Lords Sitting of 23 February 1972

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln):
The Lord DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH On the Woolsack.
The Earl of Selborne—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I rise with a heavy heart this afternoon to pay tribute to the memory of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who, as many of your Lordships will have heard with regret, died this morning.
My Lords, we mourn to-day the distinguished descendant of one of our families—and luckily they are numerous—who have throughout the centuries served our country and our State so well. My noble friend Lord Salisbury entered our House in 1941 by Writ of Acceleration. From 1942 until 1957 he was either Leader of your Lordships' House or Leader of the Opposition in it. He had, moreover, the unique distinction of leading your Lordships during the lifetime of his father, who was himself a former Leader of your Lordships' House. But not only was Lord Salisbury's father Leader of this House: so also was his grandfather, the great Prime Minister at the end of the last century, This, in its way, typifies the continuity of service to Parliament and to the State of the Cecil family—a continuity which reaches from the first Elizabethan Age to our present, second Elizabethan Age.
We also mourn a distinguished statesman. This is perhaps not the occasion on which to speak at any length about my noble friend's political career. Its range is familiar to most of us. We know the role which he played at the Foreign
504
Office in the years before the war; and we know, too, that, typically, my noble friend took the course of principle when he resigned with his chief, my noble friend Lord Avon, in 1938.
My Lords, we know, too, of the great contribution that he made to the Commonwealth. He became Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in 1940, and from that time onwards, until 1957, when he resigned from the Government, and except for a period in Opposition he always had some responsibility for the Commonwealth, as it now is. There may be some Members of your Lordships' House who may have had cause to disagree from time to time with policies which my noble friend pursued, but no noble Lord, I venture to think, would have sought to question the sincerity and the single-mindedness with which he pursued those policies, or the extent to which the development of the Commonwealth was close to my noble friend's heart. He believed—and he believed implicitly—that the Commonwealth was a force for peace and a force for good in this troubled world.
My Lords, there is one other aspect of my noble friend's life and interest to which I should like briefly to refer. When he was Lord President of the Council he was Minister in charge of science policy, and the Research Councils which we shall be discussing in a day or two came under his authority. In recognition of his services to science, the Royal Society elected him a Fellow. He was also, as your Lordships know, deeply interested in learning and in the humanities, and as such was Chancellor of Liverpool University, a Trustee of the National Gallery and Chairman of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments; and I know from my personal experience how much that Commission meant to him.
We mourn equally a great former Leader of your Lordships' House. All your Lordships who recall my noble friend's period of office is Leader know that he was, above all, ready and eager to help any Member of your Lordships' House, on whichever side of the House he might be sitting, and whether he was a new Member or an old and distinguished one. My noble friend served your Lordships no less well (and this is perhaps what many of us will most closely remember him for in his political career)

505
as Leader of the Opposition in this House between 1940 and 1951. He had himself been in office for ten years when the Labour Government came into power under Mr. Attlee in 1945; and with his distinguished deputy, my noble friend Lord Swinton, he led a Party here which then had an overwhelming majority in your Lordships' House. I think that most of your Lordships who remember this House at that time will recognise the immense debt which we all owe to him for the control, the patience and the wisdom which he then exercised, and for the harmonious relationship—and this was very important—which he established with the then Leader of your Lordships' House, the late Lord Addison.
My Lords, we mourn a very great House of Lords man. I think all of us know how deeply my noble friend had the interests of this House at heart. Many of us will recall not only the important part that he played in Opposition but also that my noble friend, who was in many things a conservative, was above all radical in his belief that this House would be better for radical reform. My Lords, it is not only the descendant of a great political family, it is not only the distinguished statesman, it is not only this pre-eminent House of Lords man whom we mourn to-day: it is, above all, the man himself. We know the kindness—and I have spoken of it—and the courtesy which he was invariably ready to extend to all Members of your Lordships' House. We have all relished his wit from time to time. I have always had in mind one famous shaft of his: it was to do with my noble friend Lord Dundee. Lord Dundee had made a long maiden speech about myxomatosis, and at the conclusion of that speech Lord Salisbury turned to his colleagues on the Front Bench and said, "Bunny Dundee".
My Lords, I have spoken of the House of Lords man, I have spoken of the statesman, I have spoken of the man himself. What I should like to say in conclusion about the man himself is this. I believe—and I know that this will be recognised by all Members of your Lordships' House—that my noble friend was above all a man of the very deepest humanity. Despite the great gifts with which he was endowed by birth and intellect, he was fundamentally a very humble man. It is with gratitude that I say to
506
your Lordships how well my noble friend served this country and this House, and his fellow countrymen. I am sure that I carry all Members of your Lordships' House with me when I express our sympathies to Lady Salisbury and to the family.
2.40 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should like to associate all my noble friends on this side of the House with the quite moving tributes which the noble Earl has just paid to the life and service of the late Lord Salisbury. When I earned a very short while ago that Lord Salisbury was dead and I realised that I should not again see him sitting on that seat just below the gangway, I felt immediately and spontaneously a sense of personal loss—and I say that although I speak as a comparatively new Member in this House and as one who had not the privilege of any intimate personal connection with him. Nevertheless, such was the strength of the noble Marquess's character and such was the personal position he held in this House that I am sure that the more senior Members, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and others, will accept that we, too, can share with them this sense of loss.
I believe that the House is the poorer for the passing of one who embodied so much of those values that we should like to feel are associated with this House. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, as the noble Earl has said, advocated political causes different from those for which my noble friends and I on this side have worked. But I would say this in all sincerity: unless the society to which we evolve recognises, includes and pays tribute and respect to men of the character of Lord Salisbury it will be the poorer. A profound sense of duty, unblemished honour—and I think too of those days before the war—a true kindness, a quite special blend of humility and pride and a complete feeling of integrity: these are the qualities that I associate with the late Lord Salisbury and why I am sure we are all saddened by the news of his passing.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches and for myself I should like to be associated very closely with the tributes which have been paid by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord, Lord

507
Beswick. Of course we had political differences with Lord Salisbury; but it was a real pleasure to work with someone who was so genuinely friendly and who, above all, as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has said, had the interests of this House at heart. I believe that his will go down in history as one of the outstanding contributions to British politics.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I saw the problem of the 1945–50 Parliament from the Benches of another place, although we were sitting in this Chamber here. It is, I think, a tremendous thing that any man should have been faced with the problem of having to control his own Party, in Opposition, with a great majority, a traditional hereditary majority, while confronted with a reforming Government which was bringing in legislation that must in many cases have been anathema to the vast majority of people in this House. It was only, I believe, through having a man of his calibre and with the influence which he commanded over his own Party that the House of Lords was saved from a head-on collision with another place. That collision could have been one from which the House of Lords would have emerged only in name—without power and without prestige. I believe that we all owe a deep debt of gratitude to what Lord Salisbury did on that occasion in particular. We associate ourselves sincerely with the expressions of grief and sympathy to his family.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, as one of his oldest colleagues in this House and as a very close friend I should like to join in the tributes which have been so movingly and so justly paid to my noble friend who has passed over. We were together as Leader and Deputy Leader in office and in Opposition. It was a perfect partnership. I do not think that we ever disagreed either on policy or on the handling of policy. I entirely agree with what has been said: that we owe an enormous amount to him and to his extraordinarily able handling of affairs when the Party to which we belonged had a vast majority here but were in Opposition. But to-day I think that we all particularly wish to remember the man himself. When men are greatly loved, they get pet names, or nicknames, as we call them. To all
508
in this House and in another place, young or old, Lord Salisbury was "Bobbety": "Bobbety", always accessible; "Bobbety", always friendly; "Bobbety", always helpful. A great man, and a man greatly loved, has passed to his rest. May he rest in peace!
VISCOUNT HOOD: My Lords, I think it is fitting that someone from these Benches should associate himself with the very eloquent tributes that have been paid to the late Lord Salisbury and to join in the expressions of sympathy to his family. I had the great good fortune to know him for many years and there is no one from whom I feel I learned more about how to lead one's life. Of his qualities I would mention only three—and they are those which have been mentioned already by noble Lords: his humanity, his love of his fellow human beings of all ages, his interest in their ideas and their opinions and his deep consideration for their feelings; his humility (for with all his distinctions and attainments he remained the most humble of men), and, finally, his wit and his sense of humour. My Lords, this House has lost one of its wisest, most respected Members, and many of us have lost a most treasured friend.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether I might add one personal note to the beautiful tributes that have been paid. I think I knew "Bobbety" longer than any other Member of this House, for we were friends for nearly 70 years. As schoolboys, we went to the same private school in London; at Oxford we were friends at the same college; and we were colleagues in both Houses of Parliament. Of his public qualities I shall say nothing. I merely say that as a friend he was the most civilised man I ever knew.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, may I associate the Bishops with these tributes to the late Lord Salisbury, remarking especially on his work for learning and the humanities, that intuitive sense he had of the character of this House, his statesmanship and personal qualities. I am sure that we join in the messages of deep sympathy to Lady Salisbury and her family.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I hope that you will forgive me

509
for intervening when already somebody from this Bench has spoken. I do so for two reasons. The first is that Lord Salisbury was the Leader of my Party and of the Opposition when I first took my seat in this House immediately after the war—and there are, I think, very few in this House now who were here then. What any of us of my generation know about politics and the House of Lords we learned from him; and his never-failing encouragement and kindness to young men coming into public life for the first time is something we shall always remember and something for which we shall always be abidingly grateful.
Secondly, as I have said, he was at that time in a particularly difficult position. The whole future of the House of Lords depended on his judgment, and on that of my noble friend Lord Swinton, as to how it could operate at a time of an enormous Labour majority in the House of Commons. My Lords, looking back on those years, the position may perhaps seem a good deal easier than in fact it was; but the way in which Lord Salisbury, with Lord Addison, devised a set of rules acceptable to both major Parties and to the House, and the way in which, by his skill and political wisdom, he operated them, are a lesson to any student of politics. I say this in great gratitude only because, almost 20 years later and for six long years, I was the Leader of the Opposition in this House faced with much the same position, and during those years I sought to follow not only the procedures he had laid down but also his example. Without that example I do not believe that we should have got through nearly so well.
My Lords, others have spoken much more eloquently than I can possibly do about his personal characteristics. Let me say only that anyone who met him or heard him or knew him could not fail to have not only a profound respect for his character, his authority and his views, whether or not one agreed with them, but also, and above all, a great affection for him. He was a man who put his loyalties and his principles and his country above everything; and there are not very many about whom that may be said.
LORD TODD: My Lords, I rise to associate myself with the tributes that have been paid to the late Lord Salisbury
510
because there was one aspect of his public life that has not been mentioned this afternoon. Following the death of Lord Wootton and until his retirement from the Government, Lord Salisbury was Lord President of the Council, and during these years I had the honour to be his adviser on scientific matters. Although he was not a scientist, I think we should note that he was a man who had a real appreciation of science and of its importance to this nation and was very responsive indeed to the advice which he was given. I think that science, and indirectly the country as a whole, owes much more to Lord Salisbury in this respect than perhaps it realises; and I feel that this is an occasion when I would wish to emphasise this and to record my own personal appreciation of the friendship which I had with the noble Marquess during that period.

JEWS IN SYRIA
2.53 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now able to make a Statement about the position of Jews in Syria.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the results of the inquiries which have been set in motion are not such as would justify specific and authoritative comment on the position of Jews in Syria.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Can he tell us what action has been taken, because I am certain he would not deny the allegations that were made with regard to the treatment of Jews in Syria?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, investigations have been carried out, as I said, but Her Majesty's Government consider that it would be inappropriate for them to intervene, at least at present, over this matter: first, because Her Majesty's Government have no diplomatic relations with the Syrian Government; secondly, because none of the Jews in Syria is a British subject and therefore Her Majesty's Government have no

511
locus standi in this question; and, thirdly, because our information does not indicate any policy of sustained or consistent violent persecution by the Syrian authorities of the Jewish community in Syria.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government have had any communication at all from authoritative sources in France and other parts of the world about accusations and allegations made in respect of the vicious and horrible treatment of this minority in Syria? Have we not a right to demand under the Declaration of Human Rights that this matter should be dealt with either at the United Nations or by the intervention of other nations? May I also ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make further inquiries; and if they are provided with material which will justify an intervention, will they then intervene?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I do not think it would be helpful to state what authorities have been consulted or what consultations have been held in this connection. But I hope that the noble Lord will accept from me that there have been inquiries and that information has been made available to Her Majesty's Government. But, for the reasons I gave earlier, I do not think it would be suitable or appropriate, at least at the moment, for Her Majesty's Government to intervene.

