Lords Sitting of 15 June 1971

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

MAINTENANCE ORDERS ENFORCEMENT
LORD GARDINER: 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 when the Secretary of State for Home Affairs is likely to introduce legislation to improve the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920 by extending it: (a) to foreign countries and (b) to affiliation orders.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, legislation for this purpose is being prepared and will be introduced when Parliamentary time permits.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he is really unable to to tell us whether we may expect this in the next Session; since this legislation was a project of the last Government and they would have introduced it this Session, and also in view of the many deserted wives who are waiting for the legislation? Can he not give us more hope as to when it will be introduced?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord put the same question to the Lord Chancellor in the course of a Bill which I see described as the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Bill. My noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor, said then what I must repeat to-day. It is not in our minds what was the intention of the previous Government; but I can say that preparation of
494
the Bill is now well advanced. It is not possible for me to give a firm date for its introduction at this stage.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why it cannot be expedited? This is an extremely important matter for many women who are unable to trace their husbands and who are in sore need so far as maintenance is concerned. It has been a pressing problem for many years. Does not the noble Lord think that he might be able to give a date very soon for the introduction of this legislation?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Government are well aware of the defects of the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920 and that they need remedying. It is a complex subject. A Bill is now near completion but the need for this measure has to be reconciled with the special demands of other items for Parliamentary time.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why the Government are not treating this matter as one of urgency? It has been held up for a very long time. We should like to see the extension of the provisions as soon as possible.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, my Lords, the Government recognise the need for legislation in this field, but it is not possible for me to give any more precise indication than that at this stage.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I also press the urgency of this matter by reminding the noble Lord that men are now crossing to Dublin in order to avoid maintaining their children? Can the Government go on justifying this position?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not think that my previous answers could possibly have been regarded as justifying the previous position. I have said that there is a need for change. There is reciprocity already with Commonwealth countries but, as the noble Baroness correctly said, the arrangements do not extend to Eire. This is another case where there is a need for improvement.

TRADE DESCRIPTIONS ACT
2.39 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: 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 will introduce legislation to amend Section 24 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, to redefine the circumstances in which a company in whose shops are display false or misleading trade descriptions is excused responsibility because they are due to an error on the part of an employee.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, this section does not excuse the employer unless he has observed the highest standard of care to avoid an offence. The Government take the view that the Act is properly framed to place criminal liability where it justly belongs and that amending legislation is therefore unnecessary.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that Answer. In view of his great interest in the Act that we are discussing, would he not agree that the decision of your Lordships' House in a particular case recently created some cause for alarm over what is virtually consumer protection legislation?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I would not accept that. It was recognised and accepted on both sides when we debated this legislation that if a person other than the person charged was a servant of the company charged, the company could still be entitled to acquittal under this provision. The Government believe that the House has interpreted the Act as it was intended to be interpreted.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will press his right honourable friend to look again at this question. There may be an opportunity to return to it later.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Baroness has said; but the view taken here is, quite clearly, that where the commission by any person of an offence is due to the act or default of another person, the first person is to be acquitted provided that due dili
496
gence is exercised by the person charged. Surely this is a proper reason for acquittal. It would be unjust to convict somebody who was in no wise responsible for the offence.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that from what I know of British law after many years in the trade union movement, I have always thought that employers were responsible for the actions of their employees?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, a vicarious liability does apply in certain cases but, in the Government's view, under the Trade Descriptions Act it would be wrong in principle to convict a person who could prove that he had done all he could to prevent the offence; it would be unjust.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would the noble Lord say in what way the law is now different? At one time for similar offences the law was that the employer or the owner was prosecuted, and if he wanted to prove that his employee was negligent in the matter he had to bring a prosecution against the employee. Presumably that no longer applies in these cases.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, it does apply. Under Section 24 of the Trade Descriptions Act if a person charged can show that someone else was to blame, and if due notice of that fact is given to the court before the proceedings, it is open to that person to plead that he exercised all due diligence. It is only if he has exercised all due diligence that he can be acquitted of any offence.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, as this is such a very intricate and legal matter, may I put my supplementary question on the general principle in the form of a parable? The question is this: if a grocer were appointed to take charge of a supermarket on the strength of his promise that he would call a halt to rising prices at a stroke, and then he proceeded to increase prices by 8½ per cent., would he be expected to take the blame himself or try to shift it off on to the people who actually appointed him?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that seems to be a hypothetical question

497
and one on which it would not be appropriate to adjudicate under the Trade Descriptions Act.

NORTH SEA POLLUTION
2.45 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress was made at the meeting of North Sea riparian Governments on sea pollution held in London on June 11.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, there was a general desire to move as rapidly as possible towards concerted measures to protect the North Sea area from pollution, and it was agreed to exchange proposals on the possible form of an agreement and to join in further informal discussions. The subject will be considered further at a meeting convened by the Norwegians in Oslo in the autumn.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, can the noble Lord be more specific? A general desire to move towards an undefined object is perhaps vaguer than it might be. Could he define the object towards which there was a general desire to move?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords; the object is to protect the North Sea area from pollution.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, were not a diversity of means to that object considered, and, if so, was any of them preferred above the others?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, a diversity of means were considered to combat and deal with a diversity of causes.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, could be a little more specific. Is he aware that he is treating a matter about which many of us are very concerned with a certain—shall I say—self-constraint? Perhaps he can tell us what in fact the Government are proposing to do with regard to this matter.
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords; I assure the House that I am not treating an important matter with anything but the greatest seriousness, as indeed are Her Majesty's Government. A very full communiqué was issued immediately after this meeting, which I have not repeated in full because it would have been tedious to do so. It is a question of approaching a problem which contains a multiplicity of different aspects in a comprehensive manner. This is only the first meeting of this kind, and I think it is unreasonable to expect firm conclusions to have been reached at this early stage. It also would have been a mistake to isolate one important field and to concentrate on that.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether this multiplicity of considerations includes—as I hope it does—consideration of metallic effluents causing pollution in the North Sea?
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, indeed it does.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does the noble Lord imply by that answer that lead is included?
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what means are to be worked towards for the control of metallic effluents among the nations concerned?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that is a detail that I cannot go into at the moment. It is a question of the emphasis to be given to all these causes. Some pollutants flow into the North Sea from rivers; others are dumped from ships; others occur in different ways. Until the broad nature of the approach has been settled, we cannot go into detail about how any one particular pollutant should be dealt with.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, agree that if the Government go on closing down blast furnaces and shipyards at the present rate there will be very little metallic effluent in the North Sea?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I do not think that that is a way of dealing with the problem.

CHINA AND EXCHANGE OF AMBASSADORS
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what seem to be the obstacles to an exchange of Ambassadors with China.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, we are in favour of an unconditional exchange of Ambassadors with China. This was made known to the Chinese as long ago as 1950. At various times the Chinese have raised different preconditions. Consistent features have been Chinese objection to our maintenance of a Consulate on. Taiwan and to our vote on the procedural resolution on Chinese representation in the United Nations.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, in view of the fact that there is a lessening of tension; that travel facilities exist between the United States and China; that on March 4 there was a reception in the Chinese Embassy and Mr. John Denson, our representative and Chargeé d' Affaires, received Chou En-lai, may I ask whether we could still explore the possibility of getting some agreement, so that we may open up the trading opportunities which certainly exist?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. We very much welcome the improvement in the atmosphere between the People's Republic of China and the world in general, including ourselves. This matter is naturally under consideration and the points he has raised are, of course, relevant to it.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess this question? He mentioned that one of the objections of China was to our vote against the procedural resolution. Have Her Majesty's Government made up their
500
minds as to how they will vote on this matter when it is raised again in the United Nations?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: No, my Lords, this matter is under consideration, as I told the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on a previous occasion. Of course, we do not know yet whether this resolution will be put this year in the United Nations, but, as I say, the matter is receiving close attention.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Marquess inform the House whether Her Majesty's Government are quite free to make a decision on this matter in advance of such a decision being taken by the United States of America?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords, I think Her Majesty's Government are quite as free to take a decision on this matter as on any other matter.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if Her Majesty's Government were now to reverse the farcical and hypocritical attitude on this procedural question and so inform the Chinese Government, would there not be a good chance that they, on their part, would realise that the maintenance of our Consulate on Taiwan no more confers recognition in international law than the maintenance of our Consulate in Los Angeles confers recognition on the sovereign State of California?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I very much hope that the Chinese People's Republic will understand that this is the position regarding our Consulate on Taiwan. It confers no sort of recognition whatsoever on the Nationalist authorities.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is it not the fact that the question of Chinese representation in the United Nations is important; and if it is important, are not the express terms of Article 18 of the Charter conclusive?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, this is an important question and Her Majesty's Government are considering how important it would be, if the matter should go that far.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government

501
whether they will now recognise the reality of the existence of the mainland Chinese People's Republic as compared to the shadow of Taiwan?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, as I said before, Her Majesty's Government very much welcome the new atmosphere in relation to the Chinese People's Republic. I am quite certain that my right honourable friend will take note of what the noble Lord has said.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, in order that there may be no misunderstanding, may I ask the following two questions? If the resolution is presented again and it involves our voting that this is not an important question, and if we wish to proceed, is not the heart of the matter the bringing about of a different procedure in the United Nations? Secondly, is it not perhaps misleading to imply that we do not have trade opportunities in China? Because they have existed ever since we recognised the Chinese People's Republic.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, in reply to the second of the noble Lord's questions, of course that is the case. In reply to the first of his questions, perhaps we are getting a little wide of the original Question in considering United Nations procedure; but, as I said, the question of the vote on the procedural resolution is under very active consideration.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Marquess assure the House that Her Majesty's Government have no intention, either now or in the future, of closing down Her Britannic Majesty's Consulate in Taiwan?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the question of this Consulate is under consideration, in common with other consulates of Her Majesty's Government in other parts of the world. I am afraid that I cannot say more than that at the present time.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, are the Government aware that Article 18 of the Charter expressly requires a two-thirds majority of those present and voting upon any important question? If the question of Chinese representation in the United Nations is important, is the noble Marquess really prepared to say that it is
502
so important that it should be treated as not important?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: No, my Lords; I was not saying that at all. What I was saying in reply to the original question was that whether this matter is being put or not at the next session of the Assembly, we do not know at this moment and we are considering what our action should be, if it is put.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I expect he will not be, but is the noble Marquess willing to say whether the credentials question in regard to the Chinese is intrinsically more important than the credentials question in regard to any smaller and less significant member of the United Nations?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I really do not think that I can go into that matter just at this time.

CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
2.57 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Fourth Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. DOCUMENTARY FILM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
As reported to the House on March 17 last the Committee referred to the Administration Committee for detailed consideration an application by Lord Kelburn for leave to produce a documentary film of the House of Lords.
The Committee have since considered and agreed to a recommendation from the Administration Committee that permission should be given to Lord Kelburn to produce a film subject to certain conditions which have been set out and accepted by him in an exchange of letters.
Peers will be given an opportunity to view the film before consent is finally given to its release.
2. ACCOMMODATION
The Committee have examined and approved a scheme to provide much needed additional accommodation for the House.
The Scheme provides as follows:

(i) That Committee Room "C" should be an extension of the Library and should be used as a writing and reading room.

(ii) That the Dining Room should be extended by taking in certain of the Law Lords' rooms and pushing the outer wall further into Peers Court. The resulting "L" shaped room would become the Peers' Guest Dining Room and the present Guest Dining Room would he for Peers.

(iii) That a new floor should be built above the existing Dining Room. It is at present suggested that this floor should consist of:

(a) Two Committee Rooms (one to replace Committee Room "C", the other a new Committee Room).

(b) A television room of approximately half the size of Committee Room "C".

(c) House of Lords common room with some sort of self-service refreshment facilities.

(d) Space to be allocated for one larger or some smaller rooms according to demand.

The Committee recommend the scheme to the House.
The Committee have agreed that a working party should be appointed from the membership of the Administration, Refreshment and Library Sub-Committees to keep in touch with the Department of the Environment and to advise on precise requirements as the work proceeds.
3. SUB-COMMITTEE ON WORKS OF ART
The Committee recommend that a Sub-Committee to be named the Sub-Committee on Works of Art should be appointed with the following terms of reference:—

(a) to examine Works of Art at present in the House of Lords, and to make recommendations as to their suitability and display.

(b) to recommend Works of Art for acquisition by purchase or on loan for the House of Lords.

(c) to consider repairs or renovations which may be necessary for Works of Art in the House of Lords, and to recommend action as appropriate.

The Sub-Committee have power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint its own Chairman
4. RETIRED BISHOPS
The Committee recommend to the House that on retirement from membership of the House Bishops should be allowed to sit on the steps of the Throne and take full advantage of the facilities of the House available to Members of the House outside the Chamber.
5. PRAYERS
Psalms
The Committee recommend that the procedure whereby the Lord Bishop reading prayers has a choice of five Psalms (24, 46, 67, 93 and 111) instead of being tied to one only (67) should be continued.
6. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of a review of certain posts in the Parliament Office.
The Committee authorised:——

(i) The payment of a responsibility allowance from 1st January 1971 to Mr. C. K. Stevens, the Higher Executive Officer who assists the Clerk of the Journals.

(ii) Additional posts of:—

(a) A Shorthand Typist Grade I for the Registry;

(b) An additional Office Assistant for Hansard and general duties in the Parliament Office;

(c) A Personal Secretary to the Principal Clerk of Public Bills and as assistant to the Secretary to the Clerk of the Parliaments.

7. HANSARD REPORTING STAFF
The Committee considered the extra work resulting from the late sittings of the House and authorised:—

(a) special payments to the Editor, Assistant Editor, Sub-Editors and permanent Reporters;

(b) payment of attendance fees to the Hansard Editorial staff when the House of Lords sits after 10.30 p.m. with effect from 1st May 1971 until the rising of the House for the Summer Recess.

The Committee also sanctioned the employment of additional temporary Reporters and other temporary staff until the Summer Recess.
8. REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee sanctioned the application of the following Establishment Circulars:

(a) D.E.O. (71) (Conditions of Service) No. 4 dated 9th March 1971— Night and Shift Disturbance Payments;

(b) D.E.O. (71) (PAY) No. 3 dated 14th April 1971—Central Pay Increase;

(c) D.E.O. (71) (PAY) No. 5 dated 27th April 1971—London Weighting;

(d) D.E.O. (71) (PAY) No. 6 dated 29th April 1971—Proficiency Payments to applicable staff of the House of Lords.

