direct conflict with those highminded phrases that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, gave to us the other day.
"… the weight of a citizen's vote cannot depend on where he lives'. That bask principle of representative government this Bill violates."—[Official Report, 17/7/69, col. 483.]
and so on. I would only say that it is all the more surprising, coming from—not the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor—certain noble Lords who, on that side of the House, were prepared to deny "one man one vote" in Rhodesia unless his colour was right. I really think that there has been—and I certainly do not include the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in this criticism—a great deal of sententiousness on the matter.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I wonder whether the noble Lord wishes to include me in his criticism about the City of London and university votes? These were debated in the 1945 Parliament, when I was not a Member in either House, and I cannot recollect ever having expressed the slightest view on either subject.
Lord SHACKLETON: I am only too well aware that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, was not in the House of Commons when I first entered it, but I should also like to know whether he made any protests on the subject at his Party meetings. I very much doubt it, because it was of course official Conservative Party policy. But it may well be that he can stand alone in a white sheet

711
as somebody who was opposed to the business vote for the City of London and the university votes. I know the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, was in fact a very distinguished Member for a university seat and that he subsequently re turned to the hustings, which not all the university representatives did.
It has also been suggested—and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said it was unfair—that to have constituencies with such a wide range in the number of votes affected their value. He said that 90, 000 to 20, 000 was about five to one, and that this was intolerable. However, he is prepared to tolerate four to one, because the Boundary Commission proposed ratios of this sort. In the English Boundary Commission the range is from 83, 000 to about 30, 000, and we know that in Scotland the constituencies drop to 20, 000. This is a difference in degree, and I do not believe that this great cry, this principle, is one that need affect our discussions to-day.
The crucial issue is the relationship between the Boundary Commission and the Maud Report. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, who also seems to be showing a certain amount of Liberal instability at the moment—I shall come to him in more detail—said on Second Reading:
"Incidentally, it raises the question, which ought to be aired at some date, why we need to keep to local government boundaries when drawing up new Parliamentary constituencies. It is because we are slavishly keeping to these boundaries that we are getting into situations where we have constituencies"—[Official Report, 17/7/69, col. 489.]
of such and such a size. When I suggested on the Second Reading that he was critical of this relation between the two, he nodded his head in a negative way; but it may be that even then I have misunderstood him. But I think it is quite clear—and I think your Lordships must now accept this—that there is a close relationship between Parliamentary boundaries and local government boundaries, and this was confirmed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. It was confirmed to-day by the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, and my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy; and others all pointed clearly to this, and I think we must accept it.
712
The question then is: Is there, in fact, to be any correlation in time between the implementation of the Maud Report and the Boundary Commission Report? It is the Government's intention to publish a White Paper this year and to proceed to legislation as soon afterwards as possible. I have already said that this cannot be done—and we accept that it cannot be done—without a great deal of consultation. But I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, that this is something with which we ought to press on as quickly as possible.
I was asked both by my noble friend Lord Champion and by the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, to enlarge on the possibility of putting a term to the time for which boundary changes are postponed. The Amendments that are in front of us this afternoon do not bear directly on this, nor has there been any reaction from the main Opposition Party to this suggestion. I can understand why—they are not interested in it at the moment. But we were thinking of a possible fresh Report, rather than the implementation of the current Report. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary gave an indication of interest, and said that we might well be able to expect new provisional recommendations from the Boundary Commission in 1973. I shall certainly convey to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary the strength of the arguments which have been used on this point. But it would be wrong for me to give any undertaking, beyond saying that I will certainly see that these arguments are considered very carefully, because I realise that they can be crucial.
Lord BYERS: Is the noble Lord really saying that we could get the new Maud boundaries in 1972, and that with in one year the Boundary Commission could have reported on new Parliamentary boundaries? That cannot be true, surely.
Lord SHACKLETON: It would be possible, of course, for the Boundary Commission—and perhaps we shall have another opportunity to discuss this—to start work early. But I think on this—
Lord BYERS: How can they start work, if they do not know what the local government boundaries are?
Lord SHACKLETON: That is precisely where the noble Lord is wrong. They will know what the local government arrangements are. Indeed, there may well be already in existence the new "shadow authorities". This is not an impossibility at all; indeed, it is very much part and parcel of the Government's thinking. Our thinking on this matter has been entirely consistent. We made clear right back in 1966, when we discussed this matter with the Opposition, that difficulties would arise if we went on with the Boundary Commission when the Maud Commission were beginning to examine local government. The Opposition refused to consider the problem and now, confronted by a really difficult problem which would have a most disruptive effect, the Government have come forward with proposals which have been attacked on the grounds that they are breaking the rules.
We have had a lot of Dicey quoted at us. Indeed, I think we have had the same passage quoted three times, twice by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and once by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. But I must say that to attempt to call Dicey in aid of the discussion which we are having is really stretching the argument too far. In some way, I would almost prefer to rely on the judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, at the moment, rather than on Dicey, writing long ago in a different context in a very different political situation. Indeed, if we applied the principles of Dicey, that the House of Lords is entitled to, and indeed should, hold up legislation moved in another place for which there is no mandate from the electorate, then all I can say is that the House of Lords has been notably failing in its duty, and I express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on the matter.
Lord CONESFORD: The noble Lord said that I quoted one passage twice. The only thing I quoted was what is still the law; that the sole right of the electors under our Constitution is to elect a Member of Parliament. I used that merely to show how extraordinarily important elections were, and why we should be very careful not to take away the rights of electors.
Lord SHACKLETON: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. This Govern-
714
ment have No intenttion of taking away the rights of electors. I am only sorry that we cannot at the present moment enfranchise the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and other Members of your Lordship's House.
We have also had talk of an indemnity. My noble friend Lord Stonham has made clear—and noble Lords may or may not accept this—that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is not in breach of his statutory duty. If in due course this Bill is rejected, we shall have to think again and I do not doubt, depending on the measures which the Government may take on this Bill—whether or not they be the use of the Parliament Bill—that my right honourable friend will carry out any constitutional duty that he has. But in relation to the rules, the truth of the matter is that they are very much capable of amendment. They were amended notably in 1954. At that time, the Government of the day—and the Opposition co-operated—altered the period at which major comprehensive reports should be made from five to seven years to fifteen years. Later on, the Opposition did not wish to be as co-operative as the Labour Party were in those days, for some reason—
Lord HENLEY: The noble Lord cannot blame the Conservatives for that. He claimed that he was overtaken by a difficult situation, because the Opposition Chief Whip refused to co-operate with the Lord President of the Council. I think the Conservative Party may well have been wrong in this respect, but the Government could perfectly well have introduced a Bill long before what the Boundary Commission were going to report was known at all. They could even have left such a Bill to a free vote.
Lord SHACKLETON: It may well be that the Government ought to have introduced a Bill. The fact is they did not at that moment. But now they are confronted with a very difficult situation, and they have made proposals which, provided that the relationship between the Boundary Commission and local government boundaries is accepted, are entirely relevant. The rules have had to be altered time and time again, and now the Opposition have put down Amendments which have the effect of destroying the Bill. They are really pretty "mad" Amendments. They are skilful, but there is a

715
good deal of lunacy behind them. They will make it extraordinarily difficult to carry out the next G.L.C. elections under the new arrangements, and for this reason will be equally unpopular with the Conservative, the Liberal and the Labour Parties in London.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said that it is quite right to act in this way, because the object of what I should call this crude manœuvre is to make it easier for Liberals and Cross-Benchers to vote for it. The Opposition know that even if the Government were disposed to accept this Amendment they could not accept it because of its defects.
Earl ST. ALDWYN: What defects?
Lord SHACKLETON: I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, listened to my noble friend Lord Stonham, but if he reads the report of his speech to-morrow he will see that this Amendment is unacceptable, anyway.
Let me now turn to the noble Lord, Lord Byers. I find it very difficult to understand his attitude. We have worked together and, on the whole, he is a constructive and helpful Member of this House. But he has succeeded in putting his name to two contradictory Amendments. I hope that he has the support of his Liberal colleagues on them. I am sure that, out of loyalty and affection for him, they will help him on this. But this is an act of the wildest schizophrenia. We are not going to be able to discuss his second Amendment to-day. I think that is rather fortunate, because he is really saying to the Government, if I may find an analogy, "You owe me £5. You must jolly well pay it, but if you do not pay it by the end of six months I shall let you off it". That is the meaning of his Amendment.
Lord BYERS: Surely, the noble Lord did me the courtesy of listening to my speeches, both on Second Reading and to-day, when I pointed out quite clearly that this was a Parliamentary device to make a protest on constitutional grounds.
Lord SHACKLETON: It is a device, but it is a pretty odd one. One would like to have some relation to reality. I will not press it, but he has exposed himself, and I think I must be entitled just to make these few mild remarks.
716
Now we come, at any moment, to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. The trumpets have sounded the call to duty. We even had Kipling from Lord Ferrier. We had that splendid call from that unlikely martial figure, Lord Arran. At last, after years of frustration, and after an awful "botched" shot over the Rhodesia Order, the Conservative Party are called to strike a blow for constitutional freedom. No longer the soft days when the Duke of Wellington persuaded the House of Lords to acquiesce in the Reform Bill of 1882! My advice to the Conservative Party on this matter is that they keep clear of it entirely. It is too late now; they have not taken the advice. They are very good at picking up the wrong issue. They are almost unerring in their skill, whether it is Rhodesia or this Bill. They know that their action in this matter will be futile; that they cannot in fact compel the Government to carry this out. They have talked about threats of reprisals. There have not been any threats of reprisals. There is nothing for them to resist—very disappointing for the noble Lord, Lord Denham. He was all ready and waited until at last one noble Lord said something, and then he came up and delivered his particular clarion call to duty.
Lord DENHAM: I gather that the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Prime Minister said something over the weekend about this.
Lord SHACKLETON: I do not know what he said. Oh!—this was on the Housing Bill, and the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe. That was on another matter, but not on this; and once again the noble Lord, Lord Denham—
Lord BYERS: Do we gather that there will be no reprisals whatsoever on this?
Lord SHACKLETON: I think that if the noble Lord will wait he will hear my analysis of the situation.
I am bound to say that we on these Benches totally reject the right of this House to reject this particular measure. If they wish they have the power to make the Commons think again. The attitude of the Labour Party is perfectly clear: we do not share the views of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that somehow the House of Lords is an emanation of