OBSERVATION CARS ON SCOTTISH RAIL SERVICES
LORD FERRIER: 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 British Railways intend to have observation cars running once again in the Ford William/Mallaig and Inverness/Kyle of Lochalsh lines during 1972 tourist season.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am informed that the observation cars were withdrawn from service in 1967 because it was no longer economical to maintain them. They have since been sold. The Railways
512
Board have no plans to provide new vehicles because the additional revenue which they would bring would not justify the capital investment involved.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply which, in a measure, I anticipated. Is it not a fact that one of the cars has been broken up and that the other is in America on a commercial trip? Would not the noble Lord agree that in the absence of such facilities the full profit-earning capacity of these highly scenic lines has not been properly developed by the Railways Board?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, with regard to the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question, my information is that neither of the two cars involved was destroyed. One was sold to Mr. Alan Pegler, who also owns the Flying Scotsman, and is I believe in the United States with him at the present time. The other belongs to a private railway in the Dart Valley in Devonshire where it is being used. On the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question, the Railways Board has said that the additional revenue which would be earned would nowhere near meet the costs of constructing and operating these vehicles, but I will pass on the noble Lord's remarks.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, whatever the merits of the Question may be is it not a matter of day-to-day management by British Rail about what they do or do not do with observation cars; and should not measures be taken to protect the Order Paper against abuses by noble Lords who put down Questions which have no possible connection with Ministerial responsibility?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: No, my Lords. I do not think it unfair that noble Lords in this House and Members of another place should be able to ask Questions. We can pass on the views of the Board.

TEESSIDE GASOMETER ACCIDENT
2.58 p.m.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the investigations by Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate into an accident at Teesside on July 24, 1971, when a gasometer was struck by lightning have now been completed, and whether they are satisfied that the gasometer was on that day being operated in accordance with the general recommendations laid down in British Standards Institute Code of Practice CP326:1965.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALRYN): My Lords, Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate have now completed their investigations into this matter. They are satisfied that the gasholder was being operated in accordance with the relevant recommendations laid down in British Standard Code of Practice CP326:1965, except that paragraph 212(m) was not being followed. This recommends that vents of any tanks containing flammable gas should either be constructed of non-conducting material or be fitted with flametraps, and neither of these arrangements was followed.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. In view of the fact that the 3 million cubic feet gasholder was registering 2·8 million cubic feet at the time of the strike and, I understand, two hours afterwards, despite the fact that 0·3 million cubic feet were flared during that period, would not the noble Lord agree that it is quite likely that the instrument reading was in fact wrong and that at the time of the strike the gasometer was full and venting? Secondly, in view of the fact that the British Steel Corporation say that the lightning struck the vent pipe and that Dr. Golde stated in his report that had the vents been struck there would have been an explosion, does not the report of the Teesside Fire Brigade of an explosion indicate that the gasometer was in fact full and venting at the time of the strike? Finally, would not the noble Lord agree that it is essential, to avoid the risk of what might be a disastrous explosion, that when these gasometers are full and receiving too much gas, the surplus gas must be flared and not vented?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the evidence is not quite so emphatic as I
514
think my noble friend suggests. The cause of the fire has not been conclusively established. It seems unlikely to have been due to a discharge of gas through the vents, though it might conceivably have been due to a mixture of gas and air in one of the vents. Be that as it may, the British Steel Corporation have now prohibited the venting of gas during thunderstorms. Perhaps I ought also to add, as my noble friend quoted Dr. Golde, that what he actually said was this:
"Theoretically if an explosive mixture existed in any of the existing venting places, a lightning strike could have caused an explosion. However, no explosion occurred, and if such a risk existed, accidents in this or other similar installations would have had to be expected. This possibility may therefore be discounted."

FIREARMS CONTROL AND AIR WEAPONS
LORD ALLERTON: 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, in view of the alarming increase in armed robbery, they will consider restricting the ownership of air rifles and pistols to persons in possession of firearm certificates.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, it has not hitherto been thought appropriate to restrict the possession of air weapons to persons with firearm certificates. But, as your Lordships are aware, the present controls of all kinds of firearms are under review. The question of additional controls on air weapons is being considered as part of that review.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Would he not agree that even small-bore air pistols and air rifles are powerful and in the wrong hands, very dangerous weapons?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the more powerful weapons are now subject to firearm certificate procedures, and have been since regulations were introduced in 1969. I would agree with my noble friend that air pistols, if used irresponsibly, can of course cause injury; but

515
the experience of the police has been that, in the main, the incidents are more of hooliganism than of organised crime.
LORD WADE: My Lords, does not the more serious problem arise in the case of shot-guns which are used for criminal purposes? Is the noble Lord aware of the recent resolution of the Magistrates' Association? May I ask what steps are going to be taken in that regard?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the control of shot-guns clearly does not arise on this Question.
LORD SWANSEA: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that there are considerable practical difficulties in the registration of air weapons as a great many of them do not bear any serial number? Secondly, does he not agree that the Report to the Home Office, Firearms in Crime, shows that the use of air weapons in crimes of violence is very small indeed?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to draw the attention of the House to the Report, Firearms in Crime, published in 1970. That contains a great deal of useful information. The Chief Inspector of Constabulary, who is carrying out the review, is bearing in mind considerations of the kind mentioned by my noble friend in the first Dart of his supplementary question.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, will the noble Lord give some reconsideration to the answer that he gave to my noble friend Lord Wade, when he said that the question about shot-guns did not arise on this particular Question? What my noble friend asked in his original Question was "whether, in view of the alarming increase in armed robbery", he would take certain action. If the noble Lord finds from his study of the statistics that the use or threatened use of shot-guns is the prevailing method adopted by criminals, then it does arise on this Question. Would not the noble Lord therefore give serious consideration to the resolution passed at the annual meeting of the Magistrates' Association last year, that the procedure for regulation of shot-guns should be assimilated with that applying to pistols and rifles and provided for under the 1967 Firearms Act?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord's supplementary question was long enough to enable me to re-read the Question on the Order Paper, and I am afraid it is still my view that this Question refers to the registration of air rifles and air pistols, and not to shot-guns.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the National Farmers' Union in the County of Devon have already put forward a motion on the lines of Lord Allerton's Question, not only from the point of view he takes but from the fact of the damage that can be done by these weapons in the way of poaching?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am aware of the representations which have been made by the National Farmers' Union, and, as I said in my original Answer, there is a review in progress at the moment by the Chief Inspector of Constabulary for England and Wales. I do not think we want to anticipate the outcome of his review at this stage.

NORTHERN IRELAND
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be repeating a Statement on Northern Ireland at a convenient moment after 3.30. As my noble and learned friend is sitting judicially, this may come just after 4 o'clock.
OXFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
WHITLEY BAY PIER (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES IN SCOTLAND
3.8 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE rose to move, That this House takes note of Command Paper 4821, Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries in Scotland. The noble

517
Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I do so with a very close eye upon the clock, because this is the first experiment in mini-debates in your Lordships' House, although this is, I think, a subject of maxi-importance to Scotland from the aspect of Scotland's wellbeing, covering employment, tourism, environment, recreation and sport. I have here two volumes of the Hunter Report, one White Paper and seven representations from various bodies interested in the preservation of salmon and trout in Scotland. Therefore your Lordships will sympathise with me in the difficulty of trying to condense a technical and complex subject within the limits of a simple and, I trust, brief speech. I propose to concentrate upon only three main points in regard to Government proposals, and I must do this of necessity in broad terms.
First, I should like to give a welcome to the White Paper and the spirit in which it is introduced, being one of co-operation rather than compulsion. The White Paper, I believe, applies more widely than just to Scotland. It shows that we are trying to put our own house in order in this field, and inevitably this must strengthen our position in international negotiations for the limitation of the depredations on the high seas of the Atlantic salmon. It is upon these international negotiations that the future supply of salmon must depend. I believe that without success in this field of international negotiation the Hunter Report will be of little use. First I want to seek information upon the legislative intentions of the Government. There will be, presumably, a new Bill introduced in due course, and I am sure that it is the wish of your Lordships on all sides of the House that such a Bill should be, so far as possible, an agreed measure between the many interests affected. I have records of meetings between departmental officials and representative bodies and it is clear to me that many important issues still remain open and subject to discussion and, at present, to difference.
I have heard a report from one of those meetings that Her Majesty's Government intend, as it were, to drop the portcullis upon further discussions on February 29, so as to be able to introduce a Bill into Parliament at a fairly early stage. I welcome speed and the
518
avoidance of delay, but there is still much to discuss and, I hope, to agree upon. It is worth noting that this is the first measure which amends the Act of 1868. The Hunter Report, let us remember, is seven years old; so I think we can wait a few more weeks to get a satisfactory settlement of the issues outstanding. We may be settling legislation in Scotland for the next hundred years, so do not let us try to decide it in a hundred days. My hope is for an agreed measure—and I would emphasise that—so I earnestly ask Her Majesty's Government not to jeopardise future prospects by cutting short consideration and discussion. It is important that they should bring forward in due course a Bill the provisions of which invite little resistance in your Lordships' House or another place.
My second point concerns proposals for public access to fishing, in return for giving what has never been given before; that is, statutory protection for brown trout owners in Scotland. Under the White Paper proposals the owner is compelled to give access to the public to part of his fishings as a price for registration and the enjoyment of the statutory protection of his waters. I see a danger here. The owner may be forced to give access to his waters at the cost of risk to the environment, to valuable timber, natural wild life and the future also of salmon, sea trout and possibly brown trout. Access to many nursery streams and feeding areas could endanger the conservation of salmon, sea trout and brown trout in those waters. In Scotland there are many valuable salmon fishings where there are virtually no brown trout. One may, as those of your Lordships who are fishermen may know, catch fifty finnocks or sea trout to one brown trout. On the other hand, there are some East coast rivers in Scotland where there is considerable scope for brown trout fishing, without any harm to salmon. I suggest that the area boards ought to have power to register, not because there are brown trout but because there are no brown trout to speak of and because of the need for the protection of those waters for salmon and sea trout conservation. These waters are held by proprietors who could not give access without endangering the economic viability of the revenues which they require to maintain their fishings; and

519
that is not clear in the White Paper. I am quite sure that any legislation which is introduced must contain provisions for appeal to the Secretary of State on this question of a refusal to grant or accept recognition.
This brings me to the composition of the area boards. In the White Paper the Government's proposal is that the Secretary of State for Scotland should appoint the chairmen and all the members of the area boards. The Association of River Boards of Scotland—a very authoritative body, as I am sure the Minister would agree—and other representative bodies, have made to me a powerful case for the chairmen to be appointed by the boards rather than nominated by the Secretary of State. It was pointed out that there are large sums of money invested in salmon fishing. To-day the capital value of a salmon is £350 to £400: that is to say, if any of your Lordships were fortunate enough to own a stretch of salmon fishing which yielded one hundred fish per year, the capital value of such an investment would be somewhere between £35,000 and £40,000. There are sums of £150,000 and more invested in salmon fishings which owners may carefully tend and improve, and in some cases they are forced to live on the revenues. Let me assure your Lordships that there is no fortune to be had in owning salmon fishing. I know several such owners and they all inform me that by the time they have paid their rates and upkeep and remunerated their fishermen, they are very lucky if they ever make 1 per cent. interest upon their capital. So do not let anyone in your Lordships' House run away with the idea that there is a pot of gold to be won by owning salmon fishing.
If the Secretary of State appoints the chairmen, surely it is making an unrealistic and inequitable position, because under the proposals the owner of the fishing would virtually have no say in the administration of his own possessions. That is thoroughly indefensible. Why not, I would ask Her Majesty's Government, continue the proven system of triennial elections of the lower and upper proprietories in a river in equal numbers, but on the basis of the new areas proposed in the White Paper? I know that the Secretary of State's view is that it would be rather wicked if any sectional
520
interests were represented. I cannot accept that. I think that if a man has a very large investment which he is doing his best to look after, it is not unreasonable that he should have a final voice on its administration. On these area boards, the numbers of salmon, trout, and brown trout appointees should vary according to the weight of interest, area by area. Also the powers proposed for area boards must be examined closely. I believe that in some instances the powers are too great and in others they are insufficient.
Now I come to my third and last point: the proposed size of these area boards, which gives grounds for concern. Her Majesty's Government are introducing this area board system in order to correct a weakness which existed in the old district boards system. The district boards had not the means to properly patrol and police fisheries. The Government's aim is now to make large and viable area boards, but I question whether these proposals will fulfil their objective. The police cannot patrol fishings: they have not the manpower. Therefore you have to look to the guardians employed by the area boards. Take, for example, an area that I happen to know well, the North of Scotland. There we have three different coastlines; we have 20 rivers and literally thousands of acres covered by lochs. From the revenue aspect you will be saddling such an area with a lot of "lame ducks" which have to be guarded but cannot really yield any revenue to the area boards. So I ask that a Secretary of State should have power to alter the size and boundaries of the areas. I do not see that in the proposals in the White Paper.
I give general support for the rod-licensing scheme, though I think that it will be an exercise in public relations for the authorities to convince the ordinary Scotsman that he has to pay a pound for a licence for what he has been accustomed to enjoy for many years entirely free. I do not like the rod-licence fee pooling proposals in the various areas. You will get a position where the far greater revenue from salmon will go to subsidise the trout interests. Her Majesty's Government have proposed that the area financing should be in the form of retaining so much for the area and allotting so much to the central organisation. Within the area