The Committee also sanctioned a consequential increase in two superannuation awards.
9. TYPING ASSISTANCE FOR THE SECURITY COORDINATOR
The Committee authorised the payment of a share of the cost of typing assistance for the Security Co-Ordinator in connection with the issue of passes to staff employed in the Palace of Westminster.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be agreed to. In moving this Motion, I think I should inform the House, that, if your Lordships agree to this Report, it is proposed that the noble Lord, Lord Kelburn, should do his filming on Friday, when the House is not sitting and complete it, if necessary, on Saturday.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to. —(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY BILL
2.57 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a short and simple Bill which does nothing more than raise from £400 million to £700 million the statutory ceiling on the power of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to give guarantees under Section 7 of the Shipbuilding Industry Act 1967. These guarantees facilitate the financing of orders for ships placed by United Kingdom owners in United Kingdom yards and the purpose of the scheme is to prevent United Kingdom orders from going abroad solely to obtail easier credit terms. The Bill is a direct descendant of the Shipbuilding Industry Act 1969 which raised the statutory ceiling from the £200 million in the original scheme to £400 million, and indeed for reasons of legal simplicity repeals the 1969 Act. It is at least satisfactory that heavy ordering of new ships for the United Kingdom fleet has made necessary these successive increases in the limit.
In presenting this Bill, I think it is right to pay tribute to the work of the Ship Mortgage Finance Company. Through their advisory committee they advise the Department for Trade and Industry on the security requirements for
506
the guaranteed loan, and act as agent in the negotiations on the security and legal documentation with the shipowner. Their expertise is well known, as is that of their Chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. But, though the Bill is simple in itself, I have no doubt that your Lordships will wish the debate to range rather wider than the pure terms of the Bill over some of the problems of the ship-building industry, particularly in view of the Statement made yesterday in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
I should like to deal first, if I may, with the position in general and at the end make specific reference to the position of the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. We are now approaching the end of the "Geddes" period. Six years ago Sir Reay Geddes and his Committee took a frank and objective look at British shipbuilding. They found that an industry which had been a front runner and boasted of a distinguished history of achievement, had allowed itself to be outdistanced by its foreign competitors. It still retained, however, the advantages of a highly qualified work force and a wealth of practical experience.
The Committee took the view that the decline could be reversed and growth resumed if the industry put in hand a major reorganisation, which was to be assisted by public funds. But they were quite clear that the reorganisation would have to be completed over a specific period and that at the end of this period the industry would need to stand on its own feet again and compete as an equal with the world at large. The once-and/or-all character of the Government assistance offered was written into the legislation and a limit was set to the life of the Shipbuilding Industry Board up to the end of 1970, unless extended by a maximum of a further year. There was no provision for Government assistance thereafter.
During this period of reorganisation the industry has received a large proportion of public assistance in relation to its size; indeed, more than the Geddes Committee recommended. The Shipbuilding Industry Board has been in existence for nearly five years and has paid or promised over £18 million in grants under Section 3 of the Act, £3 million in equity subscription,

507
and has agreed to advance over £17 million in loans upon conditions more favourable than normal commercial terms. Over £2 million in grants have been paid in relief of interest. In addition the then Ministry of Technology granted additional support to the tune of £8½ million.
Apart from this capital assistance, Shipbuilders' Relief, a rebate of indirect taxation, amounted to £16 million in the same period. These are very substantial sums for an industry which in 1968 accounted for about 1 per cent. of the output of manufacturing industry and which has also been receiving the important but indirect help of the Home Credit Scheme. During the same period demand for ships has been buoyant. World order books in 1969 were 40·4 million gross tons. To-day, they are double at over 80 million gross tons. The British ship- building industry as a whole has not fully grasped this opportunity. Progress has been made, but somewhat slowly. Though there have been success stories, parts of the industry have failed to increase their productivity and have failed to make profits.
By extending the life of the Shipbuilding Industry Board to the end of this year, the Government have recognised the real difficulties of the industry and have lengthened its convalescent period. The Geddes programme envisaged that the period of injection of capital into the industry should have come to an end last year. But there will be no further extension of the Board's life, and by the end of this year the Board and the powers of support by loans and grants will have run their full course. Before I leave the subject of the Shipbuilding Industry Board, may I make a special reference to Sir William Swallow, his colleagues on the Board, and to Mr. Barker, the director? Their task has certainly not been easy, and I am sure it would be right to give our thanks for their work.
We intend to continue Shipbuilders' Relief, which is now running at over £4 million per annum. We have relaxed the rules about the import content of ships qualifying for credit guarantees in order not to hinder the use of imported steel where supplies on competitive terms cannot be obtained from the domestic market. So far we have not received an application to import foreign steel, but
508
the concession has introduced an atmosphere of competition. It is only right that if our shipbuilders have to live in a competitive international market, they should be able to buy plate at the sharpest prices.
The Government also fully appreciate the importance to the industry of assured credit facilities. The present power to give guarantees expires at the end of this year with the Shipbuilding Industry Board and different arrangements will be needed. The Government recognise that by one means or another they will have to play their part in ensuring that finance continues to be available, and an assurance has been given that a further Statement on credit facilities will be made before the Summer Recess. I cannot to-day anticipate that Statement. But the limit in the present Bill before us will be sufficient to enable the industry to receive credit guarantees on at least all home orders on which building will start before mid-1973. The Shipbuilding Industry Board has been making recommendations subject to the passage of this Bill, but there is still credit available for guarantees for any orders due to start before mid-1973. This interim measure will thus be of substantial assistance to the industry in maintaining its present order book. But apart from these measures, we do not consider that there is any justification on economic grounds for special aid beyond the assistance available to all industries operating or investing in Development Areas.
With regard to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, there is little that I can add to the Statement made in another place yesterday by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but perhaps I can recall the history of this ill-fated venture to your Lordships. U.C.S. was formed in February, 1968, by the merger of four shipbuilding yards on the Upper Clyde and the acquisition of a 51 per cent. interest in a fifth. On their formation, U.C.S. received a loan of £3½ million from the S.I.B. and over the period July, 1968, to May, 1969, they received further loans of £1.2 million for capital equipment. Despite this assistance, they ran into serious financial difficulties early in 1969, and between February and August of that year received grants from the

509
S.I.B. totalling £5½ million and an equity purchase of £3 million. They were once again in financial difficulties at the end of 1969, and in February 1970 the previous Government made them a direct loan of £7 million. Including Government investment and a loan to Fairfields, one of the companies which formed U.C.S., the total public money made available to the group is over £20 million.
In October last year further doubts arose about the viability of U.C.S. until it was agreed last February that Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Limited, in which U.C.S. held a 51 per cent. share and which mainly builds warships for the Royal Navy and overseas Governments, should be acquired by Yarrow & Company Limited and become independent of U.C.S. U.C.S. also strengthened their financial position with the help of shipowners who agreed to an increase in the prices they were paying for their ships. It was further proposed to work out a capital reconstruction, and the Government agreed to a substantial writing-down of loans and equity. U.C.S. did not at that time seek further loans and public funds, and it was made quite clear to them that no new public funds would be provided. At that time U.C.S. were confident of their future viability, and it was not until last Wednesday that my right honourable friend was informed by the Chairman that unless sums could he made immediately available they would petition for the appointment of a provisional liquidator.
My Lords, as announced yesterday, the Government have reluctantly come to the conclusion that further injections of public money into the company as it now stands would serve nobody's interest. I should like, in particular, to make it clear that the problem is not just a shortage of working capital, as has been implied in many Press reports. It is also the fact that the company are quite unable to forecast when the present excess of liabilities over assets might be reversed. We fully recognise, however, how important it is to preserve as much employment as possible in these yards, and to try at least to complete the building of those ships on which work is currently in progress.
My right honourable friend is consulting a provisional liquidator with a view
510
to bringing about the reconstruction of whatever groupings may prove to be most expedient, and he proposes to set up a small group of experts to advise him on the most appropriate action to achieve such a reconstruction. The failure of U.C.S. is a tragic disaster, and when our plans are further advanced it may well be that your Lordships will wish to return to the subject. In the meantime, I hope that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill, which is one essential prop for the future of the British shipbuilding industry in providing a very significant increase in the ceiling of credit guarantees. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Aberdare.)
3.12 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, like, I suspect, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I turn to the question of shipbuilding with an almost completely fresh mind—almost a tabula rasa. We do not of course oppose the Bill, which will give at any rate some small help to the shipbuilding industry. In at least one respect I will follow the noble Lord: as there is a more detailed debate on Upper Clyde Shipbuilders taking place to-day in another place, I propose to devote most of my time to the Bill itself. But none of us can talk about shipbuilding in the context of the Government's decision on the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, and in the light of the latest returns from, for example, Swan Hunter, without being deeply disturbed at the industry's plight and its prolonged and profound difficulties.
When this Bill was in another place, it was remarkably roughly handled by both the Conservative and the Labour Parties, partly, at least, because it seemed to presage almost total Government disengagement from the shipbuilding industry, and its abandonment to market forces. I think that many of your Lordships will agree that recent events have shown how right those criticisms were. It is surprising how slow the present Government have been in announcing their policy for this extremely important industry. On February 18 the Secretary of State said that the Second Reading of this Bill in another place would provide an opportunity for a major statement on the industry, but when the Second Reading took

511
place on April 22 Sir John Eden, the Minister for Industry, could only say:
" I hope to be able to make a fuller statement about the arrangements for shipbuilding credit before the Summer Recess."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; 22/4/71; col. 1391.]
It was hard to believe that yesterday's rather sad and melancholy Statement was the pabulum for which the hungry sheep were looking, and I was relieved to hear from the noble Lord a few minutes ago that there is still a Statement to be awaited, and that we shall have it before the Summer Recess. I fully realise how long policies on these important matters take to evolve. Indeed, the members of the present Government used to revel in criticising the Labour Government for leaving industry in a state of uncertainty; but now we probably have greater uncertainty in industry than at any time since 1945. It is an uncertainty which is even more damaging to industry because it is linked with the feeling that the Government will adopt the most reactionary and crudest laissez-faire policy towards industries which really need public support.
Over the years both shipbuilding and shipping have, in my view, been neglected. Even the most casual study of the Financial Times or the Investors' Chronicle will show the difficulties that those two industries are facing, and the problems which lie ahead for both of them. My own feeling is that the Government would have been wise to use the very limited Parliamentary time that is available to discussing the future of the shipbuilding industry rather than wasting it on the Industrial Relations Bill, because the livelihood of many thousands of workers and whole communities depends on the prosperity and stability of shipbuilding and shipping.
It is difficult, I think, to resist the conclusion that some blame rests on the shipowners. The Japanese, for example, buy virtually all their ships from Japanese shipbuilders, and 4 out of 5 new German ships come from their own shipbuilding yards. I do not know what the figure for the United Kingdom is, but I think the reverse of the coin is interesting: in the United Kingdom 80 per cent. of our output is going to British owners. In the circumstances, the speedy decline in our exports is understandable, but sad. In 1966, two-thirds of the
512
industry's orders came from abroad; in 1967, it was one-third; in 1968, it was less than one-fifth: and we have steadily sunk from the position of being the world's greatest shipbuilder. Japan has now more than half the world market, and it seems quite clear that within the near future that 50 per cent. will go up to around 60 per cent. They, of course, are getting substantial Government help, as well as the support of patriotic Japanese shipbuilders. Just as Japan is making progress, so Italy, Germany and France are all giving solid encouragement to their shipbuilders. It seems as if we are in danger of reaching a position in which only British shipbuilders will be left to face the cold winds of competition almost unaided.
Sitting back and taking a reasonably detached view of an industry with which I have had no governmental, constituency or personal links, it seemed to me that the Geddes Report, to which the noble Lord referred, indicated that a new phase in the industry's history had been reached. The Geddes Report was commissioned by the Labour Government, and the policy that the Labour Government adopted was based on it. It seemed that it would end the twenty years of neglect the industry had suffered. But now we are going back to the pre-Geddes era with all the uncertainty, all the reluctance to invest and all the resistance to productivity agreements that characterised it. There is no doubt in my mind that Her Majesty's Government should support the shipbuilding industry and should undertake a continuing commitment to do so. That, I think, is what the Shipbuilding Industry Board was saying in its last Annual Report. May I join with the noble Lord in paying tribute to Sir William Swallow and his colleagues and staff, and thanking them for what they have done for the industry. But in the last Report the Shipbuilding Industry Board said:
" Large sectors of the industry will continue to require access to capital which they will not be able, in the near future at any rate, to generate in sufficient amounts for themselves."
I am sure that the Board was right in that conclusion.
Finally, a word on the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders—I shall be almost as brief as the noble Lord who preceded me. I believe that the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders was a great experiment. In its inception

513
it showed our capacity for improvisation at its best, and with £90 million worth of work on its books, and with greatly improved productivity, it is difficult to believe that most of the undertaking's problems were now not within reach of solution. The Government have now winged it and may well have killed it. In the light of our experiences in recent months I shall be surprised if it is the last of the great undertakings to fall victim to the Government's uncouth and unsophisticated economic policy.
That is what I think the City Editor of the Daily Telegraph is saying to-day in rather a different way. It is under the heading, "Mr. Heath Cuts off his Nose…" and it begins with these words:
"Mr. Heath is taking a great, if calculated risk. In rejecting the plea from Upper Clyde Shipbuilders for further Government assistance, he may be putting U.C.S. out of business, raising the level of unemployment in Scotland, demonstrating that he is a man of his word and denying sanctuary to lame ducks. But that is not all. He is putting the fear of loss into every creditor of every doubtful company in this country…and squeezing what few drops of commercial confidence may be left in boardrooms throughout industry.
"Unless there is a dramatic change in the direction of economic policy soon—by the autumn at the latest—the chances of acute and painful recession arc real."
That at least gives us food for thought, and it is a warning I believe the Government would be foolish to neglect. As the noble Lord has said, we shall have an opportunity of returning to the position of the shipbuilding industry before we rise for the Recess. I have no doubt that over the next few months there will be many opportunities for debating a deteriorating economic situation. But the Bill before us this afternoon gives us some promise that at least some firms may benefit, and we shall do nothing to hinder its passage through your Lordships' House.
3.23 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I am wondering whether your Lordships' House realises the great service that Her Majesty's Government are rendering in this matter. I believe that they are helping us to rid ourselves of the myth that private industry, because it is private, is efficient. There is no one on this side of the House who would want to make an attack on all private industry. I see my noble friend, Lord
514
Sainsbury, on one side of me, and we have distinguished employers of labour on this side of the House who have had no labour troubles and who are running industries of which we approve. What I hope we shall not be mealy-mouthed about on this side of the House is that this industry has failed largely through bad management, and if there is bad management at the top there is demoralisation right through. There are a great many fine people in this industry, and I believe that if, as an outcome of this difficult situation, we go right through and say that shipbuilding should be part of the public sector, we shall get the enthusiastic support of people at all levels of this industry. I want to suggest to your Lordships that if we go dickering around on this matter we shall not obtain the top management we want. we shall not win the co-operation of all the workers in the industry and we shall stagger on from one makeshift position to another. I hope that if we cannot convert this Government to the proposition that there are some sectors of industry, including this one, that belong to the public sector, it will not be long before we get rid of this Government and get a sensible solution.
LORD SHINWELL LORD SHINWELL: My Lords—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I wonder whether I may just come in for a moment, not in the substance of the debate at all, but I think we went a little wrong in our order. I thought that the noble Baroness rose just to ask a question or to make an interjection; I had not realised that she was going to make a substantive speech. I think it was my noble friend Lord Barnby who was due to follow the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, and thereafter the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell.
3.26 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, this House has no power in regard to this, a Money Bill, but that does not remove our obligation for vigilance relating to anything employing large commitments of Government funds which in this case we will remit. The noble Lord in his persuasive manner has emphasised the need for a massive further extension of the original amounts in the 1969 Bill. There was also reference in my noble