717
the electorate. As to my own attitude, I am bound to say that despite my belief that it was possible to make sense out of your Lordships (we had the proposals which went so far; I will not attach blame, but it was a tragedy, I think, that we were not able to carry them through), I think the prospects of coming to a sensible solution in the future get less and less.
The only effect of Conservatives' insistence on this Amendment is that they will almost certainly delay the carrying out of the reforms with regard to the Greater London area, and the elections there will be fought on the basis that the necessary adjustments which could have been made were frustrated. I ask noble Lords to think very carefully indeed, and I particularly ask noble Lords who perhaps have been rather inclined to be dragged away by these great cries of "Constitutional issue!" where no constitutional issue is at all that they will in fact think very carefully on this. All I will say is that if to-day this Committee passes these Amendments, as I suspect it will, it will be a bad day for the House of Lords. And when I look at the serried ranks opposite—and, my goodness!, how much more serried have they become, excluding those Members of another place beyond the Bar—I really wonder whether I should advise my noble friends to go into the Lobby at all. Once again the Leader of the Opposition shows that he controls your Lordships' House. However, we shall go into the Division on the first Amendment only, and treat the rest, as at present drafted, with contempt.
5.45 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: I agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the House, in his good-humoured, rather condescending and largely irrelevant speech, that it is now time we came to a decision. I too, from this side of the Committee, should like to welcome some pretty strange faces on that side, and particularly I should like to welcome if I may the noble Lord, Lord Caradon. I only hope he will not feel at the end of these proceedings that his journey was not really necessary.
Lord SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I should like to stress that the presence here of my noble friend Lord Caradon is purely coincidental.
Lord CARRINGTON: As a taxpayer I am very glad to hear that. I only hope that as we go into the Lobby his name, as so often happens, will not be confused with mine on this occasion.
My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor has explained with great clarity the purpose of the series of Amendments to which we are seeking your Loidships' agreement. We have had a very long debate upon them, and I do not propose to take up much of your Lordships' time. The Amendments—and I ask noble Lords opposite to believe this—are put forward for the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and it is a matter of great regret to us that the Government, if we are to believe the noble Lord the Leader of the House, find themselves unable to accept them. The object of the Amendments is to enable the Home Secretary and the Government to reconsider their action, and to have time to reflect upon the debates and discussions which have taken place about this Bill, without fear of anyone taking legal action against them for their failure to implement the Boundary Commission Report.
We have chosen the date of March 31 next year by which we suggest that the Home Secretary should either implement the Boundary Commission proposals or make other proposals for the consideration of Parliament. It is a date which coincides with that chosen by the Government themselves for Scotland and Northern Ireland. I submit that these are reasonable suggestions and are, in the words of the Daily Telegraph this morning, "a mannerly course". If Amendments are needed to my Amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, suggested, because they are not properly drafted, then on the Report stage we shall be only too happy to pay attention to anything which the noble Lord or the Government say about the drafting of these Amendments.
But I want to return to the central issue which is before your Lordships. No doubt we shall all have reread the debate we had last Thursday. I have done so. I have read with great care the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and that of Lord Shackleton, and I hope that they have read what we had to say. At no time during that debate did we impugn the motives of the Government,

719
and at no time have we brought any Party matter into our argument. Indeed, it is noticeable, if I may say so, that the only speeches which have contained Party political matter have been those from the other side, and notably the closing passages of the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on Second Reading, about which I shall have something more to say a little later.
We have devoted ourselves solely to the argument that the Government themselves have advanced for the introduction of this Bill; that is to say, that it is necessary because of the Maud Commission Report and the likelihood that its proposals will be put into effect in the fairly near future. For that reason, we are told, the Boundary Commission recommendations, with one or two selected exceptions, should be postponed for an unspecified period of years ahead. No one who listened to the debate on Second Reading or this afternoon can have come away other than convinced that this argument does not hold water. The Home Secretary has suggested that the Boundary Commission proposals and Maud will all be done and finished with by 1973.
Lord STONHAM: My right honourable friend has never said that. I made it quite clear on Second Reading, and my noble Leader has made it clear again to-day. The utmost my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said is that it is possible that provisional recommendations by the Boundary Commission will be ready by 1973.
Lord CARRINGTON: The Government do not think it possible that any of these things can be done by 1973? Am I right? And that, because of this—
Lord STONHAM: If the noble Lord is bringing the discussion to this level, I must say again that I made it clear on Second Reading; it was made clear by my noble friend the Leader of the House and I made it clear again in my intervention that we do think provisional recommendations can be produced by the Boundary Commission in 1974.
Lord CARRINGTON: I do not know to which of my two statements the noble Lord is objecting. Perhaps he can
720
let me know later. The argument is that because of this date two changes of boundaries in so short a time would be undesirable. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, whose experience in these matters is unrivalled in this House (and, I should think, outside it) made it plain that in her view no such time table is possible, and that a more realistic assessment of when both Maud and the Boundary Commission would together be completed is 1978 or 1979, a date I would ask your Lordships to note—not after the next Election but after the next Election but one, leaving a gap of some thirty years between any remedy for the grossly swollen constituencies and those whose electorate has been more than halved. I do not believe, and I have not met anybody outside the Labour Party who believes, that Maud can be implemented in a short time. Even if the present Government were re-elected I do not believe it would be possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton (and the noble Lord, Lord Champion, did so early this afternoon) suggested during the Second Reading that they would be prepared to consider—and Lord Champion would like to see—a date in legislation by which the Boundary Commission proposals would be implemented. If, by 1972, or 1973, or 1974, the argument goes—and this is the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Helsby—the Maud Commission proposals have not become effective, the Boundary Commission alterations would be made. This seems to be attractive to some noble Lords opposite. But the very fact that the Government are prepared to consider such a proposal invalidates their argument for introducing the Bill at all; for by then, by whatever date in the early 1970s that would be, we would be very much nearer the implementation of Maud; and if a change of boundaries were made in 1972 or 1973, it would be much nearer the Maud arrangement than it would be if it were made now. It would make things much worse and not much better. Certainly I could not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, in what he has to suggest. I must say that the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has made that suggestion indicates to me that there is a doubt in his mind about the date on which all these proposals may see the light of day.

721
I have listened to both these debates. I have heard no other arguments advanced for the Government proposals except that one—except (and I say this with due deference to one or two noble Lords opposite who spoke on Second Reading) the rather extraordinary one of the convenience of Members of Parliament. I am sorry about that. I do not think that any of us would want to put M.Ps. to any avoidable inconvenience; but the fairness of our electoral system really should weigh with us more than the difficulties, however serious they may be, of those who represent the electors.
I want to make this clear. So far as I am concerned, even if the Government were right and the changes could be implemented by 1973 or 1974, I could not support this Bill. It does not seem to me right that the next Election should be fought on boundaries which are 17 or 18 years out of date. Fifteen years was chosen by Parliament as the interval at which these changes should be made. It was felt, and agreed by all Parties, that this was a suitable period since there would be in that time significant shifts of population in many constituencies. So it has proved. I believe that the next Election should be fought on the new boundaries as Parliament laid down in the Statute with the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
If this Bill goes through unamended or under the provisions of the Parliament Act we shall in my view have debased our standards of political behaviour; for noble Lords opposite should be under No illusion that they have any support outside their own Party for the course that they are following. There is evidence that some of those in the Labour Party are very troubled at what is proposed. It would be a matter of great surprise to me if, when we go into the Division Lobbies in a few minutes' time there are more than a handful, perhaps not even that, of Members of this House in the Lobby with the noble Lords opposite who do not take the Labour Whip.
If this Bill goes through, a precedent will have been created and one, I think, greatly to be regretted and deplored. No longer could it be said that the proposals from the Boundary Commission, independent proposals from independent people, are something which Governments put into operation at the first opportunity;
722
no longer could it be said that Governments are, with minor modifications, in honour bound to do that and rot to make major alterations and not to postpone their coming into force. There would be the precedent of 1969. And there would, alas—and I am sorry to have to say this—be the speech of the noble Lord the Leader of the House who when he wound up the debate on Second Reading, said this:
"The simple fact is that if the Conservative Party had introduced this Bill—and they might just as well have done so because they have never been behindhand in pursuing their own interests—."—[Official Report, co. 548, 17/7/69.]
All of us in this House know the noble Lord very well indeed and have great affection and admiration for him. It may be that that was a slip of the tongue; but it was a significant slip of the tongue because behind the implications of that remark lie the misgivings which many people feel about the Government's proposals.
Surely no Government should ever put itself, or be thought to be putting itself, in the position where people w: ll say that it is altering the law and altering the rules to suit its own purposes. For, if it does, it does not only discredit itself but discredits the whole system of government in this country. The consequences of such an action are taking place here this afternoon, a possible clash between the two Houses; and much more serious than that, a tendency for the average man in the street to believe that this sort of thing is inevitable in politics and in our political system. If the Government have eyes to see and ears to hear they must have seen and heard the warning signs that are up wherever they look or listen.
Lastly, I must for one moment deal with the suggestion that was made last time and to-day by the noble Lord the Leader of the House that this House is not entitled to concern itself in this matter. I reject that absolutely. I reject the argument that because this House is unelected and because some of its composition is hereditary it should not concern itself in an Act of Parliament which affects every man and woman of this country. I agree with the right reverend Prelate; and whether one docs or not, one must admire the courage it takes to speak