521
itself there ought to be an allocation, let us say, of 75 per cent. to salmon interests and of 25 per cent. to the general area fund. That would depend upon the weight in each area of salmon, sea trout and brown trout interests. I should like to see a percentage fixed in each area which would be allocated to salmon and to trout interests.
There are many points that I do not have time to speak on and I will mention only some of them. The Scottish Anglers' Trust scheme is a good one but the £1 licence is likely to be resisted. It is not my problem; it is the Scottish Anglers' Trust's problem. They will find some difficulty in collecting their revenues. I am glad that the young are to be catered for; I should like to see the old-aged catered for as well. I do not think the Anglers' Trust is going to buy many fishings on the revenues it obtains and the small grants from Her Majesty's Government. I welcome the permanent ban on drift-net fishing and I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will look to the North East Northumberland coast problem in connection with this. Fourthly, the appeals machinery of the area boards must be made clear in the Bill. It is inequitable that rod fishing should be rated when net fishings are about to be de-rated. Sixthly, I do not think the penalties for poisoning rivers—a monstrous crime—are sufficient. Seventhly, the use of mono-filament nets should be restricted in some way in the Bill which we have. I mention all these matters as being important for the time when we come to consider the Bill in Committee—if we ever do so, as I hope will be the case.
From what I have said I hope that the House will see that both major and minor issues are still open and undecided. So I finish by my first plea: this is a good step by Her Majesty's Government; I want time for further consultation on the contents and prospects of the Bill in order that it may have a smooth passage. It is the wish of all those interested in this subject to see on the Statute Book a measure much needed in the great interests of Scotland. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of Command Paper 4821 Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries in Scotland.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
3.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, I feel the pressure of the clock upon us in our first mini-debate in your Lordships' House. I feel the pressure even more acutely because this is a subject in which I have an interest in every sense of the word and which I should like to debate at great length. If the effect of the moving hand on the clock is to make my words a little blunt, I hope the noble Baroness on the other side of the House will understand that that is the only reason for the bluntness.
The Command Paper on Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries in Scotland will be welcomed by all as an indication that at last there is to be some, however limited, action to try to bring up to date the laws governing trout fishing in Scotland and some, albeit extremely limited, action to start the process of modernising the law relating to salmon fishing in Scotland. The Paper will also be welcomed by fishery managers, coastal netsmen and rod fishing interests—although not perhaps by certain sea fishing interests—tor confirming the Hunter Committee's recommendation permanently to ban drift netting for salmon off the Scottish coast.
Here, my Lords, so far as I am concerned the bouquets stop and a critical examination begins. One of the worst features of the White Paper is that it offers us Hunter without the socialism. As I see it the Hunter Report depended on socialism to make sense. To take its recommendations, excise its main proposals and then put the rest of it forward in an emasculated form as the basis of a brave new code of law for Scottish trout fishing is as likely to be productive as starting a breeding herd with a bullock. If you do not like the stock bull you inherit you must sell it and buy a new one—surgery will not improve it in any way. I never liked the Hunter Report. I admired it as a marvellous collection of evidence but I did not like the conclusions which it reached on the evidence which it amassed. It always struck me as being a great leap into the dark on insufficient scientific grounds. This Government clearly do not like Hunter either, at least to the extent of declaring the single trap fishery unworkable and the Scottish Anglers' Trust optional. Why it

523
then bothers to defer to the Hunter Report at all I do not understand.
Although this White Paper is mainly about trout, it suggests altering four important aspects of the law controlling the management and use of salmon fisheries. First, it reluctantly confirms the coastal netsman as the main legal catcher of commercial salmon at the same time imposing control on him by licence and making more flexible the close time controls. These are not earth-shaking changes, but while they are taking place why not take powers, periodically if necessary, to adjust the annual close times river by river or area by area? This might be a much more important conservation tool than power to alter weekly close times. Secondly, the White Paper suggests confirming a total and permanent ban on drift netting off the Scottish coast. With this I agree; but I also agree wholeheartedly with the Scottish fishermen who criticise allowing drift netting off the coast of England. It seems to me ludicrous to allow the undesirable merely because it is traditional.
Thirdly, the White Paper suggests doing away with district fishery boards, substituting area boards and making them take on the administration of the new trout fishing legislation. I think one has to accept these proposals while making a mental note that nothing must be done to deteriorate the management of the great salmon rivers of Scotland. I shall say something about the size of the areas later. Lastly on salmon, the White Paper suggests that rod anglers should be licensed. This is a ridiculous piece of out-and-out bureaucracy. Salmon anglers already contribute more than half the money used in the management, development and improvement of fisheries, both direct and through district board rates. If more money is needed, it would be both fairer and more sensible to relieve the angler of paying local authority rates as well and channel the money which at present he contributes to education, housing, et cetera, into development of the fisheries. Rod licences will cost more to issue and police than they will bring in in revenue. May I illustrate this with figures for the Thurso river? In the last rating year rods and nets contributed £1,530 to the management of the river through district board rates. Rods con-
524
tributed roughly £2 for every £1 contributed by the nets. At the same time, the rod fishery alone paid £1,834 in county and burgh rates—nets, of course, are derated. My best estimate of what licence fees would bring in is £400, which would not pay for the extra costs in printing, issuing and policing the licences. Clearly the best way of giving more money to boards is either to put up the district board rates or to divert to boards money at present paid to local authorities, or both.
The Thurso, of course, costs a lot more than £1,530 to manage. Stocking the upper waters, keeping down predators, making and maintaining salmon pools, repairing accesses, stiles and luncheon huts, operating and maintaining a dam to control water level, river watching, and so on, all costs thousands of pounds annually, and this money is contributed by anglers through their rents. Four hundred pounds-worth of licence fees is merely going to be an added unproductive burden on the angler's purse.
I turn now from salmon to trout. It has been agreed by two Committees and three White Papers that statutory protection is a prerequisite for improving the quantity and quality of brown trout fishing in Scotland. Nobody who has studied the problem in any depth disagrees. The question is, though, upon what terms should statutory protection be granted? A Socialist Administration no doubt would have liked to nationalise first and protect statutorily afterwards. However, it would cost too much to be practicable, and I strongly suspect that that is the reason why the last Government never legislated after Hunter reported. Now a Conservative Government seem to lack the courage of their convictions and suggest statutory protection with strings attached, and on an optional basis. This really seems to me to be falling between two stools.
If statutory protection is necessary to develop trout fishing, let us have it, and do not let us have a lot of irrelevant and unworkable conditions attached. Some of the situations which may arise if legislation is based on the suggestion in the White Paper to make protection conditional upon access make the mind boggle. My Lords, visualise if you will an hypothetical stretch of Scottish salmon river where each bank is differently owned

525
and a third party owns the right to fish for salmon from both banks. Let us further assume that the owner of the salmon fishing wants to impose a "fly only" rule, while one of the riparian owners wants to seek statutory protection, open his bank to the public within limits and allow spinning; the other riparian owner, perhaps, lets his bank to a club. It would take Solomon himself to pronounce judgment on the disputes which would arise in such a case, and some of the resultant situations would be worthy of the talents of Mr. Brian Rix.
My hypothetical situation highlights one very real problem which requires much thought and some further consultation before legislation is proposed. That is, what happens on water where both trout and salmon are present? One or other of the two fishes must be declared to take precedence. How is this to be decided? What compensations, if necessary, are to be offered? The White Paper does not appear to realise that this problem exists. One could argue for ever against the idea of a quid pro quo for statutory protection; but this is a "mini debate" and my eyes are on the clock, and I will therefore quickly suggest to your Lordships the alternative. It is simply the rating system which already exists. Statutory protection gives value and makes improvement worth while. Improvement gives even greater value. Value can be rated and improved value even more heavily rated. The power to assess and levy rates on trout fishings exists, and this should be the main tool of persuasion if one baulks at nationalisation or compulsion. Once the rates go on the trout fisheries owners will be only too happy to invite the public either to share the cost or to prove the fishery worth little. Rating is what will really open up Scottish trout fishings.
Rating also provides the best means of financing the new area boards. Rates should be levied on trout fishings but passed on to the boards and not to the local authorities. The same arguments as those against salmon rod licences hold good for trout fishing, only perhaps with even greater force. You will never police them. They will be more honoured in the breach than in the observance. It is also not clear whether one will require a licence to fish on non-statutory-protected water, either as riparian owner or
526
as a fisherman who "helps himself" in the old manner.
My last criticism of the White Paper is of the design, shape and size of the area boards. If you give up the idea of the quid pro quo for statutory protection, you will instantly free the area boards from a vast bureaucratic burden—possibly the biggest single task which the White Paper envisaged for them. This would free very large sums of money which it is intended to screw out of the reluctant angler for the much more desirable purpose of improving the quality and the quantity of Scotland's trout fishing. It is not necessary for area boards to have large technical staffs. It would be better to expand the central scientific and technical advisory service based on Pitlochry so that it can service a greater number of more active boards, than to set up "mini-Pitlochries" in each board area. One would then allocate to area boards the largely administrative and day-to-day functions. This would allow one to create more and smaller boards, which would in the end make for greater efficiency. Area 9, for instance, already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, is much too big to administer properly. It should at least be halved, and preferably divided into three. Relieved of the task of issuing licences and registrations for stautory protection, and granted the rates which at present go to the local authorities, two boards covering the area at present proposed as Area 9 would be viable, at once, and without Government subsidy.
To sum up, my Lords, I say to Her Majesty's Government that there is no Eldorado in licences; there is only bureaucracy. Let Scotland remain unique in not having them and raise your money by the more certain method of rating. Relieve fishings of local authority rates but direct the same amounts to area boards. Make your area boards smaller and more in number. Provide the technical and scientific know-how to area boards, as is done now, from a central advisory service, which should be expanded to meet the needs of boards. Drop your idea of a complicated and unworkable quid pro quo for statutory protection and clarify the position where trout and salmon interests overlap. In short, simplify your approach to this problem if you wish to succeed in the aim of all of us, which is to improve the quality and

527
quantity of game fishing in Scotland and its availability to the angling public at large.
3.39 p.m.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye on two specific points. The first is to appeal to my noble friend on the Front Bench not to hurry this legislation but to make quite sure that we get the right answers before it comes to Parliament. Secondly, I feel it is vital that the area chairmen are elected by those responsible, and not appointed by the Secretary of State. Indeed, it would be right to support my noble friend in saying that all the fishery representatives should be elected by the fishery interests concerned. I know there is some difficulty at the moment between upper and lower proprietors on certain rivers, particularly on the Tay, where the netting interests have had control over the angling interests; but it should be possible to rectify this by altering the boundaries between the lower and the upper proprietors and so making it possible for all fishery interests to elect their own representatives. If this is not done I feel that it will lay the fisheries interests open to political jiggery-pokery, depending on which Party may be in power and allowing the Secretary of State to appoint the representatives. Some representatives might say that more fishing should be thrown open to the public, some less, and I feel it is highly undesirable that politics should enter into the best interests of Scottish fishing.
One of the biggest problems is that of the boundaries of the various area boards. I feel they leave very much to be desired and I can find no one with interest in the proposed Area 7, covering most of Inverness-shire and Argyll; Area 8, which is composed mainly of Ross-shire; Area 9, the most northern area on the mainland which has already been condemned by the noble Viscount. Lord Thurso, and Area 10, the Western Isles and Skye, which have no real affinity with each other and which indeed will eventually be in different local authority areas. I am told that the reason why these four northern areas are so large and cover East and West is that the East coast rivers are supposed to subsidise the West coast rivers; but, my
528
Lords, the Awe is South of the Tay and the Tay has its own board. Why should not the Tay subsidise the Argyllshire rivers. If the Ness is to subsidise West coast rivers, why should not the Tay? The Tweed has its own board; why should not the Tweed subsidise the Dumfries-shire or the Ayrshire rivers? Why should the Ness be in almost a category of its own? Areas 4, 5 and 6 are rich, compact groups of rivers, all running into the East coast; they do not subsidise any West coast rivers. Why should the Ness or the Beauly or the Conon, or any of the other East coast rivers further North?
If the recommendations of the Hunter Committee were to be complied with, one of the criteria would be that so far as possible the board areas should follow local authority areas. The report of the Hunter Committee came up so long ago that there was then no proposal to have regional local government, but the White Paper has not altered the position and I feel that it ought to fall in line so far as possible with the new proposed regional local government boundaries. Many rivers are not covered at all by existing fishery boards, particularly the smaller rivers in the North; and to ensure that we get the best possible areas I feel that the Government should call a meeting, probably by advertisement, of all proprietors, and possibly even some lessees in the Highland Local Government Region, to try to get the maximum agreement on what should be the best area boards and the regions for them. It seems difficult otherwise to get together all the local people who have an interest in fishing, and I think it would be unfair to ask any one board or individual to call such a meeting. Unfortunately there is bureaucratic thinking in the attempts to impose on these areas the view that they should be self-supporting financially. Fishing is a national asset and the basic principle in formulating the boundaries should be the efficiency of management. Ultimately the efficiency of the board areas is likely to be the criteria governing the economics of those areas. If a board official has to travel miles from one part of his area to another, not only is his time being wasted but his travelling costs as well, and the cost of these represent an overall loss to our national asset, the fisheries.