515
friend's speech to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. I think my noble friend will have received some comfort from the moderate way in which the Opposition spokesman approached the matter, saying that there would not be opposition to the Bill. He said this in moderate language in comparison with what might well be used. I must, as I am the succeeding speaker, refer to the speech of the noble Baroness. I am afraid I could not quite hear the noble Baroness's rather emotional speech, so I hope she will forgive me if I do not comment on it.
Since the noble Lord who spoke for the Opposition gave a quotation, I will take upon myself the liberty of also making a quotation from a leading newspaper. This morning there were big headlines on the Engineering Union's conference, and I quote:
" The rejection of all productivity deals which might lead to redundancies and raise unemployment was unanimously approved at the annual conference of the l½million Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers at Torquay yesterday."
A NOBLE LORD A NOBLE LORD: Shame!
LORD BARNBY: I propose to return to that later. May I refer to the doubts that I have always felt since the original Bill was introduced in 1969. To what extent are we right in selecting this one industry for such massive support as it has had over the years? I know that emotionalism and political expediency are two considerable factors in guiding both sides, and it was the late Government who were mainly concerned with raising the large amounts of these guarantees. Once a Government embarks on a policy of spoon-feeding industries, there is always a danger of inefficiency creeping in. I have doubts as to whether it is right that one industry should be singled out to receive such assistance. But as to inefficiency, I suggest that the evolution of the shipbuilding industry has been the result of inefficiency on the employers' side and a poor labour approach on the workers' side.
At this stage I will refer to the speech of the Minister of State in April in introducing this Bill into another place. He referred particularly to U.C.S. and made the statement that he was assured that U.C.S. were doing well and that there
516
was no intention of asking for any further special assistance. Nevertheless, it is in relation to that situation that, within so short a time, it has been disclosed that a crisis has arisen. It looks as though there is good reason that market operations should apply. Why should inefficiency make further demands on Government assistance? I quite support my noble friend who has said there is no intention on the part of the Government to give further assistance.
When a firm gets into difficulties, I would agree with the contention from the opposite side that the equity owners must surrender everything. In this case it has been said that a massive subscription has been made by the Board to U.C.S. Therefore, there is a close connection between the Bill and U.C.S. The Government are an equity owner of a substantial amount in that concern. But, if a crisis has arisen through inefficiency of management, why should there be the suggestion that Government support must be given? I read carefully the speech of the Minister of State to which I have just referred, and I listened with incredulity to the word picture that was painted in another place yesterday when the Statement was made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Surely the situation in the U.C.S. has undoubtedly been brought about by inefficiency. Surely common sense would not suggest that in the present period of rapid inflation, which has recently been stated to have averaged 4.9 per cent. per annum for the last five years, any board of management would take long-term contracts without an escalation clause. Why, many other industries would be in a similarly disastrous state if they took such unnecessary risks. I suppose that, so far as suppliers are concerned, credit insurance would have been widely used; so a loss in that way must fall upon the average users of credit insurance, and therefore premiums will put up the cost to industry in general. So it is not a case of this one industry being carried.
If I may return to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, who spoke for the Opposition, he regretted the suggestion of a return to the abandonment of market forces, and then added that the Government would have been better advised recently to drop the Industrial Relations Bill. But if anybody takes

517
the trouble (as many will have done) to read the speech of the Minister in another place in introducing this Bill there, he will know of the alarming increase in the amount of time lost by strikes. Yesterday in another place there was a reference to the increase of productivity, and figures were quoted. What a frightful admission of "loafing on the job" before, if in three years efficiency could be raised on the scale suggested! It is a terrifying indictment that labour will "loaf on the job" like that. That is why I gave the frightening quotation earlier in my speech. Can it be due to anything other than inefficiency that the tonnage of ship construction in this country has fallen to 6 per cent. from 15 per cent. ten years ago and 43 per cent. twenty years ago? It is due to this absurd situation of multiplicity of unions and demarcation of jobs. One reads continually of troubles in the shipyards and about the delay of ship deliveries. Subsidy policy raises the expected costs to the Exchequer. My Lords, I am afraid I have trespassed on your Lordships' indulgence for too long. I would conclude by expressing my support for the noble Lord in recommending to the House the Second Reading of this Bill.
3.37 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, it is possible to disprove the case of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, almost in a sentence, but for the purposes of clarification perhaps I may have the consent of your Lordships to indulge in two or three sentences. What is the noble Lord's argument? It is that here is an industry to be singled out for preferential treatment. Recently we have been singling out another industry for preferential treatment. I do not seek to revive the issue again; I mention it merely as an illustration and refer to the subject of Rolls-Royce. It may be argued, particularly by noble Lords on the Government Benches, that the case of Rolls-Royce was in the sphere of Defence. But what about shipbuilding? If it had not been for the variety and efficiency, and in particular the mobility, of British shipping in both the First World War and in the last war, perhaps we should not have succeeded in the long run—and it was a long run—in achieving victory.
Shipbuilding. and its allied industry shipping, are both as important in the sphere of defence as even the revival and
518
continuation of the Rolls-Royce engine. The subject of Defence may not appeal to some of my noble friends on this side of the House, but surely in the sphere of Defence we can obtain the support of noble Lords opposite. That is my first contribution to this very important subject.
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greenwood began by informing your Lordships that he came to this subject with a fresh mind. I cannot claim that advantage. It is sometimes desirable to approach a subject without having any previous knowledge of it, but I was—for what it may be worth—for many years the chairman of the Labour Party Shipbuilding and Shipping Committee and I gained some knowledge of the subject. Moreover—again, for what it may be worth—it has a bearing on the U.C.S. Fifty-odd years ago I was the member of the Glasgow Town Council representing the Fairfield Ward where the U.C.S. now exist. So I do not come to the subject with a fresh mind; I know something of the history of this business.
It may seem to be purely coincidental that this Bill is introduced in your Lordships' House almost simultaneously with the decision by Her Majesty's Government not to provide any further financial aid to U.C.S. In other words, "Let them go hang"; and if that language is regarded as exaggerated let me direct attention to the history of this subject. I revived my knowledge of the history of the subject by reading the Guardian this morning. That is one of the "quality" papers—a paper of repute and a paper that apparently knew something about the activities of the Conservative Party in relation to the future of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. Yesterday, in the course of a debate in another place, the Minister responsible, Mr. Davies, asserted and emphasised and re-emphasised, that it was only the other day that Mr. Hepper, the General Manager of U.C.S., informed the Government that in a few days' time there would not be sufficient funds available even to pay the wages of the work people. A sudden announcement of a dramatic character, as if there was no history behind this affair. The Guardian "blew the gaff" this morning because it announced that in 1969 Mr. Ridley, a member of the Conservative Party and now a member of the Government, had

519
consulted with other members of the Conservative Party with the deliberate object of destroying the U.C.S. and, moreover, if it had to be sold off. to sell it to another shipbuilding firm—I use the language used by Mr. Ridley then and repeated in the Guardian this morning"— for a mere pittance ". What was the reason?
Let us consider briefly the history of U.C.S., at one time the Fairfield Shipyard, then associated with John Brown's and associated with Yarrow, the Naval shipbuilding firm, and then with Connell's and with two other of the smaller shipbuilding yards of the Clyde, in a consortium. Difficulties presented themselves, financial and otherwise, and so it was decided to form an organisation. This was the period —the dramatic period—that worried members of the Conservative Party. It was a consortium consisting of trade unions, the employers and the Government. It was a new form of consortium; a very dangerous form of consortium almost a socialist form of consortium, so when it was formed it was decided by Mr. Ridley and others, according to the report in the Guardian this morning (if I am challenged I am prepared to read the whole of it, but that might be going a little too far for your Lordships' patience) to sell off U.C.S. as rapidly as possible "for only a pittance." That did not mean that those who were ready to buy would not find some measure of profitability later on. Of course, if you sell off a concern of this kind for an "old song" then there is always the possibility that a revival may ensue and the industry may become more profitable. I leave it there, but I hope that your Lordships, particularly on the other side of the House, will read the Guardian in order to ascertain actually what is the history behind U.C.S.
Mr. Davies indulged in a bit of pretence yesterday. He said that he had heard about the trouble only the other day. He was the head of the C.I.B. He is an economic expert, has all the expertise available to him; yet was not aware of what was happening in 1969 and what views were expressed by members of the Conservative Party at that time.
Let us deal with the substance of this matter. My noble friend Lord Greenwood
520
of Rossendale touched upon the subject, but I will go a little further. There is not a single shipbuilding firm in the whole of the European Continent whether in Germany, Italy or any other country—I am prepared to challenge contradiction—that could survive for five minutes without subsidies: 15 per cent., 16 per cent., running up to 20 per cent. What about Japan? "Ah!" we are told, "Look at Japan. How favourably the Japanese shipbuilding industry is placed, obtaining orders from all over the world, even from United Kingdom shipowners!" More's the pity! We are dealing with facts. But why is the Japanese shipbuilding industry in a favourable competitive position? Because of its fiscal policy. There are varying forms of subsidies. I learned about subsidies, both to shipbuilding and to shipping, many years ago when the Matson Line—and I will spell that, M-A-T-S-O-N Line. I do not want to be misreported: not that it matters very much; I am not likely to gain any publicity for this debate because it is not pornography that we are discussing. The Matson Line of the United States of America was heavily subsidised, and indeed it has been discovered over the years that it is impossible to build ships at a profit in the United States of America without heavy subsidisation. That is the position.
This is not a malady peculiar to the British shipbuilding industry; it is worldwide. I emphasise— if it is necessary to indulge in emphasis—that, apart from certain exceptions, and I will deal with one or two in a moment, shipbuilding throughout the world had for many years to be heavily subsidised in order to survive. Who began it? Apart from the United States, many years ago, and West Germany and Norway and Sweden, who began it? I should like to criticise the Conservative Government, but in fact it was the Conservative Government who began the credit guarantees scheme. It was Mr. Marples who, as Minister of Transport, came to the other place with a proposal to provide credits to shipbuilding in this country.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Diamond is not present, because he engaged, as I did, in a number of hectic debates on the subject when we had to provide guarantees—not a mere four or five million pounds, but running up even to £20 million—either in the form of

521
loans or actual grants to the Cunard Company to maintain that company. And I say this in the presence, I think (I am not quite sure whether I am right in this), of at least three noble Lords who are directors of that important shipping company. But, if they are not directors now, they used to be. I am not blaming them for that at all; that might make the company more efficient than it used to be and make it less necessary for it to ask for substantial guarantees from the Government. But the "Queen Elizabeth 2" would never have been built had it not been for credit guarantees. And, by the way, long ago, also when there was a Conservative Government, the first "Queen" was built as a result of guarantees provided by the Conservative Government. If there is a rot, they started it. What are they complaining about?
But they had to do it. They were right. They were under pressure. I contributed to the pressure in a limited degree. They were under pressure from Members in the other place, from Members in your Lordships' House who were intensely, and rightly, interested in the future of shipbuilding and its allied industry shipping; and they were also under pressure from a variety of interests ancillary to the shipbuilding industry—engineering and the like. Of course it was the right thing to do. That is the reply to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby. I can sometimes call him "my noble friend", because, strangely enough, we have been associated—in my case not financially; about him I am not so sure—when he wanted some assistance for a particular firm in my old constituency. I readily responded, and I did not even ask whether it was efficient or otherwise. Obviously, if it had been efficient he would not have asked for my assistance. He did not think about that when he began his contribution this afternoon; it is just as well to remind him. That is the position.
About U.C.S. at the present time, what is the cause of the trouble? Let us leave aside all the political prejudices, even my own prejudices. all bias, all partisanship; and let us deal with the facts. What is the real trouble about shipbuilding? It is not inefficient; it is not lacking in higher productivity. Nor is it the fault of the workpeople. Of course, they do occasion
522
ally "go off the deep end"; there is trouble in the shipyards as well as in other industries. Many of the keenest workers in the United Kingdom are those shipwrights and boilermakers, and all the others associated with the building of our ships. Our ships are of the highest quality, whatever anybody may say to the contrary. What was the trouble with U.C.S.? The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, said they ought to have known, when they entered into contracts, whether they were going to be viable and profitable or not. How can one tell? Why did not they possess an assurance of future viability and profitability? I will tell your Lordships why. It was simply because when, in a period of intense competition, a firm is seeking orders against the Germans, the Italians, the Japs and all the rest of them, and somebody suggests, "Do not enter into any contracts of a fixed character. Insist on the escape clause, an escalation clause, because prices may go up, there may be inflation", the answer is, "We want the orders." This is competition.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way for one moment? In regard to what he said may I quote from Section 7(3)(b) of the original Act of 1967. It says that these advances should be made on the assurance
"… that the carrying out of the order in question… will contribute to that increased efficiency and Will secure that use is made of resources…"
The point, surely, is how can you anticipate, when an advance is made, that there will be a satisfactory deployment of resources for profitable reasons; and, if these difficulties arise, not blaming the employers but the unreasonableness of labour demands, then the conditions of the Act cannot be fulfilled.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, if the argument now deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, is to put the blame on the workers because they are asking for increased wages, it is such a familiar argument and it is one so readily objected to that it is hardly worth pursuing the point. Obviously, these firms—surely this is a reasonable point of view—engaged in this industry, facing intense competition from foreign shipbuilders, could not afford to ask for conditions; no strings were attached. It was impossible. They were fixed contracts, and even if there