723
against one's own Party. I reject the suggestion that because the Labour Party have a temporary majority in the House of Commons, a majority which if they put it to the test at a General Election to-day would evaporate, they have the right without opposition from this House to change the rules of electoral representation.
Lord SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Lord? What on earth does he mean by a "temporary majority" in another place? Is he contrasting it with the permanent Conservative majority in this House?
Lord CARRINGTON: I leave the House to judge upon that exchange.
I reject the implication in the Prime Minister's remark yesterday that such a course would be either arrogant or a misuse of privilege. It does not lie in the mouth of the Prime Minister of the Government introducing this measure to talk of arrogance. There are some who say, "Why should the House of Lords with its hereditary composition set itself up as the defenders of the votes of the people?" I should not have thought that the average person who understands the implication of what the Government are doing and believes that they are acting unfairly, unconstitutionally and improperly, will mind if it is a hereditary Peer who says so and is prepared to vote against it. I think rather that he will be
glad that there is a Second Chamber which has some powers left to delay the improprieties of the Government.
We have had this afternoon no threats about what will happen if we pass these Amendments, or at any rate, in the last few days only a few veiled threats. That, to me, is a matter of some significance. On every other occasion when it seemed likely that your Lordships intended to oppose Government proposals dire threats have been issued by all Members of the Government, from the Prime Minister downwards. They have never been slow in seeking to intimidate this House from using its powers. They have been silent on this occasion because they themselves know that the position they have taken up is contrary to the conventions and decencies of politics. But threats or no, I imagine most of your Lordships will be in no difficulty about the course that you should follow this evening. I hope that you will pass these Amendments; pass them because they are a fair and honourable way out for the Government, and pass them because they are just and right. In doing so I believe not only should we be doing the right thing but we should be upholding the standards of our political life.
6.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 270; Not-Contents, 96.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Camoys, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Beeching, L.

Carrington, L.

Abergavenny, M.

Belstead, L.

Chandos, V.

Abinger, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Chelmer, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Bessborough, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Airedale, L.

Birdwood, L.

Clinton, L.

Aldington, L.

Blackford, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Allerton, L.

Blakenham, V.

Clwyd, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Cole, L.

Amory, V.

Bolton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Ampthill, L.

Boston, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Amulree, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Colyton, L.

Arran, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Conesford, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Bradford, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Atholl, D.

Braye, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Auckland, L.

Brecon, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Audley, Bs.

Brentford, V.

Craigavon, V.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Balerno, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Barnard, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Crathorne, L.

Barnby, L.

Buchan, E.

Croft, L.

Barrington, V.

Buckton, L.

Cromartie, E.

Bathurst, E.

Burton, L.

Cromer, E.

Bearsted, V.

Byers, L.

Crowther, L.

Beatty, E.

Caccia, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Daventry, V.

Howe, E.

Redmayne, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Remnant, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Ilford, L.

Ridley, V.

Denham, L.

Inchyra, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Deramore, L.

Inglewood, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Derwent, L.

Jackson of Burnley, L.

Rochdale, V.

Digby, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Rochester, L.

Downe, V.

Jessel, L.

Rockley, L.

Drogheda, E.

Kemsley, V.

Rootes, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Killearn, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Dulverton, L.

Kilmany, L.

Rothermere, V.

Dundee, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Dundonald, E.

Kindersley, L.

Rothes, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Rowallan, L.

Eccles, V.

Lambert, V.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Effingham, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Egremont, L.

Latymer, L.

Rutland, D.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Sackville, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Lonsdale, E.

St. Helens, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Lothian, M.

St. Oswald, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Loudoun, C.

Salisbury, M.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Lovat, L.

Saltoun, L.

Exeter, M.

Lucan, E.

Sandford, L.

Falkland, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sandys, L.

Falmouth, V.

Luke, L.

Savile, L.

Ferrier, L.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Selkirk, E.

Fisher, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Foley, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Shawcross, L.

Foot, L.

McFadzean, L.

Sherfield, L.

Forbes, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Silsoe, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mancroft, L.

Simonds, V.

Franks, L.

Manton, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Gage, V.

Margadale, L.

Spens, L.

Garner, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stonehaven, V.

Geddes, L.

Merrivale, L.

Strang, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mersey, V.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Gladwyn, L.

Middleton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Glandevon, L.

Milverton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Glendyne, L.

Molson, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Goschen, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Suffield, L.

Gowrie, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Swaythling, L.

Grantchester, L.

Monson, L.

Swinton, E.

Gray, L.

Morrison, L.

Tangley, L.

Greenway, L.

Mountevans, L.

Templemore, L.

Grenfell, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Terrington, L.

Gridley, L.

Moyne, L.

Teviot, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Nctherthorpe, L.

Todd, L.

Hacking, L.

Newton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Haddington, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Hampden, V.

Nunburnholme, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Hankey, L.

Pender, L.

Vivian, L.

Harcourt, V.

Penney, L.

Wade, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Perth, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Harris, L.

Plowden, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Poltimore, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hawke, L.

Polwarth, L.

Watkinson, V.

Hayter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wellington, D.

Headfort, M.

Poole, L.

Westwood, L.

Helsby, L.

Powis, E.

Windlesham, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Wise, L.

Holford, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Wolverton, L.

Hood, V.

Redesdale, L.

Yarborough, E.

NON-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Blyton, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Archibald, L.

Bowden, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Arwyn, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Caradon, L.

Balogh, L.

Brockway, L.

Chalfont, L.

Beswick, L.

Brown, L.

Champion, L.

Birk, Bs.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Chorley, L.

Blackett, L.

Burden, L.

Citrine, L.

Collison, L.

Jacques, L.

Raglan, L.

Crook, L.

Kennet, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Darwen, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Royle, L.

Dinevor, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Rusholme, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Latham, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Leatherland, L.

St. Davids, V.

Energlyn, L.

Lindgren, L.

Samuel, V.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.]

Segal, L.

Faringdon, L.

Serota, Bs.

Fiske, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Francis-Williams, L.

Longford, E.

Shepherd, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

McLeavy, L.

Snow, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Maelor, L.

Sorensen, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Mais, L.

Stonham, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Gifford, L.

Mitchison, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Granville-West, L.

Moyle, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hall, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Henderson, L.

Pargiter, L.

Walston, L.

Heycock, L.

Peddie, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Williamson, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Platt, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Hughes, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Inman, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Lord CARRINGTON: I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, after ("Act") insert ("in the present session of Parliament'').—(Lord Carrington.)
Lord CARRINGTON: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("1969") to end of line 2 on page 3 and insert—
("(1A) Subject to subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State, on or before 31st March 1970, shall, in respect of each report of a Boundary Commission submitted under section 2 (1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969, lay before Parliament the draft Order in Council required by section 2 (5) of that Act.
(1B) On compliance with subsection (1A) above in relation to any report of a Boundary Commission the Secretary of State shall be relieved of any penalties imposed on him in respect of his breach, in respect of that report, of the duty imposed by section 2 (5) of that Act to lay a draft Order in Council before Parliament at the same time as he laid the report, and to do so as soon as may be after the report was submitted to him.
(1C) Where subsection (1B) above has effect in relation to a report, any proceedings pending against the Secretary of State in the Supreme Court of Judicature, the Court of Session, the High Court in Northern Ireland or the House of Lords shall, so far as they relate to breaches of duty by the Secretary of
728
State in respect of that report, be treated as stayed.
(1D) Nothing in this section shall affect any order for costs made against the Secretary of State at any previous time, or the power to make any order for costs at any future time.")—(Lord Carrington.)
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Alteration of constituencies in Greater London and certain contiguous areas]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Resolved in the negative, and Clause 2 disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 3 [Immediate division of constituencies with abnormally large electorates]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Resolved in the negative, and Clause 3 disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Altered Constituencies in Greater London and Adjoining Counties]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Resolved in the negative, and Schedule 1 disagreed to accordingly.
Schedule 2 [Constituencies to be divided under S. 3]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Resolved in the negative, and Schedule disagreed to accordingly.
Lord CARRINGTON: I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 10 and insert ("not later than 31 st March 1970; to indemnify the Secretary of State against penalties for breach of statutory duty").—(Lord Carrington.)
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported, with the Amendments.