529
I believe there have been objections to having area board licences and I should like to add my voice to those objections. I feel that the licence should be entirely a national licence. For a start, this would make the collecting of the licence fees much easier. Then the licence fees would be used for the improvement of the national fishings in the country, and in particular for an equalisation grant to the various area boards which were not likely ever to be economic. For instance, the Western Isles could never have really efficient fishery protection. Probably the only way to do it would be to employ a fishery cruiser, but it will always need outside subsidisation. One of the biggest objections to having all the national licences going into a central fund is that the Treasury would "pinch" the money in the same way as they have done with the Road Fund licences. I suggest that there should be an association of area boards who would take the money and administer it so that it never got into the hands of the Government at all. They should allocate it not only to the areas that require it but also to the Anglers' Trust. I think also that when the area boards were considered very little thought was given to the administration of the seaward side of these boards. Indeed, on the map in the White Paper we are not even shown the seaward boundaries and there is no doubt that, particularly on the West Coast, a great deal of the poaching is done from the sea.
If I may now move on to rod fishing, I should like to touch on the question of the differentiation between salmon and trout fishing. I wonder what may happen in difficult places such as Loch Ness, where there is a considerable multiplicity of people with the right to fish among whom it would be difficult to secure unanimity to any proposals. Are such waters as these to become a free-for-all probably resulting in nothing for anyone? The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has already mentioned this problem; there is much concern about it and I hope that when the noble Baroness replies she will elaborate on this point beyond what is contained in the White Paper. How is one to differentiate between the type of fish a person is fishing for? One could well fish with a light rod and a small fly and land a salmon whereas one has only a trout
530
licence. In that circumstance I think one would be submitted to a severe temptation not to put the salmon back, and I feel that this type of situation should be avoided.
I should now like to say a brief word in regard to netting. The White Paper makes it clear that sweep nets operated by net and cable contribute:
"significantly more to the commercial catch than the fixed coastal nets",
and though there is nothing in the White Paper on the probable cost of netting licences there are unpleasant rumours that the fixed nets are to get the rough end of the stick at the expense of the sweep nets. When it comes to the question of weekly close time, here again the fixed nets are at disadvantage as compared with the sweep nets. Coastal nets have to depend on the tide and it may be some time before the sweep nets can start fishing, or they may have to slap their nets very much earlier before the close time; and it may well be that with the further closure of the weekly close time the stake nets will have to pack up altogether. May I make one suggestion with regard to stake nets, because there is concern on the part of some people that some nets, on the excuse of bad weather, will go on fishing into the weekly close time. I believe quite a number of salmon are coming on to the market on a Monday, and I consider that if the fishermen cannot slap on the Friday or Saturday the time during which they have operated ought to be deducted from the following week's fishing time. My Lords, time is running out, and so I will make my other points to the noble Baroness in writing.
3.50 p.m.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, in rising to support the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, on his very important Motion, I shall speak only in a disjointed way on various aspects of the case. Before dealing with the proposals in the White Paper, seeing that there are so many of your Lordships here to-day who are keen fishermen, whether salmon or sea trout or brown trout, perhaps we should for a moment turn our minds to consider the situation as regards the fish themselves.
I will first refer to salmon. I am in the fortunate position, like the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, of having the best part of a river in family possession, and,

531
like Lord Thurso, I have done my best to develop that river, with fairly satisfactory results, over a period of years. It might interest your Lordships to know that at the time my father went to the South African War, by overnetting the River Beauly the catch on that river had been reduced to some 250 rod caught salmon in a season; and 15,000 fish had been taken out of the river by netting during the previous 20 years, in my grandfather's time. When my father returned from South Africa he did something which was considered ill-advised at that point in time; namely, to introduce salmon hatcheries on the River Beauly. He bought up all the coastal nets between Beauly and Inverness, which is a distance of 11 miles, on both sides of the Firth, the Black Isle in the North and the Inverness coast line on the South side of the county boundary. The effect within five years was quite remarkable; and without trying to "blow up" the importance of a very small salmon river, in catches on rod and line and in the private netting the river within 10 years more or less got back to its previous high reputation and became a well stocked river.
I mention that only because we have kept records on the Beauly for 150 years, and we can draw certain conclusions from that period of trial and error. With all respect to Her Majesty's Government, I think that some of the recommendations made here are in a general sense, not in the more important sense of studying each individual river on its own merits; there are no two salmon rivers alike; we all agree about that—every river has its different problems.
Passing from that matter for a moment, let me consider the Atlantic salmon. Your Lordships are well aware that this very precious fish is reaching the point of no return; there is no question about that. The best part of the White Paper refers to cutting down on sea nets and nylon nets and the damage which is done on the North-Eastern Coast off the North of England, where salmon are caught in vast quantities. Make no mistake about that. They are finding their way back to the East Coast rivers of Scotland. We talk a lot about the damage done off the Denmark Straits and Iceland, but there are almost as many fish being destroyed along
532
the Cumberland coast. This is a very serious matter, and if we can stop it the result will be very much more important than the White Paper. We all want more people to have access to our salmon and sea trout and brown trout, but it is a well known axiom in any fishing circles that if you want to catch more you have got to fish less. That is my message to your Lordships' House to-day.
Whether we are going to cut down on th sea nets and the coast nets is for your Lordships to decide, but salmon are at a very dangerous point in regard to survival of the species. It is not only a matter of the coast nets and the sea nets, but of ulcerative dermal necrosis. Salmon disease, we cheerfully say, is only going to last for a year or two; but the last outbreak of salmon disease in the Tweed, which was in the nineties, went on for 10 years. We are only in our fourth year at the present time, and I can foresee another six years of very severe losses to salmon fishing. On the basis of this assumption (and I am sure I am correct in this) we have got to protect our fish in some way or other. We have got to decide whether it is right to permit the various engines of destruction which are facing the salmon running up the rivers, to continue.
During the time that I have been interested in fishing, quite apart from U.D.N. and hydroelectric schemes and nylon nets and all the rest, salmon have to some extent changed their habits. We now know that in every river the spring fish are no longer returning; they have been killed out. This is a very serious state of affairs. Those fish are the ones that make the big money on the fishmonger's slab or to the tenant who wants to rent a beat on a good salmon river in April, May and June. And in the East Coast rivers in the North of Scotland we are finding ourselves more and more dependent on the grilse trout which does not come into the rivers before the end of June, very often later than that. Grilse breed grilse. This has become an accepted fact which certainly was not known when I was a boy. The grilse are coming later every year. More and more fish are coming into the Northern rivers now that are never fished for at all.
The noble Baroness must think very seriously whether it is advisable, in the

533
interests of salmon fishing rather than the individual person, to restrict spring fishing, whether on the rivers with a rod or in the coastal nets with fixed engines of destruction. I would personally immediately recommend that spring netting should cease along the coast, but this destroys the livelihood of a great many very splendid people. I speak with an interest in coast nets, so I am perhaps speaking with a forked tongue on this occasion. But I should like to see a much shorter season for salmon fishing at both ends to stop the spring fish, the spawners which go right up our rivers, being killed. They are the important ones. I would like to see salmon fishing in each individual river judged on its merits, and stopped very much earlier in the autumn, because red fish, which are only a kipper in another form are easy to catch; there is no merit attached to it, and the hen fish are full of ova, which are of paramount importance to retain the existence of the species. Perhaps the noble Baroness might well think in terms of limiting the season to provide more fish to the anglers, which I think this White Paper basically has been produced to encourage, and give greater access and scope to our fisheries.
The noble Lord, Lord Burton, made the point, and I fully agree with him, that the Inspector of Salmon Fisheries for Scotland certainly winks at his post, because there is no doubt at all that during the 42 hours slapping period on the coast when salmon are supposed to get up their parent rivers there are a great many salmon caught out of hours at the week-end. I have been in Aberdeen fish market on many a Monday morning and have seen fish coming in that have been caught in the close period for fishing. This is very regrettable in relation to the productivity of the salmon population and the chance of survival. Whether or not the noble Baroness agrees with having a shorter season, I hope that she will at least bear this matter in mind.
The noble Viscount has more than covered the subject, but I agree entirely with every speaker on the constitution of river boards. With all respect to the Secretary of State, a man I very greatly admire, I think it is very difficult for him to decide which 10 people should be appointed to represent an area. It
534
should not be a political appointment. It ought to be people with at least full knowledge of the potential and the importance and the desirability of opening up or reducing the fishing on any one particular stretch of water, whether it be for salmon or trout. It is very easy for some inspector to go round an area like, say, Loch Leven with a flat shore, with easy access to the road, and to check whether or not people have fishing licences. But how on earth can two or three people in an area that stretches from coast to coast in the Highlands really find their way round the hill lochs, fishing at altitudes of up to 3,000 feet, little hill lochs which may take a day to walk up to and the best part of a night to get back from. This is patently absurd.
I should like co tell your Lordships a very simple story of something that happened to me in the war when we were training troops on the West Coast for commando operations. The River Morar is a very small spate river on the West coast of Inverness-shire, and we landed 3,000 men at Morar Bay at night. The local watcher's Gallic name was "Johnny deaf ears", and presumably he was slightly deaf. The troops thundered ashore—they were meant to walk very quietly—and they landed on the Morar River that summer evening. I was an umpire, and after the last fellows got up the beach I asked the watcher whether there was any interference on the river or whether he had seen anybody. His reply was, "No, it has been a very quiet evening". He had been asleep or smoking his pipe under the railway bridge.
This is exactly what will happen on the West Coast river with watchers appointed by this all-important triumvirate. They could not begin to control the areas, as the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has said. Nobody on the East Coast knows what the problems are on the West Coast, so it is a farcical situation. Really it is bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. If we are going to levy a great deal of money, surely it is not to maintain the board but to maintain the fish in which we are interested. If one spent money on hatcheries or buying off coastal nets this White Paper would be doing a splendid job, but I see no point at all in having 10-men committees which are going to multiply and breed red tape.
House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