523
had been escalation conditions from time to time it would be impossible to give any assurance about whether building a ship would be profitable and the firm remain viable.
But now we are faced with this simple position. A firm says, "We must have £5 to £6 million to meet creditors and pay wages". The Government say, "No". I am going to put a point of view that may surprise even my noble friends. I regret as much as anybody on this side, and indeed the other side of the House —I am sure I represent the opinion of all your Lordships when I say this—that there should be unemployment or redundancy. Nobody could want that; nobody with a spark of humanity, any generosity of spirit, being concerned with the future of our country, wants more unemployment, more redundancy. But from my political point of view, from my objective —I would not say the objective of every Member of my Party, but my objective—of a system of society where the State directs, even if it does not own, everything, directs the policy, taking into consideration all the facts and possibilities, a system not necessarily egalitarian but a system where there is co-ordination and co-operation, the decision of the Government not to provide the money but to appoint a liquidator who will inquire into all the circumstances, and meanwhile the Government will continue to pay the wages, suits me very well; it is a very fine system. And should there be any further trouble in industry I hope that the Government will continue to pay the wages, even if it means that I will have to pay more tax. If that is the system they want, let them have it. That system means a kind of Socialism. Is that what the Government want? What do they want? This industry being battered and shattered, and no longer of any value to this country? Is that what they want? No. All right, they propose voluntary liquidation, but at the end of the day, even if U.C.S. goes out of existence, we shall still have to find credit guarantees and subsidies of one form or another in order that our shipbuilding industry should survive.
I promised that I would refer to some shipbuilding firms which are exceptional. Take Yarrow, the naval shipbuilders.
524
They were part of the consortium and then they decided to leave. Why are they profitable? They are not too profitable and sometimes they have met with difficulties, but they are more profitable than U.C.S. Why? The answer is naval shipbuilding: no competition from abroad from the Japanese, the Norwegians, or the Germans. They need not worry about fixed contracts. They can always settle it with the Admiralty, the Ministry of Defence, or the Treasury, if there are difficulties. They have always got the Navy League behind them. I accept that defence is paramount, even if some of my colleagues do not, because I believe in defence in the present state of the world. Therefore, there is no trouble over naval shipbuilding. No wonder they said that they were leaving. It is far better to operate in isolated fashion than to be associated with other firms, however efficient, who are nevertheless far from viable. But these are exceptional cases.
I say to the Government: beware; this is not a matter of U.C.S. alone; this is a matter of the whole of our shipbuilding future. Take Swan Hunter and Richardson, one of the most efficient shipbuilding firms—and I challenge contradiction—not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the whole of the shipbuilding world. No one could be more efficient. More credit to them. But look at the position. They lost £6 million last year, and £3 million before that. Why? Lack of efficiency? No. It simply happens to be the temper, the mood, of the shipbuilding industry in face of intense competition.
Yes, we must pass this Bill. My noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale was right; we are bound to support this Bill. Perhaps there is not sufficient credit being provided. It is now proposed at £700 million, and we may have to make it £1.000 million, but the shipbuilding industry must be maintained at all costs. I support the Bill for that reason. But I remind noble Lords on the other side that credit guarantees, financial assistance and subsidies to shipbuilding and to shipping, began not with a Labour Government but with a Tory Government.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords. I intervene for a moment, and only because of a remark which the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, made during his speech. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, both said, we are going to come back to this subject in greater detail on a later occasion, but I think we cannot let this decision— I think a courageous and difficult decision, and a right decision, which Her Majesty's Government have made on the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders— pass entirely without considering the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, when he said that the Prime Minister was refusing further assistance to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. I believe it will be seen that in the long run the Minister, the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet are not refusing help but giving great help to the industry and to the men employed in that industry. In a competitive world you cannot finally isolate any industry from the harsh realities of world competition. You may assist it; you may subsidise it in certain circumstances; but you cannot isolate it from the cold and hard wind of international competition. When facing competition you must expect to have maximum efficiency in your management. Mr, Wedgwood Benn talked of nationalisation. It seems to me that in the mind of Mr, Wedgwood Benn nationalisation is a password for continuous subsidisation of losses of an enterprise which its best friend could not say has proven efficient management.
The employment of men is of vital human interest to every noble Lord on every side of the House, but I ask the noble Lord. Lord Greenwood, and other noble Lords this question: is not the employment of shipwrights, of men working on the construction of ships, more secure as regards tenure, more likely to give individual reward to those men, if they are occupied in working in a viable concern where dead wood has been cut away and where efficient management has been introduced? Surely it is in the interests of the men themselves that this thorough reorganisation should be carried forward. Therefore I contradict the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, when he says that Mr. Heath and his Government have not given assistance. I believe that they are giving the correct assistance in the
526
long run in the interests of the men in employment.
4.8 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill and should like to put two very short points which have already been made, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. First, like everybody here this afternoon, I am deeply concerned about the unemployment position so far as concerns the Clyde Shipbuilding works. It is tragic to have thousands of skilled men being put out of work and the degrading and unhappy position that this is going to cause. But I understand that the Government are not really refusing to help in the particular case which seems to be the topic this afternoon—U.C.S.—but what they are saying is that they will examine the company in order to see how this matter can be resolved on a fair basis.
The other point I wanted to make is that we all know that Japan and other competing countries subsidise their shipbuilding industry. Is it possible, when we look into the position of U.C.S. and the whole shipping industry, to examine the ways and means by which these subsidies are given? I am a great believer in private enterprise and competition. I think this is right, and the right way of running our industry, but we cannot expect a company to compete with other countries who are subsidising that particular industry. To me, that is not fair competition. I hope that when we explore the industry in more depth we shall see whether there are ways and means by which we can assist our industry, so that they can compete fairly with foreign yards.
Regarding the particular company which is suffering to-day, U.C.S., I am sure the Government have borne in mind that in our national defence, apart front the humanitarian reasons, it is necessary to maintain a strong shipbuilding industry on the Clyde. I hope that when we discuss this subject next time suggestions will he put forward, not only for getting our industry on an efficient basis but for ways and means by which we can put it in a position to compete fairly with Japan and all the other shipbuilding countries.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene, but I should like to take up one or two points made by the noble Lords. Lord Shinwell and Lord Greenwood of Rossendale. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that the potential of our shipbuilding industry is important for defence, but the naval shipbuilding capacity of U.C.S. was hived off in the Yarrow enterprise and they have been less involved, or involved to practically no extent, in defence in more recent years. The case is very different in scale from Rolls-Royce which was supplying not only the Royal Air Force, but 70 other international air forces, and that was an obligation which simply had to be met if we were to keep our word. So that this is totally different in scale and, so far as I know, U.C.S. is not supplying the navies of 70 other nations.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, seemed to suggest that this malaise of British industry has come about since June 18 last year. That is not the case; I think it has come about after six years of Socialism. I take the view that, with the increasing taxation of company profits—which was supported not by the great body of the Labour Government, but by the Left-Wing of the Labour Government—with the increase in corporation tax from a forecast 37½ per cent. to an eventual 45 per cent., with the increased burden on the distribution of dividends, the levying of S.E.T. and with the reduction of profit margins, making it impossible for all industries to invest in the future as they would wish, we are now reaping the whirlwind which was sown in those years in which the locusts ate, the profits diminished and investment went so sadly down. It was called by the Left-Wing—and openly so—backdoor nationalisation. But it is wrong to put the responsibility on the present Government; this is a process which has gone on for a long time. The noble Baroness prefers to see flat out and obvious nationalisation but, on the whole, I do not think the country would support her view.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: They will.
LORD ORR-EWING: They never have supported that view up to now. When
528
ever the point has been put to them in elections, they have shied away from it in a very robust manner. What is worrying is the manner in which this group was selected for this experiment. I was in the other place when it was discussed, and it was called a great experiment. I agree that to some extent it succeeded in the early years, but it is very unfair to some of the other great shipbuilding undertakings that this group should have priority and preferential treatment, while Cammell Laird, Swan Hunter and others who are making a great contribution to shipbuilding for both home and export should not be so greatly helped. U.C.S. has already been given £20 million in grants and loans, and once you are on that slope when are you going to say, "Stop"? I heard Mr. Wedgwood Benn, poor chap! who seems to be associated with bankruptcies—first, Rolls-Royce, which he did so much to bring about by encouraging them to take on the RB. 211, and now U.C.S.—say this in another place in December, 1969:
"… there is not sufficient priority to justify the investment of further public funds in this enterprise in the face of the many competing demands on national resources."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 2/12/69; col. 1305.]
There it was, hard and fast: "This is the end." I am surprised to see that he does not have a conscience, and that he turned a somersault in another place yesterday and said: "Everything is changed. What I said then does not apply now. It is totally different to-day." What is totally different is that this is not his responsibility; it is someone else's responsibility.
I intervene only to point out that there is another side to this question. But I give this Bill my support, because I think it right that we should advance these sums to the shipbuilding industry. However, we must not think that skilled men are being put out of work. This is giving them an opportunity to reform on a more efficient basis a very essential and live shipbuilding industry on the Upper Clyde, just as Rolls-Royce has been reformed and will be better for it. I believe that, if some of the more enlightened approach by the trade unions since the tragedy that befell Rolls-Royce in February spreads to the trade unions on the Clyde, then in the long run U.C.S. will be better for what is a short-term tragedy. I give support to this Bill.
4.15 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this debate has taken place very much in the shadow of the announcement that was made yesterday by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the U.C.S. application for a liquidator. Everyone has treated this subject with great sympathy and great moderation. it is something which must affect all those who have experience of Scottish affairs. In this connection I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, how much I welcomed his intervention in the debate, in view of the very distinguished contribution that his father made as Regional Port Controller in Scotland during the war. He indeed grew up to understand the problems of the Clyde, and it is inconceivable that there should not be a shipbuilding industry on the Clyde.
I do not want to-day to go into any detail on the problems of U.C.S., and in that I think I am following most of what has been said. But I would endorse what my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing has said: that the way in which this matter is being dealt with could lead—. and we all hope that it will—to the rebirth of something which is going to be really viable on the Upper Clyde. If that is the outcome, then I am sure that none of us will complain, but in the meantime there is obviously going to be a period of great anxiety. I should like to say just this to your Lordships. I feel that we should all like it to be recognised that the anxieties of the Clyde are very widely shared. We should also make it plain that it is our belief, as witness the debate in the House to-day, that this is a matter which, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said, though admittedly with slightly different emphasis, can be solved only by co-operation and co-ordination. Any tendency towards what might be a quite natural violent reaction to the circumstances at the present time could only harm the future of the Clyde itself. So, for practical reasons, I hope very much that, with the same moderation that has been shown in the House to-day, it will be possible to work out some means for reviving shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde and, in the interim, to work out some method of continuing activities there, and certainly for finishing off the jobs that have been started.
LORD HOY: My Lords, when we are talking about co-operation, should we not put on record that during the past twelve months in this shipyard, by the cooperation for which the noble Lord is asking, the labour force has been cut by 25 per cent.; and at the same time output and use of steel has gone up by 87 per cent.?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords. I am glad that the noble Lord has put that on record. What I am pleading for at the present time is a continuance of this co-operation in the difficult circumstances that have arisen. This is not the time to attribute blame to one person, or to one group of people or another: it is a time to concentrate on a satisfactory outcome to the present difficulties.
My Lords, if I may turn from that subject to the Bill that we are debating to-day. I think that we must always start from the proposition that we are, after all, a great trading nation, dependent on the carriage of goods abroad. We have traditionally been a great shipping nation, and we still have a very great stake in the shipping industry. It is of course in our interest in this country that our goods should be carried, brought to us and exported, as efficiently and as economically as possible; and it is for that purpose that the shipowners in this country want to be competitive with shipowners abroad. After all, this is essentially a free trading industry; and while it is quite true that countries have been subsidising their shipbuilding enterprises, there has been, as noble Lords will probably be aware, an ad hoc Working Party of the O.E.C.D. on shipbuilding which includes all the major shipbuilding countries in Western Europe as well as Japan, and the purpose of that Working Party is to seek the progressive reduction and elimination of factors which distort competition, such as Government aids and subsidies.
As was quoted in another place on the Second Reading debate. France, for example, has greatly reduced the subsidy she was giving to shipbuilding. I think she has cut it by three-quarters. Japan has also removed her import duty on ships of over 10,000 tons, and is looking at the credit system that she has with a view to removing the restriction on

531
Japanese ships alone. It is of course true that all major shipbuilding countries support their shipbuilding industry to some degree with a wide variety of aid, the most significant of which are direct construction subsidies and favourable credit schemes. It is a fact that these are gradually being reduced, and it is equally a fact that, despite these subsidies, there are failures in the countries that provide subsidies among those firms that they subsidise. We are certainly not alone in that. But, of course, the purpose of the Geddes objective was not to provide a permanent subsidy to shipbuilding in this country; in fact, the Report expressly disclaimed that as an objective. It was to promote the ability of the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry to compete in world markets.
My Lords, it is perhaps worth mentioning that at the time the Bill was being debated in another place, on March 9, 1967, Mr. Wedgwood Benn then said, while indicating that in his view the job of implementing the Geddes Report was urgent, that the industry must not look forward to aid on a continuing basis. That, of course, does not mean that there should be a withdrawal of the guarantees, the extension of which is provided for in the Bill. Indeed, one might question how far guarantees can really be described as a subsidy. It is a fact that there have been no calls on the guarantors, the Government, because there has as yet been no default so far as the repayments of credits are concerned; and unless, of course, there are such repayments, there is no real subsidy. This is a guarantee of bank lending, which is of course of the very greatest importance. It was because of the difficulty of British shipbuilders in obtaining bank loans that this form of assistance was introduced in the first place, and I think we all agree that this was timely and has in fact enabled a considerable increase of building to take place in this country.
As my noble friend made clear, we have in the course of the last two or three years been in something of a shipbuilding boom, and this, of course, has benefited our order books, which stand pretty high at the present time. It has also
532
meant that contracts which were taken at fixed prices have led to losses, because in a period of inflation such as we are experiencing at the present time the ships which are at present being produced are those that were ordered three, four or five years ago. These are problems that have to be solved. It certainly has reduced liquidity at the present time, and one would not deny for an instant that this is partly responsible for the plight of U.C.S. But, my Lords, the purpose of the Bill is limited to raising the level of the guarantees to £700 million, which it is reckoned is sufficient to cover the shipbuilding starts up to the middle of 1973. Noble Lords will be well aware that what goes on to the order book now may not actually be started for one, two or three years, but the raising of the level to £700 million is estimated to enable credit worthy projects to receive the benefits of the guarantees up to starts in the middle of 1973.
My Lords, I hope those are the points that noble Lords wanted me to deal with. As I said, I do not intend to follow in detail what has been said on U.C.S. I would merely express the confidence that the Government feel in the shipbuilding industry. We believe that, aided by these guarantees, aided also by the very considerable improvements that are being made in productivity at the present time, and aided further by the developments that took place under the 1967 Act in consequence of the Geddes Report, the industry will be able to hold its own in world markets and we look to the future for, at any rate, some recovery. I do not think that we could expect to recover anything like the proportion of world shipbuilding that we used to have, but we look to our shipbuilding industry for some recovery of the proportion of ships that are being ordered at the present time in relation to world demand.
I should like to conclude with one observation. It is not the case that a ship cannot be built without subsidy. We have, if I may mention one firm, an outstanding example of that in Austin Pickersgill of Wearside which has had no benefit at all under the Geddes Act and yet is producing profitably and doing very well.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

NULLITY OF MARRIAGE BILL
4.32 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved. That the Report be now received—(Lord Gardiner.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Grounds on which marriage is void]:
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 16, leave out from ("not") to ("if") in line 18 and insert (", in proceedings instituted after the commencement of this Act, grant a decree of nullity on the ground that a marriage is voidable (whether the marriage took place before or after the commencement of this Act)")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, Nos. 2 and 3. If no noble Lord objects perhaps the three Amendments might be taken together, since they all deal with the same point. Your Lordships will remember that Clause 2 of the Bill deals with voidable marriages, marriages which are valid unless and until there is a petition to annul them. Clause 3 deals with the bars to petitions to annual voidable marriages. I think that it is agreed on all sides that the re-statement of the law in the form of Clause 3 is a substantial improvement. It is not a clause which applies to any existing marriage. At the Committee stage of the Bill the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, moved an Amendment which would have made subsections (1)and(4)applicable to existing marriages. He said that the Bill was a great improvement on the existing law which is far from clear or satisfactory. But as the Bill stands, Clause 3 bites only on those marriages dealt with in Clause 2; that is, marriages which take place after the commencement of the Act. I ventured to submit that there is no reason why these subsections should not apply in all proceedings commenced after the Act, whether or not in relation to marriages before or after the Act, and every reason why they should so operate. He moved accordingly.
I did not see any objection to that but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor opposed it on the grounds with which I should have wholly agreed if the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, had been applicable to the whole of Clause 3; that is, to subsections (1) to (4). I think there was some misunderstanding about that. I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had read it as if it had said "(1), (2) and (4)" and not as it did," (1) and (4)". He was good enough to say that he would reconsider the matter. Having done so, I think the noble and learned Lord has agreed that there is no reason why this proposal should not be made in relation to subsections (1) and (4). Having had the advantage of assistance from the Parliamentary draftsmen, I have put down Amendments in a somewhat different form from those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, but in substance it is accepting his Amendment.
The main purpose is achieved by the first Amendment, which removes the reference to section 2 of the Act, and makes it clear that Clause 3(1) applies in any proceedings instituted after the commencement of the Act in relation to voidable marriage whether celebrated before or after the commencement of the Act. The second Amendment is cones quential, in that it is necessary also to remove the reference to section 2 of the Act from subsection (4) of the clause. The third Amendment ensures that Section 9(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 continues to apply where the marriage took place before the commencement of the Act. In relation to post-Act marriages, Section 9(2) of the 1965 Act is replaced by Clause 3(2) and (3) of the Bill. It will continue to apply to pre-Act marriages notwithstanding the replacement of the old bars of approbation and ratification, lack of sincerity and so on, by the new test in Clause 3(1) which is achieved by this Amendment. If this saving were not specifically provided for, there might be some doubt about it. I hope that the Amendment may be acceptable in this form to both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
LORD SIMON OF GLAISDALE: My Lords, I rise only to thank the noble