SAINT SAVIOUR, PADDINGTON BILL
6.24 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I think I should say a few words about its background. I would remind your Lordships that in July of last year the House agreed to a Motion for an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill. That Motion was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, and when it was passed and the Instruction was given to the Committee, I reported early in this Session that the Bill, though it was, of course, an Unopposed Bill, should be treated as an Opposed Bill in order that a Select Committee could be appointed and could consider and make recommendations about the Instruction from the House. The Select Committee have made a Special Report giving their decision on the Instruction, and reasons for it, and this Report is now before your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
6.25 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I should, I suppose, declare an interest, in that I am not unconnected with the Promoters of this Bill. I should like to express our thanks to the Select Committee for the great care which they
730
have taken and the time they have spent in going into this problem. When the matter was last before your Lordships' House I explained, so far as I could, the general attitude which the Diocese of London was taking. We did not consider that the Church of St. Saviour, Paddington, in its present form fulfilled a pastoral need, and we felt that the proposed new church, smaller, would in every way be more satisfactory pastorally.
I also said on that occasion that we should not think it right to spend large sums of money on restoring and maintaining the tower, which was not, in our opinion, justified pastorally, as against the needs of other areas of the diocese where new churches were required. The Select Committee have examined and set out in their Report the relative costs of retaining the tower, of making it an integral part of a new church or of pulling it down. Our feeling in the diocese remains the same.
There was a suggestion, to which the Select Committee refer in their Report, that a new, smaller and much cheaper church would be satisfactory, but, in the opinion of the diocese, that was swinging too far in the opposite direction. We would point out that the Report makes it clear that, although there were those who, on grounds of amenity, wished the tower to be retained, at considerable cost on any calculation, the only person or body which was prepared to help the diocese to do that was the Greater London Council, with a proposed grant of £4, 000, which would not go very far towards the actual capital work required now and would do nothing to ease the parish and the diocese from a considerable continuing liability.
The diocese accepts fully and willingly that there must be the fullest consultation with the Royal Fine Art Commission on the form and shape of any tall feature or spire which would fill in the gap at the end of Warwick Avenue if the tower were to go away. But, apart from that, we should ourselves hope very much that your Lordships will accept the advice of the Select Committee and give the Bill a Third Reading.
6.29 p.m.
Lord FARINGDON: My Lords, I shall be quite brief. First of all, I should like to echo the right reverend Prelate's

731
compliments and appreciation of the work of the members of the Select Committee. They operated what was, I understand, something of an innovation, and went to great lengths to inform themselves and to help those of us who were interested in the proposed Bill, giving us time and instructions to get both sides together, and to produce for the Committee some kind of comparable figures. We are all extremely grateful for their work—grateful despite the fact that in the view of some of us the solution they reached was not the right one. It was merely a majority decision, and I hope that, that being so, when the Bill becomes an Act those who have to operate it will be influenced by what was said on an early occasion, and what I am saying at the moment.
Many of your Lordships—probably most—will know the site, Warwick Avenue, which is one of the most handsome specimens of town planning in London. The church and, above all, its spire come at the end of the main access of the Warwick Avenue development. It seems to me, and to those who like myself are interested in this church, that its retention, or the retention of something like it, is absolutely essential if the amenities of the area are to be preserved.
I was, if I may say so, very gratified to hear the right reverend Prelate's undertaking that the Fine Art Commission, and I hope other bodies interested from the amenity point of view, should be consulted. In this connection, I should like to stress two points. One is the siting of some kind of vertical feature to stand on the site of the present tower which the Committee have agreed should be demolished. I do not make much about the demolishing of the church by itself; it was not in itself a very great architectural entity, although by reason of its size and situation it played an essential part in the layout of which I have already spoken. Some vertical emphasis has been undertaken by the church authorities, and my first point is that the tower, or whatever replaces it, must be of the right scale to bring the vertical emphasis, as I have already said, into the proper relationship with the Warwick Avenue layout.
The other point I should like to make is that it is essential that the new build-
732
ing, the new tower, not only should have sufficient bulk, but should be of a material that does not clash with the predominantly stucco buildings on each side of Warwick Avenue. There is in the Bill a saving clause for the town planners, and this matter will fall to the town planning officer of the Westminster City Council. I hope that the plans may in any event be called in by the Minister after that. They have to consider a slightly changed situation since the Bill was first introduced, because this area has now been scheduled as a conservation area where rather special rules and directions will operate in a way they have not operated so far. This will be a test case as to how we deal with the area: how it is dealt with by the planning authorities of the City of Westminister and/or the Minister, for this will be the first important development coming under the new Amenities Act. I hope that the church and the planning officers will bear in mind the strong feelings that many of us have about the preservation of this church not only for its own quality, but on account of the essential part it plays in the landscape or townscape in which it stands. I hope that my few words may penetrate into those planning offices where the decision will be taken.
6.36 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of HOUSING and LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Lord Kennet): My Lords, it is customary for a member of the Government to say something about Bills of this nature, although it is not strictly necessary to do so. I will not repeat what has been said by the Lord Chairman about the progress of the Bill through our House and the Commit tee. The House has received a Report from the Committee, and the question of the Third Reading is before it. It may be of assistance if I say a word about the planning aspect. The Promoters of the Bill will require planning permission for the new development proposed upon the site; that is, for the housing part of it. They will also require planning permission from the local planning authority, the Westminster City Council, for the proposed new church and spire, under three heads: its siting; its access and its external appearance. All this is subject to planning control.

733
I should not go further because it may be that the matter will come before my right honourable friend in one way or another. It could come before him if the Westminster City Council were to refuse permission for what the proposers wish to do in the way of a new church, and if they were to appeal to him. It could also come before him if he were to think it right to call in the planning application in respect of the church and the new housing, or of either. In determining whether or not he should call it in, my right honourable friend will haveregard to the usual considerations in such cases—that is, the intrinsic importance of the matter; the wishes of the Promoters, and of the planning authority; the amount of public interest that has been aroused; and the opinion of the Royal Fine Art Commission. I share my noble friend's hope that the planning authorities, and the Promoters, will be closely in touch with this Commission on what it is planned to do from now on.
6.39 p.m.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, if I say a word or two on this subject from this Dispatch Box I trust it will not be thought that I am importing any Party element into the discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and I are simply expressing our views—he on behalf of the Government, and I on behalf of myself alone. It happens that I have known the existing church tower since I was about five years of age, because in my boyhood I lived in that part of London, and I entirely sympathise with those who feel either that the tower should be retained or, if it cannot be retained, that great care needs to be taken in whatever buildings may replace it. I think myself that the Committee have come to a right decision.
I cannot help thinking that a number of cases, a series of cases, are likely to come along—and some of them will come on a Bill to your Lordships' House—where very difficult questions arise about the importance of the preservation of the townscape value of a church tower or a church building which the church itself no longer requires for spiritual purposes. My own belief is that the church authorities, whether they are the parochial authorities or the diocesan authorities, should pay very careful thought to views
734
which are expressed, both by members of the public and by professionally qualified people, on the importance and value of a church building, or part of a church building, that has become redundant.
If, however, it is clear that the building, or part of the building, is no longer required for spiritual purposes, it seems to me that it would be wrong to call upon church people to meet the extra cost of maintenance that would be involved if such a building, or part of a building, is to be preserved. There may be an overwhelming case for its preservation, but in that event the additional cost should fall on the public, whether on the statutory authorities or on voluntary organisations, and not on the church people whose money has been given for the furtherance of the work of the church; that money ought not to be diverted to make our surroundings more pleasant, or to keep them pleasant.
In this case it was clear that the amount of money that the Greater London Council were willing to offer was not sufficient to offset the difference in cost that would fall upon the parish or the diocese. It seems to me, therefore, that it is right that the Bill should go through. But I join with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and all those who have spoken, in endorsing the importance of this site and of watching that any buildings which are erected in the course of its redevelopment shall be worth) ones.
6.44 p.m.
Lord CHAMPION: My Lores, on behalf of the Committee—I happened to be their Chairman—I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Faringdon for having expressed appreciation of the work of the Committee and of the care which they took to try to get at the basis of the claim, or suggestion, that the tower should be retained, and our consideration of the cost involved. I came here prepared to defend the work of the Committee, or at least the decision of the majority of the Committee, but the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has so perfectly put what seemed to me to be in the minds of the majority of the Committee when they finally took the decision, that I should be wasting your Lordships' time if I in fact embarked upon a speech of something like two hours!