NORTHERN IRELAND EMERGENCY REGULATIONS AND ARMY POWERS
4.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSITAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I beg leave to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will have made in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"When the Army were sent to Northern Ireland in support of the Civil Power in 1969 it was assumed that they would operate under the powers conferred on them by Regulations made under the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland). This assumption was challenged in a habeas corpus application last summer in our own High Court when the view held by the Government as to the validity of these powers was upheld by Mr. Justice Ackner.
"This morning the Northern Ireland High Court has delivered a judgment which declared, in effect, that these Regulations are ultra vires in so far as they confer powers on members of the Armed Forces.
"The particular Regulation challenged in the case before the Northern Ireland High Court is one which empowers a commissioned officer to call on an assembly of persons to disperse. But it appears that the Court's judgment would equally affect other Regulations, including, for example, the power to stop and search people and vehicles suspected of carrying firearms or explosives.
"It is clearly a matter of great urgency to ensure that the Army have all the powers they need and which succeeding Governments have recognised to be necessary in order to deal with the terrorist campaign. It is also necessary to ensure that members of the Armed Forces would not be liable to any legal proceedings based on this technical point in respect of the exercise of these powers since 1969. There is a right of appeal from the judgment
536
of the Northern Ireland High Court to the House of Lords but it would inevitably take some time before such an appeal could be heard. My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General will therefore later to-day introduce a short Bill which the House will be invited to proceed to consider through all its stages forthwith. The sole effect of the Bill will be to declare that the law so far as the powers of the Armed Forces are concerned is and always has been what it had hitherto been believed to be."
My Lords, that is the conclusion of the Statement. Perhaps I may be allowed to add that, quite obviously, what has been read will involve an alteration in the business of your Lordships' House later this evening. What I have done is to repeat the Home Secretary's Statement, but there will inevitably be a Business Statement from the Front Bench as well.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for repeating that Statement. It discloses what I suppose we would all say, without exaggeration, is an unsatisfactory position. I imagine that we shall also say that there can be but one answer from this House: that we will do what we can to set the position right; in other words, to put the law without any doubt in the position in which we thought it was when we passed the Emergency Powers legislation in 1969.
However, there is one point about which I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. What will be the position of Mr. Hume if this legislation passes? Can the noble and learned Lord give us any assurance that there can be no question of using this legislation retrospectively to overturn the successful appeal which Mr. Hume has made in the Northern Ireland Court? Can the noble and learned Lord also tell us what will he the position of others who have possibly been convicted, or certainly face a charge, but have not made the appeal which Mr. Hume has successfully made?
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for making this very serious Statement. Whatever may be one's views about the policy of

537
the Government, or about the Regulations that were passed in 1969, it seems absolutely clear that the Army have been carrying out duties imposed on them, and carrying them out in very difficult circumstances, and it is absolutely essential that the Army should be indemnified; and that as speedily as possible. I hope, and I think we all hope, that whatever is necessary will be done to-day. The Statement repeated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to a right of appeal to the House of Lords. Do I understand that leave to appeal has been granted, and that in due course there will be an appeal?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if I dealt at once with these two responses to the Statement; and I would thank both noble Lords for the responsible and helpful way in which this difficult Statement has been received by them. If I may correct a small point in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, the position is this. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 (I am summarising rather shortly, and I hope I am not guilty of inaccuracy) gave plenary powers of legislation to Stormont, with certain exceptions. One of those exceptions—and I am not quoting now, and therefore will not quote exactly accurately—was to legislate in any matter affecting the Armed Forces.
It had been believed when the last Government were in power, and it was believed by us, and was so held by Mr. Justice Ackner, that this did not affect powers conferred on the Armed Forces under Regulations pursuant to the Special Powers Act 1922 (which is a Stormont Act and not a Westminster Act), on the ground that it was not, to use a compendious phrase, a military matter; the Regulations were simply giving to the Armed Forces powers already possessed by people like police constables or higher officers of the Ulster Constabulary. What has happened, so I understand (although I have not had the advantage of reading the text of the judgment), is that the powers conferred under the Regulations. some of which go back as far as 1966, and some of which are as recent as 1970, were not intra vires the Government of Ireland Act because they were Regulations purporting to confer powers on the Armed Forces of the Crown—either all
538
the Armed Forces of the Crown or on commissioned officers, as in the identical Regulation. It is not anything that we have done in this Parliament which is ultra vires or has been ruled against. It is the powers under which the Armed Forces have been operating, under both Governments, since 1969, by virtue of Stormont regulations.
Of course, my Lords, there can be no question at all that the Armed Forces possess the general Common Law powers which they possess in any part of the United Kingdom, or any powers which we confer on them. But the assumption had been that the Stormont Government, having general and plenary powers of legislation, could, through delegated legislation under the Special Powers Act, confer on the Armed Forces powers like those specified in the Statement, such as powers to stop vehicles, to arrest, to search for arms and explosives and so forth. I hope I have made that plain, because it could have been inferred from what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said that it was something which we had done in this House that was ultra vires.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, raised the question of Hume, and this point was also raised, in another form, by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. The position is that the decision of the Northern Ireland High Court was on an appeal by Hume. There can be no question, of course, of reinstating the conviction against which he successfully appealed this morning. There can be no question of that. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, indicated, that counsel for the authorities in Northern Ireland, the Northern Irish Counsel for the Crown, asked for, and obtained, leave to appeal to the House of Lords; but if the new Bill is passed the Crown's appeal will not be proceeded with and therefore the conviction will remain quashed. In my belief, it will not, of course (although we can go into this later today when we discuss the Bill) render invalid anything which has happened, other than the convictions which have been successfully appealed against, because when the text of the Bill is seen it will be seen to be a declaratory Bill declaring what the Government believe to be the true meaning—I am not casting any aspersions on the validity of the judgment—in the sense of the intended

539
meaning of the Act from the first. The Bill will not render invalid any other thing which has been done. On the contrary, it will render it valid if the effect of the Northern Irish judgment is otherwise to have rendered it invalid. But so far as regards the convictions which have been quashed, they will remain quashed and I am sure that the House will agree with that. I am sorry to have taken so long over that explanation.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I am afraid that I did not quite catch whether the word "conviction" was in the singular or in the plural. Are we referring only to the conviction of Mr. Hume or to others in similar positions?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, what I am not quite clear about myself is whether the judgment which was delivered this morning affected more than Hume. The Notice of Motion which I have seen was a Notice of Motion in the name of three defendants. What I have said is that whether it is one conviction or more, the judgment this morning will not be impugned by way of an appeal, which means that any conviction or convictions, in either the singular or the plural, which may have been quashed this morning will remain quashed. That is the intention. But at the moment I am not quite clear, not having seen the judgment myself, whether in fact what was quashed was one conviction or more than one.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I do not think any of us will want to oppose a Bill which gives this right to the Army. As a Back-Bencher, I suppose that I must make my comments in the form of questions. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that all of us in this House have a horror of what the I.R.A. has done, and particularly of what happened yesterday? Is he also aware that many of us feel that the soldiers who are in the Army in Northern Ireland are the deepest sufferers from events that are occurring there? Is the noble and learned Lord further aware that it is very difficult to make any comment now upon the complicated Statement which has been made, but may I ask him this? If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to grant indemnity to members of the Army, will similar indemnity be given
540
to those who have been interned and detained, and whose internment and detention has not been held up in courts of law? If that assurance is not given, may I give notice that in the Committee stage of this Bill I shall move a manuscript Amendment to that effect?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said to begin with, that he will not oppose the Bill. I never had any doubt that he would share the universal horror and indignation, particularly at what was done yesterday, and in general at acts of violence and senseless cruelty such as are committed by both branches of the I.R.A. As regards his question, the indemnity will apply only to those things which have been invalidated as a result of this morning's proceedings in the High Court in Northern Ireland. It will not apply to anything else. If, for any reason outside the ambit of the grounds of the decision this morning, something else has been done—for instance, in excess of power, or in excess of propriety under the general law—that will not be indemnified in respect of either the troops or anybody else. But anything which is done within the ambit of the power that was declared invalid this morning will be validated to the extent that the Bill will clothe with the authority of this House, of this Parliament, the things which always had been clothed under the authority of Stormont, which was believed to be sufficient at the time when the acts were done. It will not validate anything which was done in excess of that, and of course, as I have already said, it will not alter the convictions or the conviction which was quashed this morning.

BUSINESS: NORTHERN IRELAND EMERGENCY
4.18 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if at this point I were to make a short Statement suggesting how we might conduct our business in the light of the Statement which my noble and learned friend has just repeated. It is the suggestion—and I think it commands the general assent of the usual channels—that this brief Bill should pass

541
through all its stages in your Lordships' House to-night, and so receive the Royal Assent either later to-night or early to-morrow morning. That means suspending Standing Order No. 42, which states that no two stages of a Bill may be taken on one day.
Your Lordships know that in order to suspend Standing Orders it is usually necessary to give notice, and because of the emergency of the present conditions that has not been possible. It will therefore be necessary for the House to agree without notice that Standing Order No. 42 should be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Bill through all its stages to-night. Therefore, at the conclusion of the debate on the need for a Broadcasting Council, the second of our two mini-debates this afternoon, my noble and learned friend proposes to move that Standing Order No. 78 be read by the Clerk at the Table. I would briefly remind your Lordships that that Standing Order provides that no Standing Order may be suspended or dispensed with without notice, save "on an occasion of grave national emergency" or "for reasons of national security". It is perhaps worth remarking that a proviso to that effect was inserted, as a result of a recommendation from the Procedure Committee, only last Thursday in your Lordships' House, and agreed to. It is my firm belief that the present situation very definitely involves national security. Therefore when Standing Order No. 78 has been read the Clerk will read Standing Order No. 42, and thereafter my noble and learned friend will move to resolve:
"That it is essential for reasons of national security that the Bill should immediately be proceeded with and taken through ail its stages this day."
My Lords, I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House if the substantive debate on the Bill were to take place on the Motion moved by my noble and learned friend. Copies of the Bill are in fact now available in the Printed Paper Office. If that course is agreeable, I would suggest that the Bill might then be taken formally when it reaches us from another place. I have noted that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, whose position on this matter we all respect, has said that he would wish to move a Manuscript Amendment to this Bill. I hope that he may be per-
542
suaded, on consideration, in view of the explanation I have given of the procedure, to make his point in the substantive debate; but, of course, what course he takes is entirely up to him.
I am afraid that I am unable at this stage to give your Lordships any indication of how long it will be before the Bill is sent to this House from another place. But I think I can give an approximate indication that if it is agreed that we should handle this matter in the way I have just suggested, our substantive debate on this matter, which I hope might be quite brief, would start about eight o'clock. My Lords, when we have finished debating the procedural Motions to which I have referred and had our substantive discussion, the House would then adjourn during pleasure and resume when the Bill was likely to be brought to us from another place. We would then take the Bill through all its stages as rapidly as possible before adjourning again to await the Royal Assent to it. That is the proposition on how we might handle this which I should like to put to your Lordships.
4.23 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation. The House should be aware—indeed, noble Lords are clearly aware—that this is a very unusual situation. We clearly do not want to rush our fences, and I am not accusing the Government of doing so in this matter; but, as the noble Earl has pointed out, this new procedure has only just been passed. So that no one shall suspect the Government of either an unnatural prescience or some malice aforethought, I think I should say that the actual suggestion that we ought to be in a position, in a situation of grave national emergency, to pass such legislation in fact came from myself some weeks ago. I say this to exonerate the Government Front Bench. The protection that is provided under the Standing Order, and the notice that has been given, should be amply sufficient for your Lordships to decide whether this is an occasion upon which the relevant Standing Order should be suspended.
I am a little bothered at the noble Earl's suggestion that the substantive debate should necessarily take place on the suspension of the Standing Order.