535
and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for having met my point fully and far more felicitously than was done in my own Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it only remains for me to confirm what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has said. This Amendment and the two other Amendments in this group have been prepared entirely with my approval by the Parliamentary draftsmen and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having put them down.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("by virtue of section 2 of this Act") and insert ("to which it applies").—(Lord Gardiner.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 40, at end insert (" but, in relation to a marriage which took place before the commencement of this Act, is without prejudice to section 9(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965.").—(Lord Gardiner.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Marriages governed by foreign law or celebrated abroad under English law]:
LORD GARDENER LORD GARDENER moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3., line 4, leave out (" neither section 1 nor section 2 ") and insert (" nothing in section 1, 2 or 3(1)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment may I speak also to Amendment No. 5 which deals with the same point. These Amendments are consequential on my Amendments to Clause 3 and are necessary to prevent the bar of approbation in Clause 3(1) from being applied in a case where the voidability of marriage is determined by an English court under a system of foreign law. As the Bill stands the whole of Clause 3 is related to decrees granted by virtue of Clause 2 and is thus limited to decrees granted under English law. If the Amendments to Clause 3(1) are accepted, the reference to Clause 2 is
536
deleted and the new wording refers only to the grant of a decree of nullity on the ground that the marriage is voidable which would include decrees made under the law of a foreign country which adopted the principle of voidability. It would not be right to import this bar to relief from English domestic law into a case where the validity of the marriage was governed by the law of a foreign country which did not contain any such bar. The general principle in such cases is that the substantive law is taken entirely from the foreign country and only the procedural provisions of English law apply. There is already express provision in Clause 4 which ensures that the grounds for relief are to be determined by foreign law where appropriate and not by Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. These Amendments similarly exclude the bar to relief in Clause 3(1) where the void-ability of the marriage is governed by foreign law. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD SIMON OF GLAISDALE: My Lords, these Amendments seem to me to be necessary in view of the earlier Amendments. May I just add this? On Committee stage I ventured to put down another Amendment to Clause 4 which was linked with an Amendment I had proposed to Clause 1. In the subsequent discussion I was convinced that the problems were very complicated indeed, and although there was a point which merited scrutiny I was satisfied that it would be wrong to prevent the Law Commission from looking at the matters raised in the wider context. I therefore have not sought to renew the point at this stage and I merely welcome the Amendment that the noble and learned Lord has proposed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am again grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for putting down this Amendment, which has the full approval of the Government.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved,
Page 3, line 8, at end insert (" or bar")—(Lord Gardiner.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Collusion etc., not to be bar to relief in cases of nullity or under s. 14 of Act of 1965]:
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 24, leave out (" cease to ") and insert (" not ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 6 of the Bill reads:
"Collusion shall cease to be a bar to the granting of a degree of nullity"—
and so forth. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, put down an Amendment on the Committee stage of the Bill, with a view, he said, mainly to ascertaining whether this clause was intended to have any retrospective effect or whether it was intended to apply from the start of the operation of the measure. As I understand it, the intention throughout was that it should apply to any cases which came before the court after the commencement of the Act, but it did not actually say so. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and I all agreed on Committee stage that consideration should be given to this point in order to make it plainer. The Amendment gives effect to that undertaking and makes the effect of Clause 6(1) clear beyond doubt.
LORD SIMON OF GLAISDALE: My Lords, this seems to me to be a necessary Amendment if the Bill is to do what was intended. Again, there is nothing for me to say except to express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for meeting the point; and, as I meant to do on the earlier Amendments, to extend my thanks to the officials of the Department of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack and the draftsmen who have co-operated with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Again, my Lords, I have nothing more to say except that this Amendment is a useful clarification, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for putting it down.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 25, at end insert (" whether the marriage took place, or the proceedings were instituted, before or after the commencement of this Act.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. I should not like to conclude the Report stage of this Bill without thanking the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for the help he has given to the House over the Bill, which has resulted in two changes in it, both of which I think are improvements.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL OF RIGHTS [H.L.]
4.46 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I wish to begin by expressing a view which I am sure will be endorsed by the whole House: it is that we recognise that there can be no military solution to the situation in Northern Ireland and that we must seek a political solution. We all share the horror of the events in Northern Ireland; we want the soldiers, who have such a difficult task to perform, to come back as soon as they can. I have little doubt that the great mass of the people in Northern Ireland share our attitude on that matter and believe that it is the extremists on both sides— as was indicated last week-end— who cause the difficulties. I do not claim that this Bill provides the solution, but I hope it is a contribution. The eventual settlement must result from a patient and continued process designed to decrease the antagonism which is deep-rooted in history. It must be wide-embracing, social, economic and psychological as well as political. I have endeavoured to express this wide approach in a Motion which I have on the Order Paper. I want now to emphasise that the proposals in this Bill should be regarded as a part of, and inseparable from, this broader approach, but nevertheless necessary to it. If a new climate is to be created a beginning must be made to removing injustices and establishing fundamental freedoms.
My Lords, I recognise the value of the recommendations which were made in the Report of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and of the reforms initiated by Mr. Callaghan, but they are slow in application and the situation in Northern Ireland indicates that they have not had a sufficient impact to change the situation

539
psychologically. They have not brought a new climate of confidence and co-operation. The Bill proposes five directions towards this end: first, that religious discrimination should be made illegal; secondly, that there should be freedom of political discussion; thirdly, that the minority should be allowed equitable representation on public authorities; fourthly, that fundamental human rights should be guaranteed; fifthly, that discussions between North and South should be authorised with a view to co-operation in the common interest.
I deal first with religious discrimination. I do not think that anyone who knows Northern Ireland doubts that it exists. It would be surprising if it were otherwise. One of the blackest volumes in British history has been the discrimination placed on the Catholic community in Ireland. The effect cannot be removed in a day, but I hope that it may be contained by the proposals in this Bill. I recognise that certain valuable steps have been taken. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 forbade legislation which directly or indirectly promoted discrimination. A little more than a year ago the Stormont Government passed an Act making incitement illegal. There has been only one announced prosecution under it, quite recently.
In 1965 the reforms led to the appointment of a Commissioner of Complaints. I have read his recent annual report, which points out two limitations upon his functions. First, he cannot deal with what he somewhat strangely describes as "democratic discrimination"— that is, discrimination practised by local authorities. The Government of Ireland Act forbade legislation but it did not forbid administrative actions, and in the sphere of public bodies it is mostly administration by local authorities which is disturbing. This applies particularly to appointments of staff. Only a minimal number are Catholics. I take the example of County Fermanagh. Until recently at least, there were no Catholics on the staff of that local authority, although there is a marginal Catholic majority in the population..
This also applies to the Judiciary, as indicated by last week's protest, signed by 100 lawyers. who complained of the selection of personnel, not only in legal
540
representation but also in the staffing of the courts, which had the implication that decisions may not always be impartial. The main complaint of discrimination among local authorities has been in regard to housing. I welcome the contribution which has been made by the Commission which is now administering Derry City. It is building its new estates on the basis of need and it is finding that the great majority are Catholics. But little change is taking place in the other areas, despite the recommendation of Stormont that a points system should be adopted. This has been largely ignored by the other responsible local authorities in Northern Ireland..
The second limitation which the Commissioner of Complaints points out in his annual report is that he has no jurisdiction whatsoever in the private sector. This is mostly a matter of employment. Many years have passed since the noble Lord, Lord Brookeborough, Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. said, when he was Minister of Agriculture:
" I would appeal to Loyalists, therefore, wherever possible to employ good Protestant lads and lassies."
But this practice of priority in employing Protestants still applies. I have been reading a survey by Kathleen Boehhinger, an American social scientist, in Fortnight, an independent and moderate review, and in that survey she indicates that in the case of five leading Belfast firms, some employ no Catholics whatsoever, one employs only 5 per cent. of Catholics and another employs only 1.4 per cent., although one-third of the working population of Belfast is Catholic.
The report of the Commissioner of Complaints is very similar (and I have some knowledge of this subject) to the reports of the Race Relations Board a few years ago. He states that one-third of the complaints fall outside his powers. When that complaint was made by our own Race Relations Board, we extended the Act to cover employment and housing. If the Race Relations Act were extended to Ireland and included religious discrimination, which is the worst feature of discrimination, it would remove the restrictions to which the Commissioner of Complaints drew our attention. It would do something more: it would extend the contribution of persuasion and conciliation, which I regard as the most

541
important part of our own Race Relations Act, and that might make a considerable effect on the situation in Northern Ireland to-day.
The second part of this Bill deals with freedom of speech, particularly to advocate the reunion of the whole of Ireland. Advocates of that view to-day in Northern Ireland are too often regarded as disloyal and even as traitors. Even some speeches of Ministers have indicated that. This is not a matter of acts of subversion or riot; it is a matter of the expression of opinion. Indeed, Unionist speakers have argued that discrimination in Northern Ireland is not based on religion but is based on political issues in this sense. I find this advocacy of the reunion of Ireland being outside the pale of loyalty extraordinary in view of the fact that the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 accepted and anticipated the reunion of Ireland. Section 2 began:
"… with a view to the eventual establishment of a Parliament for the whole of Ireland ",
and it authorised the immediate setting up of a United Council of Ireland. I appreciate that this clause was subsequently deleted in the Act of 1922, but it is an impossible situation that those who now urge a return to 1920 should he regarded, because of that advocacy, as subversives. One might take a parallel: before Governments in this country urged that Britain should enter the European Community, those who had urged that limitation of sovereignty might in a parallel sense have been regarded as "disloyal" or as "traitors". That would have applied even to Sir Winston Churchill. My Lords, in my view it is much less likely that those who hold this view will become rebels, resorting to violence, if the right to advocate their views is recognised by specific enactment.
The third proposal in this Bill is that proportional representation should be applied to public bodies in Northern Ireland. Proportional representation is mathematically accurate. It has been criticised on the ground that it is politically unstable, and the experience of France suggests that there is something in that view. I am not arguing that proportional representation should be universally adopted or that it should be applied in Britain: I am arguing that it
542
should be applied in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland. Parliament has applied proportional representation in special circumstances. There is the instance of the colony of Guyana.
This proposal does not set a precedent. It is for the re-introduction of an electoral system which was previously in operation. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 applied it to the whole of Ireland. It remains in the South. When Stormont wished to repeal it, the British Government at first objected and, with some reluctance, gave way. The present system in Northern Ireland is particularly unfair in local elections. I take the example of Derry City. I have read the analysis of Enid Lakeman, who is a specialist in this subject. She points out that there are now 12 Unionists and eight Nationalists. If the representation were proportionate to the vote, it would be exactly the reverse. There would be 12 Nationalists and eight Unionists. I strongly urge on this House that fair representation on public bodies in Northern Ireland would contribute to the acceptance of political methods of progress and decision.
May I say one word to those who belong to the Labour Party, as I do. I hope that their opposition in principle to proportional representation will not mean that they will vote against this Bill. It would still be possible for them, if they so desired, to move the deletion of this clause when the Bill comes, if it does, to Committee stage.
The next clause of my Bill deals with fundamental human rights. The rights which I list reflect the Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations. I am not urging that in the present Emergency there may not have to be some modification of human rights, but under the present law in Northern Ireland these rights can be, and are, denied. There is the Special Powers Act 1924. It is not dependent on a State of Emergency: it is current law. It is alleged that all the rights to which I shall shortly be referring have been denied in practice in Northern Ireland, in circumstances other than that of an Emergency. The regulations of the Special Powers Act are so blatantly a repudiation of elementary human rights

543
that I propose to read a summary which has been provided by a solicitor:

"(1) Arrest without warrant;

(2) Imprisonment without charge or trial, and deny recourse to Habeas Corpus or a court of law;

(3) Enter and search homes without warrant and with force, at any hour of day or night;

(4) Declare a curfew and prohibit meetings, assemblies (including fairs and markets) and processions;

(5) Permit punishment by flogging;

(6) Deny claim to a trial by jury;

(7) Arrest persons it is desired to examine as witnesses, forcibly detain them and compel them to answer questions, under penalties, even if answers may incriminate them;

(8) Do any act involving interference with the rights of private property;

(9) Prevent access of relatives or legal advisers to a person imprisoned without trial;

(10) Prohibit the holding of an inquest after a prisoner's death;

(11) Arrest a person 'who by word of mouth ' spreads false reports or makes false statements;

(12) Prohibit the circulation of any newspaper;

(13) Prohibit the possession of any film or gramophone record;

(14) Arrest a person who does anything ' calculated to be prejudicial to the preservation of peace or maintenance of order in Northern Ireland and not specifically provided for in the regulations '."

Is it any wonder that Mr. Vorster in South Africa has said that he would give up all regulations of apartheid if he could have that last regulation?
I draw the attention of the Minister to this fact. Under subsection (2) of Section 6 of the Government of Ireland Act it is laid down that an Act of Parliament of Northern Ireland shall be subject to an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and "so far as it is repugnant to" the Act of the United Kingdom Parliament shall be void. Is there anyone in this House who can say that that series of denials of liberty is not repugnant to the whole tradition of democratic liberty which exists in this country? It seems to me unbearable that such an Act should be enforceable within the United Kingdom.
The last proposal in my Bill is that discussions should be authorised between Northern and Southern Ireland. Before the events of the last years there was a meeting between the Prime Ministers of North and South, and we all welcomed
544
it as a movement towards conciliation. We must get back to that atmosphere. I am suggesting that this Bill will help. There is a great field of co-operation between Northern and Southern Ireland: their economies are complementary. I hope that such proposal as is made in this Bill may lead to a reconstruction of the Council of Ireland. Who knows but that in time it may lead to the re-united Ireland which the Government of Ireland Act envisaged? This Bill, by Clause 6, would empower discussions.
I come to the last point that I put to the House. This Bill is criticised on the ground that we ought not to interfere with the affairs of Northern Ireland. This country contributes over £ 100 million a year to maintaining the Administration in Northern Ireland. Should we not have a right to have some regard as to how that money is spent, particularly when that Administration, as what I have said indicates, is contrary to the deepest principles which all of us in this country hold? But beyond that, there is Article 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, which says:
"Notwithstanding the establishment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, or anything contained in this Act, the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters and things in Northern Ireland and every part thereof."
"Over all persons". That surely means a particular responsibility of this Parliament for personal liberties anywhere in the United Kingdom. Our belief in democratic toleration and freedom has been the pride of Britain. We shall forfeit any right to that pride if we do not enshrine this principle in every part of the Kingdom. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Brockway.)
5.15 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill, and in doing so I should like to make it plain that, in general, although obviously not in every particular, this is the attitude of the Liberal Party. Perhaps I may take up the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, immediately on the last point he made, and to forestall the criticism that is sometimes made, that it is peculiar for a Party that is in favour of devolution to support the restriction of devolution by legislation in

545
this instance. This, I think, is the result of a misunderstanding. The Liberal Party have always been in favour of the devolution of government to a great degree as a general principle, but we have always held one reservation about it, and that is in the field of civil liberties and human rights. It is often thought—and I suspect is thought by the noble and learned Lord who usually sits on the Woolsack—that an appreciation of the existence of the doctrine of original sin is confined to the Conservative Party. That is not so. The heart of man is wicked, or at least so weak as to have the same effect; power corrupts, and the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. These elementary facts have been known to Liberals as long as they have been known to Conservatives, and I think the last one is probably better known to Liberals than to Conservatives.
We therefore hold that people's liberties should be preserved by units as powerful as possible and as far away as possible from the pressures of locality and personality. Civil liberties should be enforced by the most powerful force that we can find. We think, for instance, that it is a considerable step forward that the United Kingdom have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights; and we look forward to the day when the United Nations itself will have powers in this field. But meanwhile the least that we can do is to ensure that civil rights in any part of the territories for which this Parliament is responsible are reserved to the central United Kingdom Government, or that in any case where they are delegated there is a proper and satisfactory means of appeal to the central authority.
This, I believe, was inherent in the whole concept of the establishment of devolution for Ulster. Alas! through years of neglect this has not been enforced, and as a result it becomes necessary at this time to spell out firmly the responsibilities of the Government of the United Kingdom towards the citizens of Ulster. Indeed, as many of your Lordships will know, many of my colleagues and I would like to see the whole question of human rights and civil liberties spelled out in considerably more detail for the whole of the United Kingdom. But in the absence of any general legislation it is, I believe, right that we should
546
produce special legislation for Ulster, the most troubled part of our Islands.
This Bill really falls into two parts. One part deals with civil rights and liberties—and here it is clear that more needs to be done. Mr. Faulkner said recently that civil liberties is no longer an issue. I do not believe this: it is still a very real issue for a great many people in Ulster. We have just had the first Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned, and it is by no means an encouraging one. It is fairly common ground among informed people of all Parties that there has been gross discrimination over a period of time in Northern Ireland on grounds of religious and political affiliation; and the finding of the Commissioner for Complaints, Mr. Benn, that he has found no such discrimination, is either a sign of the most startling conversion since St. Paul on the road to Damascus, or betrays a fault in the machinery for detecting such discrimination. Indeed, there is such a fault. Mr. Joseph Quigley, writing in the Irish Times of May 22, mentioning a number of the cases which the Commissioner for Compaints had had to deal with, came to the conclusion:
"The Commissioner for Complaints is attempting an impossible task. He is trying to reconcile the views of those who feel they have been mistreated or abused in a discriminatory manner with the views of public bodies in control of local government, education et cetera, who may genuinely believe themselves to be acting in the best interests of the ratepayers (or college or the council)' but whose decisions give rise to allegations of partiality, many of which arc well grounded in fact."
This is what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred to as "democratic discrimination." I merely quote this as one symptom of the reality that civil rights and civil liberties are a continuing problem in Northern Ireland and that we shall not have even the beginning of an approach to the solution of the problems of Ulster until discrimination not only disappears but is seen to have disappeared by the enormous majority of the inhabitants of that territory.
I now turn to proportional representation. Because I am a Liberal, your Lordships will naturally expect me to be in favour of proportional representation for Northern Ireland. But in fact the argument is the other way round. Because proportional representation would so