735
I agree with the noble Lord that if the community—and this is something which will have to be looked into—desires to retain some features for its own enjoyment, it ought to be prepared to pay for them. It ought not to expect the Church to pay for it; it ought not to expect private bodies to pay for it. We ought to find some way in which it would be possible for the community in fact to pay for the retention of such a feature as we have here in this town. I must admit that I pass this church every day when I am in London. I do not like to see the tower going. But it seemed to me to be quite impracticable, quite wrong, to consider placing the cost of its retention upon the Church.
I end by asking that those who would be responsible—the Westminster City Council, the Royal Fine Art Commission and all those who will have to help to take a decision in this matter—to try, for heaven's sake, to put on this site a vertical feature which will be worthy of the situation. I sincerely hope that that will happen.
Lord SILSOE: My Lords, may I say one word? I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Brooke and Lord Kennet, will not think that I ought to declare an interest. When I held a certain appointment a short time ago this church came under my care and attention; now it has nothing to do with me. But I was asked to say that great care had been taken about this tower and this church; and I am asked to commend the acceptance of the Bill by the House.
6.46 p.m.
Lord HOLFORD: My Lords, may I speak very briefly as one who is very much concerned with the planned compositions of London. I should like to say how much I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said about the dilemma which we are in and which we are going to be in in the future with a great number of these monuments. The fact is that this was a composition planned as a whole, and the church of course was partly a place to accommodate a congregation and also partly a monument. Now one has to regard it as a place whose use for holding a large congregation has passed, but the monument, which belongs to London, of
736
course remains; and there is no means, apart from the offer of the Greater London Council of £4, 000, by which that monument can be kept up for the benefit of Londoners.
I personally shall bitterly regret the loss of this church and although it may perhaps be a little ironical to end on this note, I do not feel that anything which is a mini-monument, something which is a shrunken spire, or anything which does not hold the scale which the original monument held in this composition, would in fact be a proper substitute. On the other hand, one cannot dissent from the findings of the Committee, which I have read with great care, and therefore it seems that we are left with the dilemma.
6.47 p.m.
Earl JELLICOE: My Lords, although I am speaking from this Dispatch Box, I am speaking entirely personally. I could not possibly add anything to what my noble friend Lord Brooke has said, save that since I was sponsor of the Civic Amenities Act in this House—although I really look upon the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, as a co-sponsor here—since this is a conservation area, and in view of everything that has been said about the need for a really high quality building in this area, I would make a request to the noble Lord. It is that, if his Ministry are in doubt about this matter, I hope that one, at least, of the criteria of calling in will have been met, and that is the public interest as evinced by this short debate in your Lordships' House. Therefore, if there is any doubt about the matter, I hope that the noble Lord's right honourable friend will in fact exercise his power to call in the application, if need be.
6.48 p.m.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, with the leave of the House, there are two more points I should like to make. My right honourable friend will certainly take into account this short debate in determining the degree of public interest in the context of calling in this matter. I should like to make just one observation about what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said about who should pay for the keeping up of churches no longer needed as churches. This observation does not relate to St. Saviour's, Paddington, where I think it would not be applicable, but in general,

737
I hope I understand him aright, that he would not wish his remark, that it was unfair to expect the Church to contribute anything to the maintenance of a church which was redundant for church purposes, to cast any adverse light on the Redundant Churches Act, which we recently passed by agreement between both sides of the House, and under which of course the Church of England very generously contribute money towards the maintenance of churches which have become redundant.
Lord SILSOE: My Lords, may I say that the Government have generously given an equal amount.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, if I may have leave to speak again, I certainly would cast no aspersion on the Redundant Churches Act, but I have always supposed that that Act would be available to assist only a small number of outstanding churches, and, like the noble Lord, Lord Holford, I think there will be a great many church buildings the future of which will have to be carefully considered during the next few years.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think it would be proper for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Champion, in what he said by way of thanking the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, for their kind words about the work of the Select Committee. Members of Select Committees of your Lordships' House give up a considerable amount of time to this work, and I think sometimes that that work is not sufficiently recognised by the House. Therefore I felt particularly glad to hear what was said on this occasion, and those remarks will be passed on to the members of the Committee.
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendment and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NIGERIA: ARMS EMBARGO PROPOSAL AND UNITED NATIONS
6.51 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY Lord BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will propose to the Security Council of the United Nations an embargo on arms sup-
738
plies to both sides in the Nigeria—Blafra war. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I do not apologise for raising this issue tonight: I feel it desirable that it should be voiced before we go into Recess. But I do apologise to your Lordships for raising it on this particular day and at this particular time. We have had in the House today a difference between the two sides which has led to considerable tension and exhaustion. Some of us did not take to our beds until dawn this morning because we were listening to, and watching, the exciting arrival of the Americans on the moon. For these reasons I have not sought tonight to secure the support of speakers for this Unstirred Question. However I should like to emphasise that I am by no means speaking purely for myself.
I am the Chairman of the Peace in Nigeria Committee, and I have never presided over a more "Establishment" body. It has leading members from all three Parties, including the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, from the Conservative Party; the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, from the Liberal Party, and many of my colleagues on these Benches, as well as representatives of all three Parties in another place. It also has representatives of all the Churches—the Anglican Church, the Catholic Church and the Free Churches. It has a most extraordinary membership from ex-Colonial servants in Nigeria and the Eastern Region, including two former Governors-General. In addition, it has leading figures in every sphere of life in this country.
Our supporters go even further: When we wrote to the Prime Minister putting our views, we had the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, 20 Bishops and a most remarkable list of representative people in this country. Therefore, even though I am speaking to a small House, and perhaps in a lonely way, I am quite sure the Minister will not feel that I am speaking for a minority in this country.
As a matter of fact, all three Parties are united on the proposal which I am now making. The Labour Party Conference carried a resolution which was even more radical than the one I am now proposing. The Liberal Party—and I

739
spoke with their Leader last week—are quite definitely in support. Sir Alec Douglas-Home, speaking for the Conservative Party, has endorsed this proposal. It has the support not only of the Churches and the political Parties but also of such organisations as the United Nations Association. I have not the least doubt that the vast majority of politically alert opinion in this country supports this proposal.
The suggestions which our Committee have made include a cease-fire, an international force to supervise that cease-fire, a cooling-off period while bitterness should be reduced, then political negotiations, and an embargo on arms to both sides in this war. Our Committee have had two interviews with the Prime Minister, one attended by the Foreign Secretary and by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. We have had repeated interviews with the Minister mainly responsible for African affairs, Mr. Maurice Foley. We have seen the Ambassadors of West Germany, of Switzerland, of Sweden, and, in the absence of the Italian Ambassador, the First Secretary of Italy and also the First Secretary of the Soviet Union. We have pressed upon all those Governments the proposal for an embargo on both sides in this war. I may say, in passing, that we have had the support of all these Embassies, except that of the Soviet Union. To its objection I will refer later.
In addition to that, my Lords, we initiated a resolution at the Council of Europe, and the Political Committee of the Council of Europe carried a resolution in favour of an embargo on arms to both sides by all its Member States. The W.E.U. similarly has carried a resolution on these lines, though with certain reservations. In addition, I am quite authoritatively informed that the United States Government has brought pressure both upon our own Government and the French Government to limit at least the supply of arms to both sides in this war.
I want to recognise the difficulties in a quite practical way. The supply of arms to both Nigeria and Biafra comes not only from Governments: it comes from the black market, and it has been urged that it is not possible, by an embargo endorsed by Governments, to prevent the black market supplies. My Lords, surely it is clearly possible for any Government
740
which takes this position to say, at its airports, at its docks, and at all points of departure, that all arms shall be prohibited from going either to Nigeria or Biafra. In most countries such arms have to be licensed, and the Government could refuse licences. I do not accept the argument that it is not possible for Governments to control black market supplies as well as Government supplies.
Both in discussions with the Prime Minister and in correspondence, it has been urged by the Government that an embargo cannot be enforced until there is a cease-fire, and that only under the conditions of cease-fire would it be possible within Nigeria and Biafra itself to have an international supervision which would prevent the entry of arms. If my previous argument is accepted, then a great deal could be done from the points of departure. If, on the other hand, it is regarded as necessary to have international intervention in Nigeria and Biafra, may I put this point? It is now accepted that there shall be international supervision of relief which goes to Biafra. The division between Nigeria and Biafra on that issue is only on the point at which the international supervision shall take place. Nigeria says it must be in Nigerian territory. Biafra accepts it if it takes place from San Tomé, Cotonou, Libreville, outside the area; and I hope I am right in thinking that the British Government themselves have urged upon the Nigerian Government some acceptance of that proposal. If that is true for relief, it can also be true for the embargo on arms.
There is the difficulty of France. The French Government has denied that it is sending arms. I have been to both Nigeria and Biafra, and I have no doubt that French arms are reaching Biafra. It is probably true that they are reaching Biafra through Gabon and through the Ivory Coast, and that the French Government is not directly supplying them but is saying to Gabon and to the Ivory Coast, "You may provide Biafra with arms and we will make it up at a later date". I would very strongly say to Her Majesty's Government that in view of the changed political situation in France a position has now arisen where discussions between the British Government and the French Government could take place upon this issue. I believe from my informants in France that there