543
At the moment I am not quite sure what there is to debate. My noble friend Lord Brockway may wish to raise a point, but unless noble Lords are inclined to say that this is not a grave national emergency—and clearly, in a situation in which the troops and the authorities are not able to operate, it seems to me it is almost automatically a grave national emergency—and although there may be something to be said for getting any debate over early, I do not think it necessarily follows that the House will wish to debate this matter at any length, and certainly not at sufficient length to carry the House on until such an unearthly hour as the legislation may reach us from another place. I do not of course know how the Speaker will rule on Amendments and other such matters, but, as the noble Earl suggested, we may not see the legislation until to-morrow morning. Therefore I think we should keep rather closely in touch and see how matters go.
It seems to me that the Bill which was explained by the noble and learned Lord does not lend itself to the sort of Amendment that my noble friend had in mind, which seems to me to bear on a completely different point. I am not saying that my noble friend has not a substantial point, but I just do not quite see how it bears on the Bill, copies of which are in the Printed Paper Office. Therefore I would only say that I think the Government have no option but to proceed in the way suggested. and my only point of disagreement is whether or not we shall wish to debate the procedural Motion.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if I may respond straight away to what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said—and I am grateful to him—I am not suggesting that we should necessarily debate this matter on the procedural Motion. I certainly would not wish to encourage your Lordships so to do. I agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that it is very difficult to question the fact that national security is involved in this particular issue. I had thought that if any Members of your Lordships' House wished to debate the Bill itself this was an opportunity for so doing, although I very much tend to agree with what the noble Lord
544
the Leader of the Opposition has said as to the difficulty of debating the sort of Amendment which the noble Lord. Lord Brockway, half foreshadowed. I had felt that if there were a desire on the part of any Member of your Lordships' House to debate that or a similar issue, it would perhaps be better to do so at an hour which was more or less predictable, rather than at some very uncertain hour during the middle of the night. I entirely agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that this is essentially a matter where the two sides of the House should keep in rather close contact through the usual channels.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I leave until the Committee stage the question as to whether my Amendment is in order? Perhaps I may just say that I have the highest authority for saying that it is.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES IN SCOTLAND
4.27 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, when my noble friend the Chief Whip made a Statement on February 17 about the conduct of these mini-debates he suggested—and I think your Lordships will agree—that it would be useful if an announcement was made as to the effect of any interruptions on the ending time of the debate. The debate which we are on at the moment would have ended at 5.37. There have been 26 minutes of interruption. and therefore the debate need not end until three minutes past six. I should point out, however, as there are comparatively few speakers left, that my noble friend also said:
"I must make it clear that there is no obligation upon anybody to try to fill the whole of the two and a half hours allowed. if less time would suffice. This means that the mover of the Motion which is to be the subject of the second debate must be in the House and ready to move his Motion when ever the first debate ends".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17/2/72, col. 313.]
4.29 p.m.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords. may I refer to the Hunter Report now? I should just like to say that no fishery or riparian owner should be compelled to

545
give access to the public for the purpose of salmon or trout fishing in Scotland; or even to join the proposed Trust. This point raises the ever-annoying issue of the curious position of trespass in Scotland. The sooner some new law comes into force concerning this problem the better. I am considering the advisability of presenting a Private Member's Bill to cope with this ever-increasing inconvenience of invasion of privacy in this field—and I use that latter word deliberately. The western march of my property in the Highlands consists of a mile or so of river once famed for its salmon and, no doubt, for some good trout. Nowadays, the facts are different. The salmon are virtually no more and the trout are fickle. In the past the river bank was privately bailiffed. Now it is not; for obvious stated reasons. It is this lack that attracts the townees and others who tend to wander all over the place at will. This is not a very good state of affairs and must encourage various forms of major and minor hooliganism, to the danger of humans, animals and land alike.
Let there be no mistake. A situation like this can get rapidly out of hand if it is allowed to continue. Just because these areas are unfenced it does not mean that they are public commons, as tended until recently to be the case in England. Therefore I feel that it is high time that we had a statutory protection law for trout which would protect the fish and the bank owners at the same time, should the trespass law be amended—quite apart from any proposed project for attempting to channel river and loch fishing in any way. I hope that no pressure will be put on involved people to join the Scottish Anglers' Trust although such an organisation could go a long way towards initiating good will and better understanding.
The whole subject of the Trust could be very complex and should be approached with extreme, care and attention to detail. Its sum, prior to finalisation, will present many headaches for its initiators and must work from the start to work at all. So hasten slowly.
In paragraph 114 of the Report it is suggested that protection for all water should be "universal", as they rather grandly put it, in order to hinder the offender from claiming that he thought a particular water was unprotected. With
546
reservations, that is obviously a good plan but will need careful handling when drafting takes place; for the land principal must always be kept to the forefront of the mind. To much regimentation by the proposed Trust to the detriment of riparian and water owners must be avoided. After all, the fact of owning property in the United Kingdom still gives owners a measure of freedom which is sacred. It matters not a jot that much of the property of which we speak to-day is virtually untenable except for sport, particularly in the Western Highlands. Sport is a very large factor, as to income, on many Scottish estates and must therefore not be damaged by wandering fishermen. Farming interests on in-bye land, where much of the fishing takes place, must also be heavily protected from the arrival of stray men and motor cars littering the area. It is pleasing to see that the Report indicates its surprise that brown trout fisheries in Scotland have remained without protection or organisation for so long. But let not this encourage the Trust to swing sharply to the other extreme. We shall be watching developments with more than a little interest.
4.34 p.m.
LORD HOY: I should like to say one or two words in this debate. I am afraid I will not be equal to Lord Lovat's Highland gentleman who could not hear 300 people crossing a river because he was lying under a bridge sleeping and smoking his pipe. He was a true Highland gentle man if he managed to achieve all those things! I could hardly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that we are rushing legislation through the House on the Hunter proposals. Next week we shall be celebrating the tenth anniversary of the appointment of the Hunter Committee; and ten years is a fairly long time. This White Paper has been before us since November. I know that one might argue, "If we have waited for ten years then let us wait for another month or two". I should not think that the proposals will create a great deal of trouble. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Thuro, that trouble might be created if the proposal had been for the State to take over the fishing rights. That might have made good sense but, as he says, it would have been very expensive. It has been known in Scotland even for a public

547
undertaking to take over water. The compensation, I can assure him, was pretty substantial. If there is one way in which you can increase the value of rivers it is for some public undertaking to express a desire to have them. The value trebles overnight. So that is one restriction.
It is true that having appointed the Hunter Committee the Government of which I was a member did not take any action. We had no proposals. We called for the comments of everybody but no proposals were made. As the noble Baroness knows, it is true that every time you deal with fishing matters, internal or external, you have only to get two or three interested people together, as Lord Burton suggested, and you may depend upon it that you will get six or seven policies as the outcome of the negotiations. That is what we have to contend with in this matter. I should have thought the White Paper does not create any grave new changes; but the one change—and here I agree with Lord Balfour—is that for the first time it gives protection to the brown trout. No landowner and no riparian owner will be compelled to give his river for fishing. As I understand it, the proposal is that if he does this he is going to have protection; but he cannot be compelled to do it. All will have to be done in a voluntary way. It is here, I think, that trouble may be created. You can imagine one stretch of the river that has protection because the owner has volunteered to go into the scheme, while his next door neighbour may say, "Whatever they say, I am not volunteering at all". Where you have this situation arising, any dividing line—and this has been shown in Ireland, if anywhere—may be the cause of trouble. This I think might well happen.
There is a further proposal. The owner may say to the area board, "Although I am doing this I should like to retain part of the river for my own private and personal fishing." I can see more trouble arising here because this section also will be covered for protection. It would cost the owner nothing. The fact that he has volunteered for the scheme not only gives him protection over the public stretches of his river but over the private stretches also, at the expense of the public. So I think this matter had better be looked at.
548
Nominations are always a difficult matter. When you grant all these powers to the Secretary of State for Scotland or to any other Minister you are in effect saying that here is one man so competent as to be able to make these selections. On the other hand, I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, that I do not agree that any society should have the right to nominate who they want on the board itself. I should have thought—and I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness will tell us about this—that when these boards come to be appointed the Secretary of State will write to the various associations, be they owners or anglers or any other section of the community and, as is frequently done, will ask them to make three or four nominations. From these nominations the Secretary of State for Scotland could make his appointments. On the whole, I think this as equitable and fair a way of selecting the boards as could be found.
I want to say a word about salmon fishing because we have always to remember that when the Government of the day first introduced the ban on drift netting for salmon, it was because we were told—and there was no river owner who did not support the case then made—that drift netting was robbing the rivers of salmon. Since then we have found exactly where the salmon are disappearing. They are not even getting near the coasts of Scotland but are being plundered in their feeding grounds. One of the unfortunate things about man is that he sometimes discovers things which were best left alone, and that has happened in this case. So now that argument does not bear great weight. I am not saying that it is unimportant, but, speaking to-day with hindsight, I am saying that it has not the force it had when the first decision was made. It forms a very small part of our fishermen's case. To-day—and this is where I do not altogether agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lovat—we have U.D.N. to add to that. In addition to the over-fishing of the grounds, which I think that the North East Atlantic Conference will help to put right, we have this attack of U.D.N. These things together have made the situation very difficult and we cannot underestimate their importance. The noble Lord is right in saying that there

549
is little we can do about U.D.N. It will have to work its own way out, and that will take sonic time, but on the whole I think that the proposals are reasonable.
I should like to say a word on the proposal to set up the Scottish Anglers' Trust. That looks all right on paper and I suppose that at the end of the day it will become a reality. We have to make charges and we shall have this rod licence fee to pay. This is one of the matters in which we do not want to be equal with England or anybody else. The Scots are about the only folk who do not pay a rod licence. I do not think, however, that the £1 subscription will kill us. I am doubtful whether they may not go on to buy fishing rights. It is true that you cannot buy very much in the way of fishing rights for a subscription of £1, but in the South it has been known for certain angling clubs, backed by large employers, to buy certain fishing rights on rivers; and then the complaint comes from other anglers that they are prohibited from fishing there.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, as a brother Scot, I fully support everything that the noble Lord. Lord Hoy, has said. But would it not be an inducement to pay if the angler thought that he would get a benefit in the form of hatchery protection to supplement the fish which were being taken? I refer particularly to brown trout and loch fishing.
LORD HOY: Certainly, my Lords. I said that I do not think they will raise any objection. My only point is that after you have been enjoying the advantages of a free rod, someone will now come along and say, "We want £1 from you." But I have seen what has been done in many parts of the world, and I am all for it, so I would subscribe to this proposal heartily. But there is the further danger which should be taken into account when legislation is being framed. Having said that, I should like to conclude by expressing my personal thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for making it possible for us to debate this question to-day.
4.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, if I may intervene for a moment—I have asked permission from my noble friend on the Gov-
550
ernment Front Bench—I should like to sound a note of warning and refer to what has happened in New Zealand, which is the same size as the British Isles and where there is about the same amount of water. There, I understand, everyone used to be able to fish, until the water became over-fished and a strict licensing system had to be imposed. I hope that if the proposals in the White Paper become law the boards issuing the licences will be careful not to issue too many, otherwise the waters here may become over-fished, and no one would gain from that.
There is one other point I should like to make regarding brown trout fishing. There are many proprietors who have stocked their lochs at considerable expense. If they are in this scheme and licences are to be granted to enable members of the public to fish those lochs, will the proprietors have any recompense? I have not read the White Paper thoroughly, but presumably the board will co-operate in respect of the expense of stocking the lochs, otherwise it would be rather unfair. If a great number of people are fishing for brown trout on rivers and lochs where there are salmon and sea trout, it would be easy for unscrupulous anglers to fish for sea trout, and even for salmon, while pretending that they were fishing only for brown trout. I am wondering how such a state of affairs may be regulated. Having said that, my Lords, I should like to apologise for 'having interrupted my noble friend.
4.47 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELV1E): My Lords, I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard that there is no question of any interruption, because if we wished we could go on with this mini-debate until three minutes past six, our having incurred what I believe is to be known as "injury time" because of the Statement which was made during the debate. I hasten to add, my Lords, that I have no intention of speaking for anything like that length of time. This is an enormous subject and I hope that noble Lords will be content if I try to deal with the main points which have been raised. If there are matters with which I am not able to deal in my reply, I will write to the noble Lords concerned.