547
obviously be good for Northern Ireland it bolsters my belief in proportional representation generally. It has often been said in arguments against the introduction of proportional representation in Ulster—and may indeed be said again to-day—that when proportional representation was ended in that province the results of the next Election under the "first past the post" principle were indistinguishable from the results of the last Election under proportional representation. This of course is true, but it is to miss the point. In many situations P.R. will change the representation by numbers of Parties in Parliament, Government or whatever it may happen to be. On other occasions, it will not. What it will do is to change, over a period of time, the nature of the representation within those Parties.
I can see four definite advantages to Northern Ireland. First, responsible men and women elected by the people could concentrate on their constructive work instead of having to extend half their energies on controlling a local nominating caucus, which is often in a state of almost permanent revolt. I only wish we had the noble Lord. Lord O'Neill of the Maine, to comment on that point. Secondly. moderate Unionists and Nationalists could choose among the candidates of their own Party, eschewing the extremists and supporting moderates without splitting their party vote.
Thirdly, minorities would have a fair representation. I recognise this might include some extremists, but an extremist elected under his own colours is much less dangerous than an extremist manipulating and infecting a larger and basically more moderate Party. Moreover, it is high time that non-sectarian minorities, like the Labour Party and the Liberal Party, were given a chance to mitigate the perilous polarisation of Northern Ireland politics. Fourthly. within all Parties nominations across religious lines would become much easier. In any foreseeable future, the great majority of Unionists will be Protestants and of Nationalists will he Catholics. But who can doubt that all the people of Northern Ireland would benefit by lessening the identification of political with sectarian divisions which does so much to poison public life?
548
Proportional representation would also break up the intense and dangerous solidarity of various areas. I believe that in the 1920s the councillors from the Falls Road Ward always included a Unionist, and those from the Shankill Ward a Republican. Most of the other stable democracies of Europe have forms of proportional representation. It exists and works well in, for instance, Sweden, Denmark and Norway; in the Netherlands, where religious divisions are a serious problem; in Switzerland, and of course in the Irish Republic. Those who fear that instability comes with proportional representation should reflect that the Swedes have had the same Party in power since 1932, which admittedly may seem a rather short time to those people whose minds are still fixed on 1690. Proportional representation has in the past been imposed by English Governments on territories with not dissimilar problems to those in Northern Ireland. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, should fall into the error of thinking that France ever had a proportional representation system. It never has. It has had a mixed up, bastardised version which never works.
It was said at the time of the abolition of proportional representation in Ulster that the reason for its abolition was the dangerous splintering of the Opposition Parties. I think the true reason was one given by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, when he said.
" At Election times the people do not really understand what danger may result if they make a mistake when it comes to third, fourth, fifth and sixth preferences. By an actual mistake they might wake up to find Northern Ireland in the perilous position of being submerged in a Dublin Parliament."
I must confess that this takes a view of the intelligence of the average citizen of Northern Ireland which is as lamentable as I believe it is unjustified.
My Lords, the solution of the problems of Northern Ireland is probably a very long way off. It takes as long to get out of a mess as it takes to get in it. I believe that this is one of the great truths of politics. The nature of the solution is still uncertain. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, gave some hint that he saw it finally in a united Ireland. I speak personally when I say that I see some solution within a federal Europe.

549
It is common ground that we do not know what the solution will be. What we have to provide is a framework whereby the people in Northern Ireland can settle down over a long period in peace, and eventually in harmony—because the two will not come simultaneously. We need peace first, and then we shall work towards the harmony. The solution is in their hands, and I am not suggesting for a moment that we shall take it out of them. In many ways I favour more devolution for Ulster, particularly in financial matters. But it is up to us at Westminster, relatively free from the poisons of the immediate situation, to provide a framework within which the people can work out their destiny. I believe that this Bill represents one of the ways in which this can be done, and that is the reason why I support it.
5.28 p.m.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not think that if this Bill were to become law it would do very much to improve conditions in Northern Ireland. I do not, however, intend this evening to deal with the main part of the Bill, and I shall deal only with those clauses which refer to proportional representation. I am perhaps the only Member in this House who has undergone two Elections as a candidate under proportional representation. In the 1920s, proportional representation was very much a question, and I remember being a member of a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of which Speaker Lowther of the House of Commons was the Chairman. That Committee recommended proportional representation for a certain number of the larger boroughs of this country. However, nothing ever came of it. That was just when the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was coming into force. As has already been stated, proportional representation was fixed upon as the proper way of holding Elections, in both the North and the South of Ireland.
The County I represented was Antrim, and under proportional representation it returned seven Members. The Unionists were pretty sure they could carry six, and they ran only six Members. The instructions given to the voters were, "Vote for the six; the whole six, and nothing but the six, in any order you like". In the result, the six Unionists Members were
550
returned. The ballot papers showed a remarkable ability on the part of the voters to mark their preferences properly. There were very few mistakes; the preferences were very clearly marked. I think that in nearly all the constituencies one or two Members got their quotas at the first count and were elected, and the rest came in as the votes were transferred. That is how it worked, and on the whole it worked well.
The way in which elections were dealt with by the candidates when there were six candidates all for the same constituency was that in the larger towns all the six Unionist candidates used to attend the meetings, possibly not all at the same time, but they came and went from the villages. On the whole, proportional representation certainly worked satisfactorily in those first Elections for the Ulster House of Commons. Of course, its disadvantages were that it meant such large constituencies; and one difficulty was: what part of the constituency was any one Member specially to look after? However, on the whole that difficulty was sorted out, and the system, as I say, worked quite well. I see no reason why it should not work all right today if it were brought in again. It certainly would improve to a small extent minority representation, which is what all sensible people would like to see. I am afraid that I cannot vote for the noble Lord's Bill but, so far as the clauses dealing with proportional representation are concerned, I see no objection to them.
5.34 p.m.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, with the present position in Northern Ireland, I always think that we must take great care what we say and how we say it at Westminster, because I know from experience that the most insignificant remarks made here become banner headlines in Belfast and in Dublin. When I was Minister at the Home Office I had a good deal to do with the problems in Northern Ireland and visited there once or twice—once as a guest, at Stormont House, of the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, and Lady O'Neill. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not here this afternoon. I think I was the first Government Minister officially ever to visit the predominantly Catholic town of Newry, which stands just inside the Border, and where, incidentally, when I visited it in 1965,

551
the unemployment position was absolutely appalling—greater than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Since I was at the Home Office I have again visited Northern Ireland, and on the last occasion it was to address the annual conference of a political Party.
On my first visit I was unprepared for the impact of conditions there. The sectarian bitterness and hatred that we here in Britain knew 300 and 400 years ago still exists in Northern Ireland to-day. But it is a mistake to suppose that all the problems in Northern Ireland are religious ones. There are severe economic and social problems. For years poverty and unemployment were much more serious there than in any other part of the United Kingdom. There was a widespread belief that housing and jobs were allocated according to religion. My noble friend Lord Brockway says he feels that that is still so to-day. That there were grievances and lack of civil rights was admitted by the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, when he resigned from being Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. The Labour Government throughout the whole of the period from 1964 to 1970 urged the Stormont Government to rectify these grievances. I was myself present at several of the Downing Street meetings when my right honourable friend Mr. Harold Wilson, then Prime Minister, stressed the very great importance of reforms in Northern Ireland.
My noble friend Lord Brockway said that he hoped that some Members on this side of the House who might oppose his Bill would not do so because we thought we ought not to interfere in the affairs of Northern Ireland. The Labour Government did interfere in the affairs of Northern Ireland and pressed the Northern Ireland Government to bring about some of the reforms which have come about.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not express myself clearly. My appeal to those on this side of the House was not on the matter of noninterference in Northern Ireland; it was on the issue of proportional representation.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, I am coming to that in a moment. I took a note of what my noble friend said, and
552
I think that when he reads his speech he will find that he in fact dealt with the two matters he has just mentioned. But progress in reform has been slow in Northern Ireland. Had Stormont rectified the grievances sooner, then the situation we have to-day might have been avoided. But this is all water, or perhaps I should say blood, under the bridge.
Eventually, in 1969, after the trouble had begun there was the declaration from Downing Street, as between Mr. Harold Wilson and the Government here, on one side, and Mr. Chichester-Clark, on the other, that new laws would be passed. But these came too late to stop the trouble and, as my noble friend has said, the reforms which have been passed as Acts of Parliament in Northern Ireland have not yet filtered down into the lives of the people there. I was very saddened indeed by the remark of one man whom I have known for many years. He is a very intelligent man, and a very peaceful man in Northern Ireland. He and his friends campaigned for years for full civil rights for all the people in Northern Ireland. On my last visit he said to me that he felt that more had been accomplished in a few months by direct action than they had succeeded in doing in years of constitutional and democratic action. That saddened me very much because I think this is a sad commentary on what happened in Northern Ireland. But the wild people took over and exploited the situation, and the troublemakers to-day have little in common with those who fought to rectify the genuine grievances.
I think we must look at this Bill in the context of the position in Northern Ireland at the present time. The Bill contains a number of important proposals for changing the Constitution of Northern Ireland. Some of these, looked at individually, have a great deal to commend them. There are others about which I have a few doubts. Mention has been made of proportional representation. As has been said, proportional representation was included in the 1921 Government of Ireland Act and it was left open for both Belfast and Dublin to change this if they wished to do so. Until 1929 elections in Ulster were held on the basis of proportional representation, after which this was changed. In general, I do not like proportional representation, but my noble

553
friend will be surprised when he hears me say that I believe there is a case for examination as to whether or not it is right in the very special circumstances of Northern Ireland.
Here we have a two-Party system and whatever Government arc in power we have a strong Opposition. In Northern Ireland there is no two-Party system, no strong Opposition, and I was pleased to hear the noble Lord who has just spoken from the opposite Benches express the opinion that it would be a good thing if there were some stronger opposition in the Stormont Parliament, and of course in the local authorities.
Mention has been made during this debate, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, of the position of the Nationalist and Republican Parties. There is of course another Party in Northern Ireland other than the Unionist Party and the Nationalist Party. I refer to the Northern Ireland Labour Party—not the new Social Democratic and Labour Party, but the Northern Ireland Labour Party. There is also the position in Northern Ireland, as anybody who knows anything about Northern Ireland will realise, that the Protestant working class, who in this country would vote Labour, there vote Unionist, first for religious reasons, and secondly because they believe that that is the only way for Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom. On the other hand, the Catholic working class, who also would probably vote Labour in this country, in Northern Ireland vote for one of the Nationalist or Republican Parties, again for religious and other than economic and unemployment reasons. In those circumstances, I believe that there is a case for looking at proportional representation in Northern Ireland, and that the Government at Stormont would be all the better for some stronger Opposition.
One of the more minor things in the Bill refers to the waving of flags of friendly countries. In itself this looks quite reasonable. I must say that I would not oppose my noble friend's Bill for this reason alone; but I believe there has been far too much flag waving in Northern Ireland, both green, orange, and red, white and blue. In Northern Ireland flags are not waved on joyous occasions but as provocation, and this is done by both sides in Northern Ireland.
554
My noble friend has given great thought to this Bill, and I agree with every word he has said in detestation of the things he has quoted. The proposals in the Bill are arguable and I think a good many of them would give rise to interesting debates on the Committee stage. But do we want to argue them now and in a Private Member's Bill? At the present time the Royal Commission on the Constitution—the Crowther Commission, which have not yet been mentioned—are considering the constitutional problems of Northern Ireland. There is a rumour—and these rumours sometimes emerge from Commissions—that the Commission are about to come down in favour of proportional representation. I do not know, but we do know that at this very moment the Crowther Commission are considering the whole of the Constitution of Northern Ireland.
In a debate in the other place on April 6 of this year my right honourable friend Mr. Harold Wilson made the suggestion that when the Crowther Report is published there should be a conference of all political Parties, both here and in Northern Ireland, to consider the proposals; and in that debate on April 6, in column 282 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place my right honourable friend said—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry, but I was not sure whether my noble friend was about to quote from a speech made by her right honourable friend in this Session, in which case I think I am right in saying that she would be out of order.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I am not yet used to all the rules of this House. I have in fact paraphrased what my right honourable friend said, although I was in fact going on to quote what he said. However I will now paraphrase. My right honourable friend said that in his view it would be a very good thing if this conference were held after the Crowther Commission had reported, so that all points of view could be put. I hope my noble friend will not press this Bill to a Division because it seems to me that if there are to be constitutional changes—and many of us would like to see them—it would be better to wait for the Report of the Crowther Commission

555
and then proceed in the way in which my right honourable friend Mr. Harold Wilson has suggested.
I should like to ask some questions of the noble Lord who is to reply on behalf of the Government. First, when are we to get the Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution, particularly as it affects Northern Ireland? Will this be in time for the local elections which are going to be run on new local government boundaries in Northern Ireland? In my view, this is very important and we should know the particular timetable. As I have said, many of us feel that there should be constitutional changes; but as my noble friend said, we know that these alone cannot restore law and order. We also have to tackle the problems of the economy and of unemployment in Northern Ireland. Above all, there must be a change of attitude among the people of Northern Ireland, with more tolerance and understanding. I think that Northern Ireland has been bedevilled by extremists on both sides, and it is time that the moderate people made their voices heard.
I have been very saddened to learn what has been happening among the children in Northern Ireland. They have been taught to hate each other. While I agree with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend, I feel I could not support this Bill but would rather rest on the statement made in another place by my right honourable friend Mr. Harold Wilson.
5.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, nobody for one moment will doubt, or has doubted, the sincerity and goodwill and the good faith of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—nor would I. This makes it all the more puzzling to me to understand how he has achieved the feat of producing a Bill which I believe to be almost entirely mischievous and, to a great extent, dangerous.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, thinks he is absolutely right in supporting the Bill; and I noted with a certain—perhaps I should not say "incredulity" but interested surprise admire both, that he believes that the whole of the Liberal Party agrees with him. That may well be so. I should not be a bit surprised at anything the Liberal
556
Party agreed with. But I greatly the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and agree very much with what they said in the course of their speeches as preliminaries to the Bill. Many thoughtful points of view were expressed and many sound statements made, particularly, if I may say so, by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway.
But how does this Bill arise as a conclusion of the terms they have set forth? I cannot see how it can be done. May I skim quickly through some parts of the Bill. It begins in its Long Title with the claim that it intends
."…to make… provisions for equating the civil rights of citizens of Northern Ireland with those of other citizens of the United Kingdom …"
and then it goes on straightaway in Clause 1 to do exactly the opposite. In Clause 1(2) it makes it unlawful in Northern Ireland but not unlawful in the rest of the United Kingdom, to discriminate in religious matters. That may not matter; it may be argued that religious discrimination is not a trouble in England and Scotland and Wales. But it will be found that under the Race Relations Act—in Section 3(1)(a), if anybody is interested—it will become unlawful for anybody in Northern Ireland to refuse to employ a school teacher, for example, in a Roman Catholic school, solely on the ground that he is, say, a Presbyterian or Hindu. In fact it will be necessary to amend the Race Relations Act not only as regards Section 1 but also Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 as well. I should not be at all surprised if a great deal of the rest of the Act required amendment as well.
I simply do not understand Clause 2, because it says:
" It shall not be an offence in Northern Ireland to… work in accordance with the law…"
for certain purposes; and in subsection (4)
" It shall not be unlawful in Northern Ireland… to work within the law for the propagation of Republican opinions."
The idea that it can be unlawful to work within the law is, I confess, something of a novelty to me; I do not understand what this clause is supposed to represent at all.