741
is now an atmosphere which might lead to an agreement between the British and the French Governments on this matter.
Then there is the difficulty of the attitude of Soviet Russia. Our Committee has had its deputation to the Soviet Embassy. I want to say, quite frankly, that its attitude was on the whole intransigent—in fact, more intransigent than we found when we met the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary of this country or when we met other ambassadors. But at least Soviet Russia said this: that if there were a decision by other countries to stop arms going to both Nigeria and Biafra they would reconsider their attitude. I put this point to the Minister very seriously. Soviet Russia is now very anxiously concerned to bring about a detente. It is engaged, in its talks with the Government of the United States, with meetings in Moscow, and because of its fear, particularly of China, the Soviet Union is very anxious to reach a detente. I say that undoubtedly if the British Government used their influence with the American Government, the American Government could bring great pressure to bear upon Soviet Russia in this regard.
Then the difficulty may be urged against my resolution that it is proposing action by the Security Council of the United Nations which, because Nigeria is a member State, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant, has said it is difficult for the United Nations to take within its consideration. I want to urge that a different situation arises when it is not merely a conflict between Nigeria and the Eastern Region, part of which now describes itself as Biafra, but also a matter of member States, and leading member States, of the United Nations supplying arms to both sides. It is not often that I can welcome a contribution which has been made by Sir Alec Douglas-Home upon this matter, but he has urged in another place exactly the proposal which I am now making: that the United Nations should consider this problem of an embargo upon arms to both sides and take the initiative to prevent that supply of arms proceeding.
My Lords, before I conclude—and I have tried to be objective in what I have said—may I say this. In December, Mr. James Griffiths, an ex-Colonial Secretary, and I went to both Nigeria and
742
Biafra seeking peace. When we were there we found arms manufactured in eight different European countries supplied to both sides. We found in addition to those arms that there were the supplies from Britain and Russia to Nigeria and indirectly from France to Biafra. There is a very great new danger in this war, with its appalling consequences; that is, not merely the deaths in battle, but the million deaths which have already occurred, mostly among the young children. James Griffiths and I were present at a place where the Catholics were providing one meal a day for 3, 000 children. I have seen the priest who was in charge of that feeding centre; he has now returned from Biafra and he said that the most difficult thing he had ever had to do in his life was to tell those 3, 000 children that there would be no food for them next day.
The new terrible thing about the Nigerian-Biafran war is that it is now becoming not a war between Africans, but a war between Great Powers in their own material and economic interests. Soviet Russia is seeking penetration into Nigeria, when it has largely failed in the Continent of Africa, except in the U A.R., Egypt and Algeria; France, with her ex-Colonies, still dominated by the French economy, on the borders of Nigeria and in competition with her; and I think Great Britain probably muddled into this situation. We had been supplying arms to Nigeria as a Commonwealth country. My complaint is not only that the supply of arms has continued, but that it has intensified since the war began. But it would be a quite naive person who did not think that the oil interests of Great Britain, particularly B.P. Shell, was not one factor in the arms supplies which are now being sent.
There is a moral issue here. Many years ago in another place I heard Mr. Philip Snowdon say that if he filled his hand with pebbles and threw them on to the opposite Benches he could hardly fail to hit someone whose financial interests were in the armaments industry. To-night, I should not have many people to hit. But I put this as a matter of conscience. I put it as a matter of conscience to Her Majesty's Government: How can Her Majesty's Government go on supplying arms which not only mean death in battle, but the starvation of thousands of little children? I

743
put it to those who are shareholders in armaments that I can scarcely think of anything more immoral than making their wealth, their dividends, their own material satisfaction out of the deaths which take place in war.
I want to conclude in a constructive way. Rather remarkably, the differences between the two sides are not now very deep. Nigeria insists on union; Biafra insists on association. There are degrees of unity and there are degrees of association. They are negotiable, and anyone who knows Nigeria finds it difficult to believe that at the end of this war there will not be a reconstruction of the Constitution in which the two points of view, of union and association, will require to be brought together.
The other issue is this; and it is quite extraordinary. The only reason why talks are not taking place to-day between Nigeria and Biafra is that Nigeria asks for negotiations without conditions, and Biafra asks for a ceasefire before negotiations. I am going to read from a letter which the Prime Minister sent to me. I am sorry that my copy has no date, but it is in reply to my letter of May 20. It says:
"The position of the Nigerian Government is—as General Gowon made very plain to me in Lagos—that they are prepared to negotiate at any time without pre-conditions. Colonel Ojukwu, however, still appears to insist on a ceasefire before negotiations, and this is itself a form of pre-condition."
Accepting that one seeks negotiations without conditions and the other asks for a ceasefire before negotiations, is not the solution of that problem within the reach of statesmanship?
I think I may say that in discussions with Mr. Maurice Foley, the Minister responsible for African Affairs, the suggestion emerged that a solution of that problem might be found by talks which place a ceasefire first, an embargo on arms second, and negotiations third. Even if there is a ceasefire, talks have to take place. I greatly hope that Her Majesty's Government are now urging that solution upon Lagos. I promised Mr. Maurice Foley that I would write to African Governments suggesting that they press this point of view upon the Biafran Administration. Only to-day, I have received my first reply from an African Government agreeing to do so.
This war is a terrible disaster. Vietnam has been awful; but more have died in the Nigerian-Biafran war than in Vietnam, and they have mostly been young children dead from starvation. I can see no objective at the present time more worthy of support by Her Majesty's Government than to try to bring this terrible war to an end; and I would urge that one of the methods to do it is an approach to the United Nations through its Security Council, not necessarily to intervene in the conflict between Nigeria and Biafra, but at least to ask its Member States that they shall in future refuse to send arms to either side.
7.18 p.m.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I propose to add only a little more to what we have heard from my noble friend Lord Brockway. He has the advantage of having been to Biafra and having seen the conditions there, and therefore of being able to come back and give an analysis such as we have heard to-day. My appeal is a perfectly simple one, concerned with elementary principles. I find it incomprehensible that we should have to come to a Labour Government and ask that they should cease supplying arms to a primitive country, one absolutely dependent upon agriculture, not having great stores of food, having no means available whereby they can meet an emergency of this kind and dependent upon the men and women in that country to provide then own food from their own little plots of land. And then, suddenly, modern methods of warfare with their appalling cost—guns, rifles, every kind of ballistic material, as they call it to-day—are used against these primitive people.
When first we raised this question I was a little sorry for my noble friend on the Front Bench because I had a feeling that he was being used to come to the House and reply on this issue. But now the months and the years are passing. This is not a Party question. Newspapers with a Conservative bias, Liberal papers and Labour papers have adopted entirely the same attitude. They all condemn a Government which provides arms in consequence of which there is widespread misery and malnutrition. When I am told that we are arranging for the Red Cross to send some kind of relief in terms of food and medical supplies

745
to these children, it seems to me as though we are living in a kind of Alice in Wonderland world, because at the same time we are also giving our blessing to supplies of armaments to destroy those same children.
How on earth can the Labour Government reconcile their conscience with this policy? We are told throughout the country that youth is cynical; we say there is a cynicism abroad, and we adults do not know what to do in order to show these young people that there is so much in life to fight for in terms of the good things—it is an unfortunate expression—and that there are causes to which they should devote themselves. But the young people watch the Government providing arms for the destruction of completely helpless human beings. This is not a fantasy; we see pictures of these children in the newspapers and on television. The most eminent people in every field—and particularly the field of medicine—go to these countries and come back with the most fearful stories; yet the Labour Government continues to be a party to this state of affairs.
I find it difficult to believe that in all those years, up and down the country, members of the Government have stood on platforms denouncing the sale of armaments; and whenever they have denounced it of course the audience has cheered them, because audiences can respond to good intentions of that kind. Yet when they come to power they seem to be utterly merciless. The stupid part about it is that they have forgotten that the Labour Party was built on an idealistic approach.
I believe that this pragmatic attitude towards affairs may well be our undoing next year. The youth of the country watch us; the older people watch us. The older people wonder how on earth this attitude can be reconciled to the promises of the Party years ago. We have not much time. It sounds as though I am pressing a policy of expediency; but how can the Party go to an election next year, and how can its representatives stand on platforms when they will be asked from the body of the hall, "How can you reconcile your promises with the practice of providing armaments in this way?" I ask my noble friend, because surely individuals can do something. I saw the Foreign Secretary on
746
television the other night, and when he was asked about these things he reminded the audience that a few hundred years ago in other wars this policy was adopted. My Lords, to-day we are celebrating the space age. Up there last night those marvellous men put a plaque on the Moon welcoming a world of peace. And here we are, in a debate, asking the Government to adopt a policy which calls for a humane approach to these primitive people. I ask my noble friend—
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, I think my noble friend would wish to withdraw a reference to the people of Nigeria as "primitive people".
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, no, of course not; the Nigerian people would agree. Does not my noble friend realise that thousands of babies are suffering from a nutritional disease which does not exist in this country and which has not existed in that form in this country since the last century are primitive people? Has he not seen the pictures of these children with their bandy legs, big bellies and big heads? Only primitive people who are chronically undernourished can suffer in that way. Of course they are primitive people, and that is precisely why we, who are more developed people, should look after them. care for them, and protect them. That the noble Lord challenges me in that way absolutely amazes me. He cannot have studied the reports of the doctors.
Baroness PLUMMER: My Lords, a native can be undernourished and not primitive. It does not mean to say that if you are primitive you are undernourished.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: I am sorry; I do not agree with my noble friend. You are primitive if the advanced knowledge of nutrition which other people are able to enjoy has not reached you; you must be in a primitive state of development. Fortunately we are able to enjoy knowledge from research and investigations into things like nutrition. Of course they are primitive, because when we were setting up our little clinics and when we sent our doctors there we had to teach these mothers right from the beginning, just as one would teach