551
I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye on having initiated an experiment in your Lordships' House. I would also congratulate all who have spoken on the brevity and clarity of their contributions. To all who have expressed concern that we were rushing forward in this matter I would say that we are very willing to take time to consider further representations than we have had already, and that we are still engaged in consultations. My noble friend Lord Balfour asked what was the position about legislation and why had we asked for representations to be in by February 29. We had hoped to have legislation this Session, but I can only say that at present that appears most unlikely, in view of the other legislation before Parliament, not least the European Communities Bill. The reason we asked for representations to be in by February 29 was that after so long a period of time since the publication of the Hunter Report, on which the White Paper is based we wanted to try to speed the consideration, so that we could prepare a Bill. But I assure noble Lords that there is still time for representations and I look on this debate as a useful contribution to the consultations that we have had, and are having.
My Lords, the main object of the Hunter Report and this White Paper may be summed up under three main headings: first, to try to conserve our stocks of salmon and trout; secondly, to develop and improve our fisheries, and thirdly, to try to make them more widely available. If I may, I should like to try to deal with the points that have been raised in this order. Several noble Lords, notably my noble friends Lord Balfour of Inchrye and Lord Lovat, and the noble Lords, Lord Thurso and Lord Hoy, welcomed the permanent ban on drift netting off the Scottish coast. But several noble Lords have quite rightly expressed concern about the rapid development of the drift-net fishing off the North-East of England in recent years. I have a great deal of sympathy with their view. The Northumbrian River Authority are very much aware of the feeling on this matter, and have made by-laws coming into operation in 1972 which will severely reduce the length of the fishing season and the amount of net that may be used in
552
the Southern part of the area. They further propose to limit the number of licences for fishing in the Southern part, and to extend the annual close season and weekly close times. These were all considered at a public inquiry last month. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is at present considering the report of this inquiry. I understand that the authority propose that the number of licences for fishing in the Southern part of that area should ultimately be reduced from over 250 in 1971 to 40. Of course, this could not happen right away because of certain entrenched rights, but I understand that there would nevertheless be an immediate drastic reduction in the number of licences issued.
My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye and the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, both spoke of the necessity to try to secure international agreement on fishing on the high seas. I feel that progress is being made in this direction. As the House knows, the main problem is in the North-West Atlantic, and in particular off the coast of Greenland, where the Danes and others have been taking very large catches of salmon, a considerable proportion of which it is thought originated in this country. At the 1970 meeting of the International Commission for the North-West Atlantic Fisheries the Danes agreed to certain restrictions, applying both outside and inside the 12-mile limit, including a limitation at the 1969 level on the tonnage of ships engaged in the fishery or in the amount of the catch. It was agreed last year that these restrictions should continue in 1972 and in 1973, subject to review in the event of any substantial changes in certain factors. Since then, noble Lords may be aware that there have been certain negotiations with the Danes which are designed gradually to restrict the catch in the waters off Greenland. I am not in a position to say any more in detail at this moment, but I think there is a very good prospect that we shall in fact reach agreement.
It is perfectly true. when we return to the main theme of the Hunter Report, that on the question of trap fisheries Hunter did suggest that there should be a gradual changeover to this method, if necessary by compulsion. I think the White Paper goes in considerable detail into why we do not wish to accept this

553
—largely because we do not think it is practicable—and therefore I will not repeat it now because I think noble Lords have asked several other questions of considerable importance. We intend to license certain nets and the discussions we are having at this moment with salmon netmen are to the effect that licences should be issued only in respect of fishings that were operated or let in two of the years 1967 to 1971.
In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and my noble friend Lord Lovat, I should like to say that we shall keep the annual close season arrangements broadly in the form in which they have operated since 1868, but instead of having a fixed season of 168 days we intend to take powers to vary the season as circumstances change, and area boards will be free to apply to the Secretary of State to vary this close season. We also intend to introduce the same flexibility into the weekly close time arrangements with a procedure which is similar to that for the annual close season; and it is intended when legislation comes forward that the Secretary of State will have the power to make changes in either the annual close season or the weekly close times for nets or for rods. I hope that this will be of some assurance to noble Lords.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend to ask whether in the weekly close time for nets the Government are thinking of differentiating between sweep nets and fixed stake nets, because it is much harder on the fixed stake nets.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF
BELHELVIE: I noticed the point made by my noble friend and also the difference in price, which I may say is put forward in a memorandum which has been issued to all the angling associations. It is for the area boards to consider what would be fair as between one form of fishing and another, and bearing in mind of course the circumstances of their particular area.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Burton that it is a difficult task to try to split the country into a reasonable number of units which are in themselves viable. I have noted his view that some of the proposed areas might in fact be altered. But we have tried to adopt, so
554
far as we could, the Hunter proposals on areas by taking into account the main principles of the Hunter Report, which were these: that each area should, if possible, be a satisfactory one for salmon and trout fishing, with enough finance for a wide range of functions; that the boundaries should be so drawn as to take account of communications and to prevent the isolation of small rivers which do not have enough revenue; that, so far as possible, boundaries should not cross those of the main local government or the river purification board area, and that areas should not be so large that local interests and knowledge are not available, because we are sure that they are extremely important. I would also assure noble Lords who brought up this point that it will be possible to make adjustments in area boundaries from time to time, and certainly as we gain experience in their operation.
A good number of noble Lords said that they felt it was a mistake in the composition of the area boards that the members, and in particular the chairmen, should be appointed by the Secretary of State. I would say to my noble friends Lord Burton and Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that the idea that the chairmen should be elected was one of the proposals of the Hunter Committee. But that Committee had suggested that everybody should be elected, except for a few members who would be appointed as independents representing special interests; that it was for the Secretary of State to decide the number in each category for each board, and that the representatives of salmon fishing should be elected under the plural voting system. We felt that that might lead to a polarisation of interests, and also that the plural voting arrangements sounded very complicated. I should like to assure all those who are concerned that if the Secretary of State does in the end make all appointments it will of course be done after consultation whit the organisations representing the interests concerned. This was a point put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy. That was the only way in which one could draw on the experience of, for example, those who are salmon proprietors or those who have some other particular fishing interest. We are having discussions on this matter with the associations concerned and I

555
think that this debate will be very useful while we are doing so.
On the question of finance, which is bound up with licences, I know the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, very well, because he has been good enough to give me a careful comment on the White Paper. Despite the fact that the English have had rod licences for a considerable time, he feels; that they would not be acceptable in Scotland. He fears that it would raise the price of fishing for many people. I must say that the reactions to this proposal have been mixed, but in consultation with the organisations concerned there has been a majority acceptance of the principle of licensing, and the licence structure which is proposed in the White Paper is broadly in line with the Hunter proposals, with fees ranging from £1 for an area trout licence to £10 for a national salmon licence.
It is thought that if there were to be any fees payable to area boards, the permit fee should by itself confer a right to fish; but I should like to put the consideration before the House that the idea behind licence fees is that they should be payable to area boards and used for the management and improvement of the rivers for everybody. The permit fee, on the other hand, is a payment to the proprietor for the use of his asset and charges differ, as we all know, according to the quality of the fishings even in the same river. I would only say that we have had a very interesting suggestion from one association, which is that there should be one licence covering all species over the whole of the country at a flat rate payment of £2. On a first consideration. I think this has many attractions because it would get over some of the difficulties mentioned by noble Lords and it would be very suitable for Scotland, where some salmon fishing can be got at quite inexpensive rates. It would also be easy and inexpensive to administer and (one never knows) it might in the end produce as much revenue as the system proposed by the Hunter Report. which we have until now been inclined to follow. We are certainly going to take a good deal of time to consider this particular matter.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, asked why we could not get a good deal
556
more finance for the area boards for the development of fisheries by trying to ensure that some proportion of the local authority rating should in fact be transferred—he did not mention a particular proportion—to the area boards instead of going to the local authority associations. Clearly the transfer of local authority ratings would be in conflict with the idea that it is rod fishing which should contribute to the rate income for that area, and if one contributes to the local authority rating, attractive as the idea is, it would be at the expense of other ratepayers of course. For that reason, I cannot say that I am very enthusiastic about it.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, may I point out to the noble Baroness that it would not be at the expense of anybody, because these rates are not yet leviable. They will become leviable the moment protection is given to trout fishings. Why should the local authorities suddenly get a bonus out of their trout fishings because people have elected to make their trout fishings available to the general public?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I think we are talking about two different systems of rates. There are the local authority rates and the fishery rates; and the fishery rates would of course continue to be available to the successors of the present district boards. The noble Viscount shakes his head: perhaps if I have not made this clear I might write to him later. But the idea is that the fishery rating system will continue; indeed, the whole idea is that both from these rates and from the rod and licence system the area boards will be able to improve the various fishings. We have estimated that the rod and licence system as put forward by Hunter would bring in between £170,000 and £215,000 a year and therefore the total sum available to area boards would be about £300,000 a year. As we have announced in the White Paper, the Government are prepared to provide £275,000 over three years to help the boards to start their work and to meet their runnings costs while the income from rod licences is building up.
Some noble Lords spoke about the statutory protection proposals so far as trout fishing is concerned. I notice that

557
my noble friend Lord Rankeillour is hoping to bring in a Bill regarding trespass in Scotland. Of course he will be aware that while salmon fishings are already fully protected under the Act of 1951, unauthorised fishing for brown trout is not at present a statutory offence but merely an infringement of civil rights. Therefore the only action open to a riparian proprietor is the rather ineffective and very difficult one of applying to the courts for interdict against a persistent poacher. In any case, if such an order is made it must be against that particular poacher.
We have, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said in introducing this debate, turned away from the Hunter proposals on compulsion. We are trying in all the proposals in the White Paper to secure agreement voluntarily and we think that by voluntarily letting a riparian owner ask for statutory protection for his trout fishing the area boards will then themselves have to consider the level of charges that are reasonable in the area. They must also decide, in relation to the quality of fishing, the rates of other fishings in the area and, of course, supply and demand.
On the question of the degree of access which should be given in return for protection, and which I agree is a very difficult one, each case will obviously have to be decided on its merits. If there is a case where there are valuable salmon fishings with little or no trout fishing as well, area boards could very well decide that only very limited access is suitable. I think this is very important, because I should not like the idea to be current in this House, or anywhere else, that because one applies for statutory protection for one's trout fishing, if in fact the bulk of the fishing in that particular area is for salmon, this then allows a very large number of people on to that particular amount of water.
My Lords, I feel that I should not speak any longer because I also have to limit my time in this mini-debate. I have tried to answer the main points put forward by noble Lords. I am most grateful to them for their contributions to this debate. We will take careful note of what has been said, and I hope that as a result this will be much more of an agreed measure.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, there is just one important point with which she has omitted to deal in her admirable survey. This is the question of the restocking of rivers and lochs. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, touched on this and referred to areas overseas which have the most wonderful fishing. He mentioned New Zealand. I myself know something about Canada, and you cannot now catch a fish within 100 miles of Toronto whereas fishing was ad lib 20 years ago. We all feel in Scotland that recommending more fishing is perfectly right, but one must replace the fish that are taken out; and this is the weakness of the White Paper.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the only reason I did not mention restocking—which of course is extremely important—was merely the shortage of time. But the area boards will be able to stock at their expense waters for which the proprietor has asked for statutory protection; and, as I said before I sat down, the area boards will have to decide, according to the nature of the particular water, how many people should have access to that water. That, I think, will limit the overfishing which the noble Lord fears.
5.10 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, in asking your Lordships' leave to withdraw this Motion, I would say that I hope that we have accomplished three things. First, we have succeeded in getting through the first mini-debate in 57 minutes under time. Secondly, your Lordships think that the scheme has worked fairly well. Thirdly, not only will the points made in the debate be read by a wide circle of interested parties outside the House, as well as by your Lordships, but also the statement that the Government's answer will be considered. The most satisfactory point to me in the Government's answer is that the Minister has admitted that these many questions are still open for further discussion and deliberation. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL ADVISORY SERVICE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

PROPOSED BROADCASTING COUNCIL
5.11 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING LORD ORR-EWING rose to call attention to the need for a Broadcasting Council on the lines of the Press Council, so that citizens who feel that broadcast programmes or authorities which depart from the obligation to give a balanced and objective view have a neutral body to which they can appeal; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I count myself extremely fortunate in having won the ballot on the first day of this experiment in your Lordships' House on the mini-debates which provide an opportunity, mainly for noble Lords on the Back Benches, to discuss for two and half hours subjects that we believe are of interest to the public outside and to your Lordships' House.
I have worded this particular Motion more broadly than I at first did. In the first instance I concentrated on the B.B.C.'s services, but I have now worded it to cover B.B.C. Television, Independent Television, B.B.C. sound radio, B.B.C. local radio, and, when it comes into being, independent local radio. Judging from my correspondence, and from the newspapers, the I.T.A. has developed its own procedure; and presumably if the Local Broadcasting Bill passes through another place, where it is at the moment in Committee, and through your Lordships' House, the Independent Broadcasting Authority will also endeavour to evolve a similar procedure. For these reasons I first worded this Motion to cover only public service broadcasting all under the B.B.C.—television, sound, and local broadcasting. On reflection, however, I felt that it was desirable to broaden the terms of reference to cover complaints from all broadcasting in the United Kingdom in the same way as the Press Council covers all newspapers. If I direct my remarks mainly to the B.B.C. organisation it is because I feel that the I.T.A. has a reasonable organisation and that the
560
B.B.C. is our public service national broadcasting system.
I believe that the Press Council has served a most useful purpose. There were suspicions and delays when it was first set up, but it has alleviated some public anxiety and I was glad that in 1964 an independent Chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, was appointed. It consists of 20 members with special Press knowledge and interests, and five lay members, one of whom is a woman. Since this is an exploratory debate I do not think one would wish to lay down the exact format for a possible Broadcasting Council, but it seems to me that there should be a majority of lay members representing the public. I hardly think that one woman, as in the case of the Press Council, will be sufficient. Broadcasting is essentially into the homes, and whatever we husbands are made to think by our wives, the fact is that they are in charge of the homes and therefore a healthy element from the female side would be highly desirable in any Broadcasting Council. I should equally like to see a minority of professional broadcasters who could bring their knowledge to the consultations just as the experts do to the Press Council. I do not think that this is the right debate to propose a draft constitution, but broadly the objects of such a Council might be to act as an arbiter when members of the public feel that an injustice has been done, or when the broadcasting authorities or the programme companies are thought to have failed to live up to their obligation to produce balance.
On page 166 of the B.B.C.'s Handbook for 1972 (and I see a number of copies of this Handbook on the Benches) it says:
"The B.B.C.'s Chairman recognises the B.B.C.'s duty to treat controversial subjects with due impartiality"—
I want to underline the word "impartiality"—
"and to ensure that so far as possible programmes should not offend against good taste or decency, or be likely to encourage crime and disorder, or to be offensive to public feeling."
I feel that the taste and decency aspects are probably best left to the B.B.C. General Advisory Council and Governors. I see no reason why a Broadcasting Council is better able to