557
Clause 3 is the shortest of all the clauses, and perhaps it epitomises to a certain extent the whole content of the rest of the Bill. It says:
" It shall not be an offence within Northern Ireland to display the flags or emblems of countries in friendly relations with Her Majesty."
That is splendid. One of the countries in friendly relations with Her Majesty is obviously the Republic of Ireland, and as your Lordships know, the flag of the Republic of Ireland is a tricolour of green, white and orange. Your Lordships know also, no doubt, that the green represents, roughly speaking, the South, and the orange, roughly speaking, the North.
These are words that were spoken when this flag was first introduced and presented and brought into use:
" The white in the centre signifies the lasting truce between the orange and the green, and I trust beneath its folds the hands of the Irish Protestant and the Irish Catholic may be clasped in generous brotherhood."
An admirable and splendid dream—and "dream" is one of the words that is associated with flags. The flags of nations are not composed solely of bunting; they are made of dreams and history and blood. This flag is no exception, and it is dangerous to tamper with the history of flags. Those words I have quoted: by whom and when do your Lordships suppose they were spoken? They were spoken by a gentleman called Thomas Francis Meagher when he was presenting the flag to the Young Irelanders in 1848. Young Ireland was a body that existed for the sole purpose of securing the repeal of the Union; so the early and original symbolism of this flag, in spite of its pious aspirations, is hardly one to commend itself to the Unionists of today; and since then in those Unionists' eyes the symbolism has undergone a certain change.
That flag is now the flag of the Republic of Ireland, and the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland actually states that the powers of the Government of Ireland extend over the whole of the 32 counties of the Island of Ireland, but temporarily, until re-integration may take place, that legislation does not run within the six counties of the North. This flag, therefore, states for all to read who can understand that the six counties of the
558
North are a part of the whole country that is governed from Dublin. That is the symbolism that is visible when you stand and look at the flag from the North, from the point of view of the Unionist, and that is the flag that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, wishes to legalise, as provocation, which it unquestionably is, rightly or wrongly, in the hands of certain ill-disposed people. What will flow from it is this: if it is legal to fly that flag, it is illegal for somebody else to pull it down. How long shall we have to wait before the spectacle arises of policemen or troops using force to prevent that flag being pulled down by an enraged crowd? This clause will produce that situation, of British troops fighting to keep the flag, of the Irish Republic flying in the North of Ireland. It only needs a little imagination to see that that is bound to happen. I am very much surprised that any noble Lord should put forward such an idea without using the modicum of imagination necessary to look forward and see that that is bound to be the result.
Clause 4 deals with proportional representation. The greater part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, was made on this aspect, and almost the whole of the speech of my noble friend Lord Rathcavan. I have nothing to say about it. I am personally rather inclined to be in favour of proportional representation. But it has no place in this Bill, which is supposed to be a Bill of Rights. Proportional representation is not a human right. The right involved here is the right to representation in Parliament. Proportional representation is one of the many methods which can be used to secure that representation. There is nothing in this Bill which belongs in a Bill of Rights.
Let me turn to the next clause, Clause 5, which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said deals with fundamental human rights. It does, but not in any sense that would qualify any of these provisions for inclusion in a Bill of Human Rights. It introduces no new rights. It lays down no rights; it protects no rights. It merely transfers the authority indicated under this heading from the Government in Stormont to the Government in West-minister. In doing that it has this effect: that it discredits the Northern Ireland Government by implying, first, that they are likely to resort to unjust and

559
oppressive measures; and, secondly, it implies that they are not to be trusted with the responsibility for the maintenance of law and order within their own borders. In its totality, this clause represents a long stride towards direct rule. There is no question of that; it does, and it is intended to. Direct rule is something that is ardently desired by one group of persons, the Irish Republican Army. and nobody else on earth. Nobody here wants it. Nobody in Northern Ireland wants it but the hard core of unscrupulous, murdering gunmen. That is the intermediate step which leads to the total breakdown of law and order in Northern Ireland, which the I.R.A. and nobody else is trying to achieve; that is the end to which Clause 5 will work.
Clause 6 is totally admirable, though it has nothing whatever to do with human rights. The idea is splendid, but I submit that there is no reason whatever why it should be included in any Bill. It is the greatest possible mistake to try to deal with this kind of matter of co-operation between Parliaments in an Act of Parliament. Of one thing I am sure: that is, that the relations between Great Britain, and England in particular, and Ireland have been bedevilled for centuries by one particular recurring source of trouble; namely, the passing of ill-considered and dangerous Acts by Parliament at West-minister. It is a long time since we have had any such Bills brought here and passed. My Lords, I do not think your Lordships will pass one now.
6.1 p.m.
THE EARL OF ENNISKILLEN: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene in the debate, but I should like to add a few words in support of some of the previous speakers. First of all, the mover of the Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred to a new climate to be created. This is the real kernel of the future in Ireland, and we appreciate this. But every time we have a debate on the problems of Northern Ireland, it seems to me that we are doing what we so often criticise the Irish for doing— we never get out of the hog. We continue to talk about what has happened in the past, and give no encouragement to what is going on at the moment. I do not believe that this Bill in itself—I do not want to go into detail, which would
560
be far better done in Committee; that is, if the Bill goes to Committee—is going to create a new climate. I think it will only exacerbate a situation already, to coin a phrase, "sufficiently dicey". I do not think it is going to help the forces of law and order in Northern Ireland today to tinker further with the powers already devolved upon the authorities in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that there has been sufficient time for these things to get through.
Every morning one wakes up to read in the paper, or hear on the wireless—and your Lordships must be as bored with this as we all are in Northern Ireland—" Bang! ", there goes another store; "Bang!", there goes a customs post. Soldiers, policemen and civilians are shot. Of course nobody in Northern Ireland wants to live in that sort of situation, but it is not being brought about by the people of Northern Ireland, or the people of Southern Ireland; it is being brought about by people with extremist minority viewpoints.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question? If he has read the papers during the last day or two he will realise that the British troops are being attacked by Orangemen, who persisted in making their demonstration in a Catholic area in defiance of their own Prime Minister.
THE EARL OF ENNISKILLEN: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his interjection. When I talked of extremists, I am sorry if my words were taken to mean that I was talking only of one section. There are stupid people in every country in the world. It is intolerable that people who profess their allegiance to Her Majesty should in any way exacerbate the situation of their Government, or of their soldiers who are there for the specific purpose of enabling a better climate to prevail. I heartily agree with the noble Earl's intervention.
I was talking about trying to create a new climate. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, also touched on this point by saying that first of all you need peace. This is what we all believe. How are we going to get peace? How are we going to stop these hit-and-run bombers? That is what we have to concentrate on at the moment. I believe that the legislation on the Statute Book

561
and now being introduced is sufficient at the present moment, and that the introduction at this time of extra legislation—and mention has already been made of the Crowther Commission—would be a mistake in timing.
I agree with much of the sentiment that was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. There is not a human being of Northern or Southern Ireland, England, Scotland or Wales, or in any part of the British Empire, who does not want to see peace where they live. But there arc some human beings who like to destroy peace, and I believe that at the moment that is what we are up against.
The other point I wish to make is to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon. I agree with all that she said. I think that she put the situation better than I can, and in good perspective. I believe that we must try to concentrate on restoring the peace—and I do not think this Bill is the way to do it—and improving the employment situation in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. That will absorb the people and not leave them in the destitute state of unemployment, which is the worst possible factor.
6.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, like the last speaker I was not in a position to put my name down on the list, and in the circumstances it would not he appropriate to attempt a long and detailed argument. In any event, the case for the Bill has been put so strongly and fully by my noble friend Lord Brockway that that is hardly necessary. We have been admonished by the noble Earl who spoke just now, and whom we followed with close attention, and by my noble friend Lady Bacon, with whom I nearly always agree, and have been warned against the dangers of speaking unguardedly on Northern Ireland, or of speaking before the appropriate moment. I am afraid that some of us who have been in this House a good many years feel distinctly guilty in not having spoken on this matter many years ago. For literally 50 years—the 50 years of Ulster is being celebrated, wisely or not, this year—the two Houses of Parliament in this country have kept quiet. We in this country have totally failed (and I think this point can be made more forcibly
562
against people of Irish blood than against anybody) for 50 years, in both Houses of Parliament, to do our duty, bearing in mind our overall constitutional responsibility for all that goes on in Northern Ireland.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, I know that my noble friend would not like to misquote me. I do not think I said that we should not speak about Northern Ireland, or that we should not speak too soon. I said that I thought this legislation should not be passed until we had had the Report of the Crowther Commission. I am one who has spoken out about Northern Ireland both in this country and in Northern Ireland.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sorry if I seemed to misinterpret my noble friend. I did not in fact wish to say anything different from what she has just told us. She did warn us that we must be very careful in all that we said. I think that we in this country, in the two Houses of Parliament, have been too careful in the last 50 years. We have been so frightened of saying anything that in fact, with very few exceptions, we have said nothing. For 50 years this discrimination, which is now accepted by all to have been a fact, has gone on against the minority in Northern Ireland—to the great shame of this country. That is simply a fact. If it upsets somebody or some people in Northern Ireland, I am afraid that they must put up with it. It is a pity that it was not said many times in the course of the last 50 years.
I listened with great attention to the noble Earl, Lord Enniskillen, who bears an honoured name in Northern Ireland, but I am afraid that I cannot agree that this matter can be discussed without any reference to the past. Whether you take the I.R.A. or the Orange gentlemen he was very rightly and properly condemning just now, who were attacking the British troops a day or two ago, they are all products of the past. They are not worse, as human beings, than other people. It is not that the Protestants—and I once was a Protestant—of Northern Ireland would normally behave worse towards Catholics than the Protestants of anywhere else; nor is it that the Catholics would behave worse to the Protestants, if they had the opportunity—though the

563
Catholics are, of course, the weaker party. It is simply the historical conditions that have produced this tragic situation, which now, many years too late—though there may still be time—we in this country are beginning to try to improve. So I believe that we have to discuss the past, although we never discuss the question of Northern Ireland at all.
I am not going to speak for more than a moment or two, but I must say this much. When we speak of this discrimination, which is unlike anything in Southern Ireland, in Scotland, in Wales or in England, we are bound to ask how it can have come about. It has not happened in this island; it has not happened in the rest of Ireland. It could not have happened if, whether for good or ill, the Six Counties had been part of Great Britain. It would not have been tolerated here: Parliament would have stopped it. It could not have happened if the Six Counties had been part of a united Ireland: it would have been stopped by the opinion of the great majority of the people. It is very unlikely that it could have happened if the Six Counties had been a foreign country, because the matter would have been taken to the United Nations. But, as matters stand, this discrimination has continued because the dominant forces in Stormont were allowed to conduct it under the protection of the United Kingdom. That is a historic fact, and I am not going to say any more about it now, except that the moment has surely arrived when action must be taken.
People say, "Wait for the Crowther Commission." We are always told to wait for something. When the Crowther Commission report—and good luck to them!—there will probably be provision for further study, as there usually is after a Royal Commission; and there will then be another year or two. So we shall sit here and have a discussion, very much of this character, with the same sort of conclusion tentatively suggested. I am afraid that I personally, and I think many other people here, take the view that we have waited too long, and I hope that this matter will not be allowed to wait any longer. In my time I have belonged to more than one great Party, the Conservatives and the Labour Party, but I have never belonged to the Liberal Party. But if the Liberal Party are to-day giving
564
a lead, then I believe that, with the permission of my noble Leader, who has said that it will be a free vote, I shall be proud to follow my noble friend Lord Brockway and the historic Liberal Party.
6.13 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I shall speak only very briefly, but I feel it is important that I should put on record my own personal views and give such advice as I usefully can to any of my noble friends or any other noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Longford has indicated that he will attempt to support this Bill in the Lobby, and I think he said that he has my permission to do so. But I must stress that he does not need my permission. I assure him that I have always taken a very strong view that Private Bills—and I certainly give this assurance to my noble friend Lord Brockway—must be decided on a free vote. None the less, that does not deprive me of my right, or indeed my duty, to express my views on the Bill.
First of all, I must say to my noble friend Lord Brockway that no one has a better right than he to produce a Bill of this kind. No one has had a more passionate record in defence of individual freedom than he has, and he speaks moderately even when he speaks forcefully. But it is very important to look at the consequences of this Bill. We ought not to deceive ourselves, because the House of Lords is such a reasonable place and there are such reasonable people here, and because the Irish behave so well here—whether it is the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, my noble friend Lord Longford or even myself. We are in some way trained to face and solve our problems in this House in a way which bears no relation to the situation that exists in Northern Ireland, and has existed for so long. Because I take the advice of my noble friend Lady Bacon, I propose to say as little as possible in the way of passing judgment on events in Northern Ireland. I happen to agree with her that unwise words expressed here sometimes give rise to great trouble for those who are having to face much greater hardships and dangers than we in this House.
My noble friend Lord Longford said that it is our duty to speak out, and I fully acknowledge that we did not take

565
action very much sooner, as we should have done. I have known the situation in Northern Ireland and I confess that I had not fully appreciated the seriousness of it. But I must say to my noble friend Lord Longford, when he demands that action should be taken, that action has been taken, and much of the action was taken by the Government of which he was a member, whether he was still in the Government then or whether subsequently. But a great deal of action was taken. It is a common error of mankind always to assume, even when action has been taken, that somehow no action has been taken. I would certainly not suggest that anybody on this side of the House should oppose this Bill simply on the grounds of its provision for proportional representation. I do not propose to express any final judgment on that, but I know that there are powerful views held in the Republic of Ireland to the effect that they ought to get rid of proportional representation, and this matter has certainly been raised a couple of times in the last few years.
I fully acknowledge that the Northern Ireland situation is very much sui generis, and I was interested to learn in the very moderate and statesmanlike speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, that we have not shut our minds to proportional representation. On the other hand, I would not follow the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, an inch further at the moment. He certainly managed to extract additional arguments in favour. He took us to Sweden; but Sweden has a very different Constitution and a system of administrative law, and I think I would go no further. But I would say to my noble friend Lord Brockway that I would not reject this Bill simply on those grounds. As he said, this is a matter which could be discussed in Committee. My noble friend Lady Bacon pointed out from her own more recent experience in Northern Ireland the painful fact that people tend to vote according to their religious beliefs. It is for that reason that the Northern Ireland Labour Party, which is a non-sectarian Party composed of people of all beliefs, has been handicapped. We should all welcome a situation in Northern Ireland where there was the same sort of political set-up as we have here, but it is sheer wishful thinking at this moment to believe that this Bill is going to bring about that sort of situation.
566
I would disagree with only one point made by my noble friend Lady Bacon. While noting the importance of the Crowther Report, I would do nothing at this moment—and I should like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on this point—which would provide an excuse for not bringing about the new boundaries for local government. I also hope that Crowther will not be used as an excuse simply on the grounds that one ought to have proportional representation. It is very important that the reforms which are in the pipeline should begin to bite, should come down and should be visible to the citizen.
My Lords, I do not propose to discuss the Bill in detail. A number of noble Lords, such as the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, have pointed out the possible weaknesses in the Bill, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, may wish to comment similarly. But even if the Bill was an impeccable Bill I would still not support it at this moment, and I will give my reasons. The dangers to Northern Ireland are too great for us to indulge in the type of political manoeuvring—and I am not accusing the noble Lord—with which we are familiar. It is possible for us in certain areas to pursue policies and say, "Well, the consequences may be bad," or, "they may not be bad". But I agree entirely with the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, that if this Bill were to pass into law the result would be direct rule from Westminster; and I say to my noble friend, who is so deeply concerned for peace and the avoidance of bloodshed, that it is my opinion that to give this Bill a Second Reading would not add to the safety of people in Northern Ireland, even if everything in it were in fact justified.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, quoted a number of political aphorisms, axioms with which I do not disagree, but I should like to add another one: that we are also responsible, or ought to be, for the consequences of the action we take. And I believe that carrying this Bill through and giving it a Committee stage, even though we know it cannot possibly pass into law (which is a practice we have in this House, to give things "a run"), will not contribute to the welfare of the people in Northern Ireland. Though I do not wish to bring