747
primitive people. That is an absolutely accurate expression, and I am sure no Nigerian doctor would object to his people being termed "primitive" because of their complete lack of knowledge of these things, and also the fact that they have not the wherewithal to feed their children. They are again primitive because their methods of agriculture are completely primitive. These people have not got tractors—and my noble friend is an expert farmer. They have not got all the things necessary to produce plenty of food. And these are the people whom we are helping to destroy.
Therefore my final words to my noble friend will be that this is the ridiculous position. Everybody thinks that these wars, like the Vietnam war, will finish quickly. The big nations say, "We will throw in these armaments and it will soon be over". But they do not finish quickly, and we shall soon again find ourselves in the difficult position of having to withdraw and save our face. I ask my noble friend to use his influence in the right place to withdraw now. We shall not be regarded as being unfit to conduct a war. We can withdraw on moral grounds; and we can withdraw in that way with honour.
7.28 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has played a truly heroic part in this tragic controversy from the beginning, and I can only wish that we had a full House to listen to the heartrending speeches of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who has just spoken. I shall resist the temptation, which might assail me on my first intervention in this kind of discussion, to offer my views at large on all the awful issues involved. I shall come at the matter from a single angle, though I shall not be frivolously brief.
I speak as the President of the British Association for World Government, and I am putting their point of view—a view which of course I entirely hold myself though no doubt in the case of the Association it goes with many different attitudes towards Government policy. So when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, replies to me, I hope he will not feel that he has to defend the Government against something I have said. Perhaps if I ex-
748
pressed all my views he would find ground for criticisms, but so far as this proposal is concerned I hope that he will take it on its merits, and will not feel bound to try to "shoot it down" simply as part of his duty of loyalty to the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has called with deep effectiveness for an embargo on arms, and I am submitting that it would be necessary, for that to work properly, to follow it up by the establishment of a United Nations agency. Of course the agreement of both parties in the civil war might be secured, or it might be that the United Nations would feel able to compel an arms embargo against the wishes of one or both parties. Those are two possibilities. But in either situation it is clear that something like a United Nations control agency will be absolutely essential, if an arms embargo is to be effective.
As I said, I speak as President of the British Association for World Government, but not in the precise position which was occupied until his death by our deeply revered friend, the late Lord Attlee. In working with many of these people, I was Chairman of two Commissions while we were in Opposition, each concerned with the requirements of a permanent United Nations Police Force. I therefore come to this problem with that background. The aim of the Association is to offer suggestions which, if adopted, would equip the world authority—that is to say, the United Nations—with the agency and powers to fulfil its primary function of keeping the world at peace. A United Nations control agency, which I ask Her Majesty's Government to put forward in the Security Council, is one of the agencies necessary to prevent this terrible situation from continuing and, perhaps, spreading.
There are no doubt many steps involved, but these at least would be necessary: the appointment of arms inspectors, observers at the ports and airfields, a central intelligence unit, and frontier control units of Customs. No doubt other provisions would be necessary, and when the proposal has been gone into in great detail, as our Association have gone into it, it will no doubt be found that a good deal of elaboration will be needed. As I have implied, such an agency would be an adjunct to

749
any permanent United Nations force sent to enforce or to impose an arms embargo. But even if there were no need for enforcement, because there was agreement by the combatants, this United Nations agency would still be equally necessary to provide the essential component which would enable both sides to agree to a cease-fire with confidence that it would be observed. It would make the cease-fire more effective, would make the cease-fire much more likely, because it would give both sides reason for trusting the efficacy of the cease-fire.
So far, I daresay, from what has been said by Government speakers elsewhere, it may be that there would be a good deal of agreement in principle with a statement of this sort. But let me deal with some of the difficulties. The right honourable gentleman the Foreign Secretary, whose complete, integrity I recognise in rather a special degree—I do not mean that I think he is infallible, any more than most of us, but in the general charges and criticisms of public life, to which I myself am subject, I would always exempt the Foreign Secretary—said on July 10, 1969, in the recent debate elsewhere, that the Government wished for a cease-fire but that the Russian Government would not agree unless the Nigerian Government themselves requested it.
Further, he stated that he had been informed by U Thant that it would not be possible to get the subject of an embargo put on the agenda. That was the way he expressed himself, but I understand that he was referring to the agenda of the Assembly. No doubt he assumed that people understood that. But it is perfectly possible for our Government, acting through the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, who has done such wonderful work at the United Nations and whom we were all glad to see today, to see that a proposal of this kind is put on the agenda of the Security Council. That is what I am proposing. So there is no possible technical objection to seeing it on the agenda.
Perhaps there are other objections. We are told that, on balance, the Afro-Asian bloc would be opposed, and no doubt we shall be told that other people would be opposed. I remember years ago, when I was chairman of one of the commissions to inquire into the international police force, that we were told at that time that
750
Russia and India would be against it. If one brings forward any proposal of this kind one will always be told that somebody will be against it—very often Russia, and very often somebody else. But the truth is that, however desirable we think such a proposal, it will never, in any circumstances, be accepted unless we have the courage—I venture to say, even in this solemn House, the "guts"—to go after it, to press it. Of course, to bring forward proposals which are not very popular is not something which, on the whole, the Foreign Office likes to do. It is sometimes thought that there is a certain loss of face in finding oneself alone in proposing something.
The noble Baroness and I were once tellers together on a certain Division, and there was not a single Member of this House to support us. A little later our proposal, or the gist of it, was actually carried here. A small example like that, or similar examples throughout the whole of history, shows that, unless one is prepared to go all out—as the Labour?arty in past years went all out for its beliefs, for which they were ridiculed—such proposals will never come about. In other words, to put it more bluntly, if this proposal is worthwhile and serious, it will come about through British initiative, or it will not come about at all. Although you cannot call it a sin of commission if we do not introduce this resolution, I should certainly call it a very grave sin of omission.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway who knows so much more than I do and feels so deeply, as we all do—but he feels particularly deeply because he knows it all so well—has spoken about the arms which flow into Nigeria from these great countries. I think if we looked down from Mars or from the Moon and saw this war going on between these two parties, these separate States or whatever you like to call them, and saw the suffering and all the children dying, and were told that arms were being supplied by great powers, we should regard it as so appallingly criminal that we should refuse to believe it. Even if we were looking at it from below, by satanic standards it would cause rather a sensation. Therefore, I think we must agree that this is a horrible trade and, at the very least, we should be extremely reluctant to have any part in it whatever.

751
But with these remarks I do not want to join anything which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, could call a general criticism of the Government's policy, and for this reason. I want him to consider very seriously this proposal for a United Nations agency to control the supply of arms, and, if he agrees that such a proposal is the best solution, I should like to ask: what possible objection could there be to bringing it forward? Could any harm result from bringing it forward? Even if he says that the prospects are not good, I must point out that the prospects for many great achievements in the world are not very bright at the moment. This is something in which we cannot lose. We may win peace and we may win a spiritual victory, which is at least as important as peace. So it is a great honour to be backing up the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, to-day.
7.39 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, before the Minister replies, may I say a few words from this side of the House to give wholehearted support to what noble Lords opposite and the noble Baroness have said in speaking on this Question? After this debate we are presumably going out to eat a good dinner and the thought of this war really puts one off one's food. This appalling civil war in Nigeria is an absolute scandal, and the public see it as a scandal.
Though I do not want to make a Party point here (because human lives are involved, and the situation is quite beyond Party politics) we are, I am afraid, paying the price of Fabian doctrine. What I should have liked to see the Government of this country do when this trouble first started—because, after all, this involves part of the Commonwealth—was to send in a paratroop division and to have said, "No, you cannot fight". They should have then gone to the United Nations and said, "We are acting under your auspices, but we are not allowing any fighting here". I am quite sure that you need guts in a situation like this, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has said. We have not shown any guts; and, as I say, this involves part of the Commonwealth.
This war is dragging on. It is, I think, in its third year: anyway, it is well into
752
its second year. I have seen people suffering from malnutrition, and I do not like it. I do not think anybody who has seen it likes it. The noble Baroness was quite right in saying that a great number of the people in Nigeria are primitive. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, appeared to disagree with that remark, but he is probably thinking of the people in the offices in Lagos, which is quite a different matter. I should like to ask the Minister to take the arguments of his noble friends really seriously, and, for heaven's sake! to try to give a lead from this country, because the situation is appalling. I am sure that the public cannot understand it. I know why we are supplying arms to the Federal Government: obviously, it is because Russia is supplying arms, and we are presumably frightened that if we do not supply arms then Russia will get a stranglehold on the country. But where tens of thousands of children are dying of starvation I do not think that political theory or the question of political advantage comes into it at all. It cannot when human lives are involved.
I impore the noble Lord to try to take a firm stand. It cannot be impossible because, after all, the United Nations imposed sanctions on Rhodesia, and in Rhodesia there has been no starvation of the Africans, and no murder. If some of the terrorists come over from Zambia then perhaps they may be shot, but there is no murder. Rhodesia has one of the highest standards of living in Africa; in fact, it is the highest standard of living after South Africa. Yet the United Nations were able to impose sanctions on Rhodesia. Am I to be told that they will not put sanctions on the supply of arms to Nigeria, where, if we can believe the reports (and I presume they are correct), tens of thousands of people are dying? There are no adjectives in the English language to describe the appalling hypocrisy of this, and the absolute horror that it raises in the heart of any sensitive person. It is absolutely ghastly. As we sit here there are people, including children, dying of starvation—and the British Government cannot do anything about it. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. I implore the Minister to impress upon his right honourable friends: for heaven's sake! do now really take a strong lead.
7.45 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, during my years in your Lordships' House I have been used to seeing strange combinations, such as my noble friend Lady Summerskill with the noble and learned Law Lords, but I must admit to surprise at finding the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, supporting my noble friend Lord Brockway. I do not think my noble friend Lord Brockway would support the idea put forward by the noble Viscount that we, the British, having ceased to be a Colonial Power, should have put a paratroop brigade or division, or a company of paratroopers, into a sovereign, independent country, even though it was within the Commonwealth.
Viscount MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: It is better than having tens of thousands of children dying of starvation.
Lord SHEPHERD: Then I suggest we can only beg to differ—and here I think the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, would agree with me in opposition to the noble Viscount. If the noble Viscount really knew about the Nigerian problem, the way in which it developed and the steps that were taken by this Government over many months to prevent it, he would not have made the strictures that he has made this evening. But I know that my noble friend Lord Brockway, although he disapproves of the actions of the Government in recent months, will at least give us credit for all the steps that we took to stop this war breaking out. My Lords, I shall look at what my noble friend Lord Longford has said, particularly as to the general nature of arms supply; and, if I may, I will deal in a moment with the immediate points that he made in relation to the war in Nigeria and Biafra.
The House will recall that my noble friend Lord Brockway asked a similar Question to that now on the Order Paper on April 16, to which I replied that, as has been said on many occasions, Her Majesty's Government believe that an embargo without the agreement of both sides as a consequence of a ceasefire is impracticable and would not stop the continued supply of arms through other sources. I fully understand the sentiment that the United Nations should be able to take some action to bring
754
this war to an end, and no doubt my noble friend and others who have spoken this evening consider that an external embargo on arms supplies to both sides would powerfully help this war to grind to an end if a negotiated settlement could not be arrived at. But I must beg to differ.
My noble friend himself informed the House on February 11 (and he reminded us of it again this evening) that when he visited Nigeria and Biafra he found evidence of a highly financed and organised black market in arms from Europe which was supplying both sides. This kind of enterprise is not amenable to control by international agreements. Moreover, if we look at the position on the supply of arms to the two sides with the approval of Governments we find a curious situation.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am very interested in this point. Why does my noble friend say that the black market is not controllable? I agree that there are aspects of it which cannot be controlled, as has been shown in the case of sanctions against Rhodesia. But black market arms have to be exported, through ports, airports and so on. They can be controlled at the point of departure. The Swiss Government are doing it.
Lord SHEPHERD: If my noble friend will permit me, I will make my own speech, and I think he will find that I shall deal with that point. I cannot deal with more than one point a: one time.
Lord BROCKWAY: That was my noble friend's point. Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government openly acknowledge that we supply arms to the Federal Nigerian Government. They purchase those arms from this country and, as my noble friend knows, we have made limited quantities available. We have done this because of our long-standing connections with the armed forces of that country. This is well known; yet it is estimated that the purchases of arms in this country by the Nigerian Government amount to less than one-fifth, by value, of the arms purchased by the Nigerian Government. It is known that the Soviet Union also supples arms to the Federal