567
the Common Market into it, I happen also to share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. that possibly a more united Europe may in the end make a bigger contribution to solving the problems of Northern Ireland than anything that we in the United Kingdom Parliament can do at this moment. Therefore, I am bound to say that although it is a free vote, I feel this is a matter of such importance that it is not something on which I should stand aside, and if my noble friend decides after this excellent debate to press the Second Reading to a Division I will certainly vote against it. I do not regard this in terms of Party loyalty. This is not a Party issue: and I would certainly advise my noble friends to ponder the consequences of their actions if they in fact decide to support my noble friend Lord Brockway.
6.24 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. says, this has been an excellent debate, and a timely one in that it takes place within a week of the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the first Parliament at Stormont. It is appropriate, too, I think, that it has been initiated by the noble Lord. Lord Brockway. We might recall that the noble Lord was already active, and indeed conspicuous. in public life at the time that Northern Ireland achieved its separate existence as a result of the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Although I think I am right in saying that his main campaigns at the time were on the subjects of India and prison reform, his underlying concern with individual human liberties and civil rights is something that has never left him.
But having said that, my Lords, the noble Lord would not, I think, be the only one in the House who would be surprised if I were able to go further and welcome this Bill. I am afraid that I cannot do that, although I will say that it has the merit of consistency with the previous attempts of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, to legislate in this field. Ten years ago, in 1961, the noble Lord introduced a Bill when he was a Member of another place—he will remember it—to
" make it an offence to discriminate to the detriment of any person on the grounds of colour, race or religion in the United Kingdom. and to incite publicly contempt or hatred of
568
any person or persons because of their colour, race or religion ".
A similar measure was introduced in your Lordships' House by Lord Walston in 1962, and in the following year the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, tried again in another place. None of these Bills succeeded but in 1965 the noble Lord had the satisfaction of seeing the first Race Relations Act, to which he had contributed so much, reach the Statute Book. This Act was confined, however, to the problems of racial discrimination, and excluded any questions of religious discrimination. Furthermore, it did not extend to Northern Ireland. the Stormont Government having asked for Northern Ireland to be excluded from the Bill's provisions. When he spoke in another place on Second Reading, the then Home Secretary, Sir Frank Soskice, now the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said:
"…the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. There is a clear reason for this. It is a well-recognised constitutional convention that Parliament at Westminster does not legislate in respect of matters within the competence of the Parliament at Stormont except at the request and with the agreement of the Government of Northern Ireland."—[OFFIDAL REPORT, Commons, 3/5/65, col. 941.]
Next came the Race Relations Act 1968, making it unlawful to discriminate on grounds of colour, race, ethnic or national origin in the provision of goods, facilities or services. The Act also had provisions concerning employment, housing and accommodation. But, again, this Statute was limited to discrimination on racial, and not religious, grounds. For the same reasons as the earlier Act, it did not extend to Northern Ireland. It is this Act, the Race Relations Act of 1968, which the noble Lord's Bill before us today would apply to Northern Ireland, and extend it so that it applied to religious discrimination there, although not in the rest of the United Kingdom.
My Lords, I rehearse this brief history of the noble Lord's activities in this field over the last ten years because nobody can argue that he has not been consistent in his approach. It has remained constant. But during this time, and particularly during the last two or three years, the situation as regards civil liberties in Northern Ireland has been changing. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has just been speaking about the progress which has been made as a result of the initiatives taken some two or three years ago by the

569
Administration of which he was a member.
References have been made to the reform programme, and 1 think we might take this opportunity to acknowledge the particular concern of the present Prime Minister, Mr. Brian Faulkner, who, as Minister of Development, had responsibility for seeing through the reform programme. I should like to applaud the determination and courage shown by Mr. Faulkner, both when he was in charge of that Department and as Prime Minister, in the progress that has been made. The changes have been considerable, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, quite rightly emphasised. It would he wrong to minimise their extent and effectiveness. Some of them, we might note, in fact come very close to what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has himself urged. In 1970, for example, the Stormont Parliament passed the Prevention of Incitement to Hatred Act, and it is now an offence orally or in writing to incite hatred against, or arouse fear in, any section of the public in Northern Ireland on grounds of religious belief, colour, race or ethnic or national origin. The Northern Ireland Government have also appointed by Statute both a Parliamentary Commissioner and a Commissioner for Complaints to investigate, among other things, any allegations of discrimination by central or local government authorities or their subordinate bodies. These measures are in many ways comparable in their effect to our own race relations legislation. But they are steps which have been take by the Government at Stormont. in consultation with Her Majesty's Government, to meet the needs of their own situation. Successive Administrations at Westminster have concluded that this is the best way to proceed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, asked about the Commission on the Constitution under the chairmanship of Lord Crowther. The Commission were appointed in April, 1969, and their terms of reference were rather wider than she implied: they were to examine the present functions of the central Legislature and Government in relation to the several countries, nations and regions of the United Kingdom. They were not only concerned with the relations between London and Northern Ireland, though the Commissioners have visited Northern
570
Ireland and have taken evidence there. The noble Baroness asked me whether I could give any indication of when the Commission were likely to report. This is a major review of constitutional relationships; the Commission have not yet completed their inquiries and it will clearly be some time before they report. I regret that I cannot be more specific than that at this stage. I think that it is unlikely to be practicable to pin the Report to the local government elections —and this point was mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Shackleton —due to take place in 1972 on new boundaries. It would be difficult to try to tie in the publication of a Report on such a very profound and wide-ranging subject with a fixed date for elections.
In Clause 4 of the Bill, which attracted much comment from noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, seeks to provide for a system of proportional representation in local government elections and in Elections for the Parliament at Stormont. This idea, as has been said in the debate, is an old one; proportional representation was used in Parliamentary Elections to Stormont for eight years between 1921 and 1929. If there is anyone in this House who can rival Lord Brockway in his very long interest in this subject, it is my noble friend Lord Rathcavan, who told us that he sat in the Stormont Parliament for two Parliaments, through two General Elections, as a result of the system of proportional representation that applied in the 1920s. I think that I am right in saying that he was the first Speaker of the Northern Ireland Parliament having also been a Member of the Westminster Parliament.
If proportional representation were to he revived either for Parliamentary or local government elections (and the Macrory Committee on Local Government Reorganisation commented that the idea found some favour) it would need detailed study. The Northern Ireland Government have said that they retain an open mind on proportional representation in relation to local government elections. But the subject is complex; and I would expect noble Lords to agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said: that it would not really be appropriate to impose—for that is what it would be—proportional representation on the Government of Northern Ireland by

571
means of a clause in a Private Member's Bill introduced in the Parliament at Westminster.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, that was not quite what I said. As the noble Lord knows, I am critical of the Bill on general principles. What I asked was: if we wait for Crowther, how far will this have an effect in delaying the introduction of boundaries? Perhaps the noble Lord was coming to that. This was my concern.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am sorry if I have misrepresented the noble Lord. I referred to the point a little earlier in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, when I said that it would not be practicable to ask the members and chairman of a Commission of this sort to try to tie in their Report with a particular date when local government elections were due to take place. The timing of Lord Crowther's Report is entirely a matter for the Commission. I know that their inquiries are not yet completed and that it will be some time before they can commit themselves to giving an indication of when they hope to report.
The other clauses of the noble Lord's Bill cover a wide variety of proposals, but they do not convey a fair reflection of the current situation in Ulster. Let me quote a few examples. Clause 2(1) would provide that:
" It shall not be an offence in Northern Ireland to advocate or work in accordance with the law for the establishment of a single Parliament for the whole of Ireland."
My Lords, it is not now, and never has been, an offence in Northern Ireland lawfully to work for or to advocate a single Parliament for Ireland, or any other constitutional change. Nor, as implied by Clause 2(4), is it an offence, or has it ever been an offence,
" for a person to describe himself as a Republican or… to work within the law for the propagation of Republican opinions."
It is not an offence, in itself, in Northern Ireland to display a flag or emblem as suggested by Clause 3. The Flags or Emblems Act (Northern Ireland) 1954, which is probably the legislation the noble Lord has in mind, empowers the police to require the removal of an emblem which in the circumstances of its display
572
may occasion a breach of the peace—not, I think, an unreasonable provision in the circumstances of Northern Ireland.
Clause 5 covers a number of other proposals which collectively amount to a misleading impression of current law and practice in Northern Ireland. Moreover, this clause takes little account of the history of Ireland and the reasons for transferred powers. I am sure that noble Lords in all parts of the House would want to think very long and deep before introducing legislation at Westminster in order to prevent the Parliament of Northern Ireland from exercising the powers conferred on them by the Government of Ireland Act. These include the list of subjects in Clause 5; but we must not make the error of thinking that because the Bill seeks to remove these powers they are necessarily in current use. Some, such as the punishment of prisoners by flogging and the prohibition of holding an inquest after the death of a person held in custody, both of which are mentioned in the clause, have not been used for very many years. And within living memory there has been no case of flogging in prisons in Northern Ireland.
Rather than taking a defensive line, however, I would he positive this evening and remind the House of the way in which the Government of Northern Ireland have exercised the powers vested in them since the crisis of 1969. They have enacted, and continue to enact, a range of legislation to provide not only for protection against discrimination but also for other radical social reforms. For example, legislation passed in 1969, gave full franchise, on the basis of one man, one vote, in local government elections—it had already existed in Parliamentary elections—and the vote at the age of 18. This franchise has already been exercised in local government by-elections and will be used in the autumn of 1972, when elections are due to take place to the new district councils. These councils are being created as part of the reform of the whole structure of local government in Northern Ireland. An immense amount of detailed work is already in train to give effect to the Government's decision that 26 new district councils will be established in place of the existing 67 county, county borough, urban and rural district

573
councils and the three development commissions. Certain existing local government functions, which can be more effectively operated on a regional or area basis, are to be centralised under Ministerial control. This will be effected through area boards in the case of education and library services, and also for health and personal social services. Consultative documents have been published for consideration by the interested parties.
Legislation to give detailed effect to these measures of reform and reorganisation will be presented to the Northern Ireland Parliament over the next twelve months, and a new Boundary Commission, provided for by Parliament earlier this year, has already started preliminary work prior to drawing up the new ward and district boundaries. This is to be done so as to include areas of equal voting strength and to allow proper representation of both urban and rural communities so far as is consistent with existing community patterns.
Next, I might mention that the Stormont Government have restated their position on equality of employment opportunity, and that as a result of their action all local councils have made a Declaration of Equality of Employment Opportunity; and the majority have submitted codes of employment procedure for the Government's approval. Also of great importance is the new housing executive which has been set up and is already working out its programme for effecting the major task of taking over full responsibility for housing from the local authorities, including allocation. The Parliamentary Commissioner and the Commissioner for Complaints have both been in office since the end of 1969. The Community Relations Commission was set up at the same time. The Royal Ulster Constabulary has been reorganised as a civilian police force, following the recommendations made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
These are some of the ways in which the Government at Stormont have been exercising the responsibilities delegated to them. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, action has been taken; and we perform no service to anyone in Northern Ireland if we underestimate the extent of the reforms that have been implemented. It is a hard road to travel but it is indisputably the right one. The
574
effects of Lord Brockway's Bill, despite all the high idealism behind it, would, I fear, be to undermine the authority of the Government of Northern Ireland and give little credit for what has already been done.
Therefore, while the appropriateness of the Bill's proposals would, I suspect, have met with considerable opposition in the past for the reasons I have given, they are now open to a further criticism; namely, that while the noble Lord's remedy has remained constant the actual situation with which the Bill seeks to deal has altered to a marked extent. To-day, my Lords, the real threat to civil liberties in Northern Ireland is provided by those few extremists who are willing to resort to violence for their own political or subversive ends, as we heard in the debate to-day from the noble Earl, Lord Enniskillen, who spoke from first-hand experience. It is these men who poison the atmosphere and make the reforms all the harder to introduce. The noble Lord's Bill makes no contribution to the solution of this problem. Nor would it do anything to promote the sort of climate of mutual confidence between London and Ulster which is the essential bedrock for future progress.
My Lords, I do not know what Lord Brockway's intentions are at the end of this debate. He has brought before your Lordships to-day a subject of considerable underlying importance and topical relevance, and we may all thank him for that. He has heard from noble Lords on both sides of the House, and he has heard this statement of the Government's attitude. It is now for him to decide whether the debate has fulfilled his purpose and, as a consequence, whether he feels that he might be able to withdraw his Motion that the Bill be now read a second time. If he does conclude that it is necessary to press the Motion to a Division, I must advise your Lordships to vote against it.
6.45 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I propose to be very brief and I hope that the various speakers in the debate will not regard it as discourteous on my part if I do not answer the points they made. There seem to me to be two matters to which I wish to refer. The first is the suggestion that we should delay because of the Crowther Commission. In this Bill there is one clause that deals with proportional representation and which

575
would be closely within the terms of the Crowther Commission. If rumour is correct, they may recommend that proportional representation be adopted in Northern Ireland, and therefore the giving of a Second Reading to the Bill this evening would not affect that. The second point I wish to raise, and I admit that this reaches me, is the suggestion that this Bill may harm, rather than improve, the climate in Northern Ireland. I thought
Resolved in the negative, and Motion for Second Reading disagreed to accordingly.

HIGHWAYS BILL
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Lords Amendments agreed to, and with one other of the Lords Amendments agreed to with an Amendment: the said Amendment to the Lords Amendment to be printed.

BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.] FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Reported. with Amendments.
I made clear in my opening speech that I regard this as only part of a much wider approach to the whole problem. I believe it to be an essential part, and because of that I shall ask the House to divide on the Motion.
6.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall he now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 10; Not-Contents, 64.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Henley, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Maelor. L.

Wade, L.

Brockway, L. [Teller.]

Norwich, V,

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Abinger, L.

Derwent, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Northchurch, Bs

Aldington, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Nunburnholme, L.

Auckland, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Poltimore, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Balfour, E.

Garner, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Belstead, L.

Gowrie, E. [Teller.]

Reigate, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gray, L.

Rothermere, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Grenfell, L.

Sandys, L.

Brooke of Cumnor. L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hacking, L.

Somers, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Strabolgi, L.

Burton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Caccia, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Sudeley, L.

Carrington, L.

Hawke, L.

Taylor of Mansfield. L.

Champion, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Teynham, L.

Coleraine, L.

Killearn, L.

Verulam, E.

Conesford, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Vivian, L.

Cork and Orrery, E. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Windlesham. L.

Craigavon, V.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No.2) BILL LONDON TRANSPORT (No.2) BILL OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL TORBAY CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.