755
Government, yet I am confident that the Soviet Union would not lay claim to be the only other supplier. We know that the Federal Government is able to buy arms from many other countries and from many other sources in Europe.
Our information is that the Soviet Union intends to continue to meet requests from the Federal Government for arms supplies. I believe that my noble friend's Committee for Peace in Nigeria also found, when it approached the Russian Embassy here, that the Soviet attitude was firm. I think that the noble Lord then went on to say that the Soviet Government would be willing, if other countries were prepared to have an embargo, to consider such action. I do not know at what level he got that assurance; but it is certainly something quite new to us.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend again? It is not quite new to Her Majesty's Government. I informed Her Majesty's Government of this some thirteen months ago.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, it may have been thirteen months ago; but a great deal has happened in thirteen months. I am speaking of the present time. If my noble friend has any further information he can give us, of course we shall be interested; but a lot depends upon at what level the noble Lord got his assurances from the Embassy.
If we look at supplies to the Biafran secessionists, then we first note that no country admits to supplying arms to them. Yet it is clear from the continuation of the war that very considerable supplies do reach them. Where countries from which supplies appear to reach the secessionists do not admit to supplying arms, it is difficult to believe that there would be much point in enlisting their co-operation in an international arms embargo, or that if they did agree this would lead to a marked diminution in supplies reaching the secessionists.
My noble friend spoke of licences. Is it not a fact that Sweden has an arms embargo on Nigeria? Is that not a fact? Yet it was possible for Biafra to get five, if not more, aircraft capable of a strike capability to attack Nigerian installations? I know how these aircraft
756
got there; but Sweden, with its embargo, could not prevent it. No one would suggest that the Swedes would be willing accessories to such an evasion. Yet those aircraft got through. We know the channels by which they got through. My noble friend also knows how they got through, and how other equipment got through. What my noble friend has not said is how they are paid for. If we could deal with the manner in which this arms trade is financed perhaps we could then have a more effective arms embargo than we can at the moment foresee.
In the circumstances that I have described any embargo would be partial and one-sided. I am aware that Resolution No. 413 adopted by the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe on May 16 appealed to all Governments to establish jointly a general arms embargo as a step towards a general agreement covering a cease-fire and to adopt strict controls in order to prevent black market traffic in arms. While we sympathise with the objectives of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, of seeking a resolution to the conflict in Nigeria, we must also bear in mind the resolution of the Organisation of African Unity, which called on all members of the United Nations to refrain from any action likely to impede the peace or the unity of Nigeria.
In our view, an arms embargo by itself, imposed from outside, would not contribute to either the peace or the unity of Nigeria. Indeed, an inter-Governmental agreement to suspend arms to the parties in Nigeria would be ineffective unless the two sides themselves agreed not to receive arms. Without such an agreement, backed by effeotive inspection on the ground, for which a ceasefire would be essential, both sides could continue to obtain arms from private dealers as well as from countries which did not adhere to the embargo. It is unlikely that all countries would cooperate in an embargo or follow an example set by this country and possibly a few others. A partial embargo might favour one side or the other but would hardly contribute much towards our principal objective of bringing about a peaceful and durable settlement of this tragic conflict. There are, as my noble friend knows, practical difficulties.

757
I think we must also ask ourselves not only whether it would be right for us unilaterally to go to the United Nations but also, if we were to do so, what sort of success we should have here. Unlike the noble Viscount, I am not a colonialist. I believe that when our Colonies achieve their independence they should be treated like any other country, whether they are in Europe, Africa, Asia, South America or elsewhere. Once they have their independence, they should be treated as such. One of the major features of the United Nations' Charter of which we on this side take so much account is that we do not take to the United Nations matters which concern the internal situation of a Member State.
The Nigerians themselves would be opposed to the internationalisation of their problem and in this they would be supported by an overwhelming majority of other African and Asian countries. So to my noble friend, Lord Longford, and the question of whether this could be taken to the General Assembly. My advice is that if it were taken to the General Assembly there would not be sufficient members of the Assembly for this to be raised on the agenda.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I appreciate that I did not give the noble Lord any notice of my suggestions. I should be very sorry to feel that he was giving some sort of Governmental answer to-night to the point I have placed before him. I should be sorry because I think he would become committed to it; and it would be part of the mystique. So I hope that he will not take the line that my proposal should be, in some way, "shot down". By what he has said, he has clearly misunderstood it. I was talking about the Security Council.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am now dealing with the General Assembly, the question of O.A.U. and other African/Asian opinion in terms of the General Assembly. My noble friend Lord Brockway himself drew attention to the views of U Thant who, when he addressed a Press on April 17 said that if any member were to bring this item—the situation in Nigeria—before the Security Council or the General Assembly, he was sure that the item would not be inscribed on the Agenda.
758
I am bound to say that I believe that we, above all others, as an ex-colonial Power should avoid in the United Nations a confrontation between what would appear to be a group of white nations and those of Africa whose views have been entirely and freely expressed through the Organisation of African Unity. This does not mean that we are against an embargo on any terms. On the contrary: we should welcome an embargo if it could be achieved with the support of the two sides in Nigeria, because only in that way could we get the conditions in which it could be policed on the ground by outside observers.
My Lords, I take one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. He said that now there was very little that divided the two sides; that all that was needed was someone to bring them to the table. I am sure that here again there is one thing that we should not forget. Neither side lacks friends. Those friends have tried, over many months, not only to get the two sides together to negotiate a cease-fire, but also, perhaps with greater emphasis and with greater fear of the consequences of failure, to bring the two sides together so that food, medicine and other materials could be taken into Biafra. But despite all their friends, the two sides are still not prepared to talk. We believe that a ceasefire would work only if it were accompanied by an arms embargo; otherwise a cease-fire would be liable to become merely a period for regrouping and rearming before a renewed outbreak of fighting. This is why we make the connection between an embargo and a ceasefire; and in order to get an agreement there must be negotiations between the two sides.
I assure the House that our efforts are entirely and always directed to bringing the two sides together. However else we may be divided, I believe that there is a recognition on both sides of this House that the British Government have done all in their power to bring the two sides in Nigeria together. However attractive it may appear on paper or in speeches, I do not believe that a unilateral approach by this Government to the Security Council would have any chance of success. I believe that it would do infinite harm at this particular moment when discussions are proceeding in Lagos between the

759
Federal Government and the International Committee of the Red Cross. But, in reply to my noble friend Lord Longford, certainly I will look at the points that he made.

MEDICAL BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
NURSES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
BEDFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.] KIDDERMINSTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.] SAINT STEPHEN, CLAPHAM PARK BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.