561
judge taste or decency than those who are already endeavouring to do this. If representations from the Mrs. White-houses of this world are to be made, they should be made to the General Advisory Council or to the B.B.C. Governors. Apart from that, I feel that the public should have an opportunity of complaining when there is clearly in their view a lack of balance.
It may be argued—I am sure it will be argued—that there are already enough safeguards within the B.B.C. To start with, we have the Chairman of the Governors, the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, assisted by 12 other Governors. Secondly, we have the B.B.C. General Advisory Council—48 persons, good and true, men and women, headed by my noble friend Lord Aldington, whom I am glad to see in his place; and I understand that he is going to speak later. Thirdly, and more recently, we have had the B.B.C. Complaints Commission with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble Lord, Maybray-King, the former Speaker of the other place, who is well known to your Lordships, and Sir Edmund Compton, the first Ombudsman.
The essence of my point is that all these bodies in the public image are B.B.C. organisations: the B.B.C. Governors; the B.B.C. General Advisory Council; the B.B.C. Complaints Commission. They have all been set up by the B.B.C. I know that many of these organisations are independent in their judgments, but in the view of the public at large they are too close to the B.B.C., although I recognise that an effort has been made with the Complaints Commission to house them separately and to allow them to recruit their own staff. This is a move in the right direction. I still feel that if public anxiety is to be reduced it would be of advantage if we set up, possibly as a replacement or an enlargement of the Complaints Commission, a Broadcasting Council. If those three very much respected men were willing to serve on a larger body I should have no objection to that at all.
When I was quoting the noble Lord, Lord Hill, I underlined the obligation for impartiality overall. I cannot help feeling, having watched, as many of your
562
Lordships have watched, the early days of Ulster, that as the killings have grown there has been a curious balance in the programmes. There was obviously an effort in these programmes to give a true, balanced impartiality. But we seem to find almost as much time given to the I.R.A., who are dedicated to murder, disruption and anarchy—as we were reminded only yesterday—as is given to the forces of law and order, as represented by the elected men, by the Government, Stormont Ministers, Westminter Ministers and by the Army endeavouring to keep order and peace on the spot.
I know of a member of the public who wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Hill. I must congratulate the noble Lord in that he always endeavours to reply personally—and does—to members of the public. This is wholly admirable; I thought previously that this applied only to Members of Parliament and to Members of your Lordships' House. He says in his reply:
"Since I have received rather a heavy postbag on this subject"—
about the balance of Ulster reporting—
"I am sure you will forgive me if I reply in rather general terms."
I have Lord Hill of Luton's permission to quote this letter, and he says lower down in the letter:
"It is inevitable in these circumstances that we should give offence to one side or the other, but our concern is with the truth and with the facts as we find them. We are determined, despite all difficulties, to continue with impartial reporting and to resist any improper pressures, from whatever quarter, that may be designed to prevent us from doing so."
I think that most of your Lordships will particularly endorse the last sentence, but there may be some who feel that there were phases of this reporting when it did not quite live up to impartiality. I may say that there have been other occasions, too—Nigeria was one—on an international basis, where great trouble was caused.
I, curiously enough, received in the post this morning, via the Member of Parliament for St. Ives, a petition from his schoolchildren. I am trying to show that anxiety exists not only among members of the public but among others

563
right down into the schools. This petition is worded as follows:
"This petition was organised in Helston Grammar School. We would like to complain against occasional documentaries and programmes produced by the B.B.C. in Northern Ireland, that we feel are biased against the British Army. In this petition are various signatures of people in our sixth form who feel like us, that the B.B.C. should make their programmes more fair by being biased neither one way nor the other."
For a fifteen year old schoolgirl that is a well worded motion, and it is endorsed by all members of that school.
I myself also would say that perhaps there has been a little too much publicity for the Left Wing during recent troubles with the National Union of Mineworkers. The militants always will tend to create news, of course. I remember seeing on "24 Hours" only recently a scene in a pub near B.M.L.C. at Long-bridge. It was a famous pub and the people interviewed there included the convenor of shop stewards and the shop stewards in that factory, who of course are known to be militant Left-Wingers, with a strong Communist flavour. When one asks them for opinions as to whether they think there is fair treatment and whether the miners should get a large wage increase, of course one gets the answer one would expect. Most people dedicated to the Communist cause realise as well as anyone that rampant inflation in a democracy undermines the democracy and of course helps their own particular chance of being re-elected to the union. I agree that in this case the Minister, Mr. John Davies, was given an opportunity of replying. But, judging from my postbag, I am not alone in having seen these programmes and wondered whether too much publicity was not given to people who were selected for their militant views.
Some of your Lordships may have read a most interesting book called The New Priesthood. The title refers to producers in the television mass media. This particular quotation comes from Mr. Anthony Smith, who until fairly recently was editor of "24 Hours". It says this:
"Television isn't a neutral instrument in any society in which it operates …"
I repeat, "Television isn't a neutral instrument". The quotation continues:
"You tend to find that television does accumulate around it left-of-centre people
564
… certainly attracts the group of people who are concerned about examining the society critically … certainly in this country it would be correct to observe that the people who are responsible for television on both sides of the screen, and both halves of the industry are mainly left-of-centre and the whole direction of television is left-of-centre. And therefore one has to admit that the television community is unrepresentative of the public as a whole."
I quote that because it comes from within, from someone who had responsibility for a documentary and a very well constructed programme.
I do not think any of your Lordships would object if the view was only Left of centre. I think that all in your Lordships' House, perhaps excepting two, will understand that people who are dedicated to democracy, even if they are not in agreement with one's own views, Left or Right, are entitled at some stage to form a Government. But I feel that too many people are of the Nihilist outlook; are trying to pull the temple of Britain down around their ears, and not trying to create anything in its stead. It is this objection which I put forward and I think these views could well he put forward to a Broadcasting Council. I believe that the Press Council has achieved something worth while and has created a channel for public complaint. I have been reading. since I won the ballot in connection with this debate, its Report for the last eight years. I find that complaints which in 1963 numbered 199 had risen in 1970 to 497. So not only have the public some confidence that it is worth while complaining, but I think most of your Lordships will agree that there has been some good effect on the standards of agreement set in our national and local newspapers.
I do not wish to develop this section of my remarks to greater depth, because the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, has knowledge and experience which I do not have and I see that he is going to speak after me in this debate. But I do not think your Lordships would underrate the tremendous power of television in any national or international crisis. I reflect on Nigeria; I reflect on just how this country was torn apart between Biafra and Nigeria—and families, too. I reflect on what is happening in Ulster and just how much emotion is raised when we see what is happening there. I reflect even, although it did not create so much

565
trouble, on the U.C.S. problem and just how much publicity the very effective Communist leader obtained in that difficulty.
Please do not think that I am against the B.B.C. Anyone who has worked for that institution as I have for a number of years treats it with love and respect. One always has affection for one's alma mater. But that was twenty years ago and its reputation at that time was tremendously high. I wish its reputation was quite so high to-day. I have even heard contemporaries of my children, and my own, refer to it not as the B.B.C. but as the "anti-British Broadcasting Corporation". Now I am anxious to see its proper reputation return and its integrity recognised, and I believe that this aim would be helped by a Broadcasting Council. If I were Director-General of the B.B.C., or if I were Chairman of the Governors, I would welcome a Broadcasting Council, just because the public would know that it is independent. I always felt the same about the police. When I was a constituency Member I used to have to make a complaint in rare instances about the police. This was always looked into and judged by a policeman from the next-door station, and although the judgment may have been objective I never felt that it was quite so effective as if it had been made by an outside body. We have set up the Ombudsman to hear complaints against Ministries and the Administration; we set up only yesterday Ombudsmen to look into the National Health Service. So there is a public demand, and these creations reflect that public demand, for some independent source to which one can appeal. I hope that we shall have a good debate, my Lords, and that we shall hear views of all different types from all parts of this House about the idea that we should have a Broadcasting Council to hear complaints. I beg to move for Papers.
5.29 p.m.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, I must first of all congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, upon having won the ballot, and secondly upon having selected this subject and given us an opportunity to debate it. I am going to give him broad support but, if he will forgive me, I am not going to follow him into his particular criticisms of bias in the B.B.C.
566
Most of the people who have urged the foundation of a Broadcasting Council have done so because they wish to curtail the liberties of broadcasters. I support it for precisely the opposite reason: I wish to preserve them. I am as deeply concerned about the freedom of broadcasting as I am about the freedom of the Press. In fact the freedom of the Press and the freedom of broadcasting are indivisible.
In Fleet Street we have come to regard the Press Council as one of the bastions of our freeedom. Because we have undertaken the responsibility of self-discipline we can more successfully oppose new oppressive legislation, and we can more effectively seek to reform the laws of libel and contempt which sometimes press rather heavily upon us. Yet we ourselves in our various ways, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger knows, had all the present apprehensions felt by the B.B.C. and of the I.T.A. In fact it was only eventually, under the threat of legislation, that we first moved to create a Press Council and later, under another threat, to extend its authority by the inclusion of lay members and by enlisting an eminent Judge to be the Chairman.
The result of all this over the years gradually has been to distinguish and diminish a number of unethical newspaper practices, an historic insensibility to practices that newspapers used to follow in the early nineteenth century, or practices which arose out of the pressure of intense competition. I should not like to argue that we have by any means reached a stage of perfection in Fleet Street—the halo still eludes us. But we are less open than we were even a few years ago to justified criticism, and each year I think there is an improvement. So I hope the broadcasting authorities, who to-day are the target of far fiercer criticism than we get in the newspapers, will voluntarily put their own house in order before the vague threats which are about us become a real menace. Indeed, I think that we in Fleet Street have a vested interest in their so doing.
The question of privacy is one which is exercising many legal and sociological intelligences throughout the Western World, and it is from this ferment as well as from our domestic concern, that

567
a Commission on Privacy are now sitting, and they may well come up with a proposal for legislation on the subject of privacy. If they did, I should fear it, for either a law of privacy would be futile or it would be repressive. It is difficult to lay down a clear line as to where privacy should begin to take over from investigation. The price of ensuring the highly desirable goal of personal privacy by legislative means might be very heavy in terms of the competing right of the citizen to have access to information about what is going on in our very complex society. I think that a far better solution would be a set of flexible conventions freely accepted by the Press and the Broadcasting Councils, who would act as monitors and see that they were observed in the spirit.
The danger the newspapers are in is that a law which might be introduced chiefly to deal with the intrusive microphone or the questing, long-range camera would apply equally to us; yet in our Press Council we have evolved a feasible alternative to legislation. Why do not the broadcasting authorities follow our lead? It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has said, that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. have set up small and extremely distinguished committees to deal with complaints. But I do not think they command public confidence, and I do not think they will command public confidence, high though the repute of the members of them undoubtedly is. Nor will they ever command confidence if they fail to publish their verdicts for and against, and their reasons for them. To the public, and to suspicious politicians, they will look like a respectable and defensive façade, no matter with what honesty and integrity they may act.
It may be, too, that the brief which has been given to them is far too general. I would confine a Broadcasting Council simply to what I might describe as the electronic newspapers put out by the broadcasting authorities—those aspects of the broadcasting of news and current affairs which are analogous to the information contained in a newspaper. All else—drama, serials, Woman's Hour, Gardeners Question Time, I would leave to the broadcasting authorities. They
568
can safely be left to deal with questions of taste, propriety, morals and social interest. They are much more in touch with a rapidly changing society and what that society finds tolerable and desirable than any body of men and women drawn from outside the media. Valuable and salutary though Mrs. Whitehouse and my noble friend Lord Longford may be as critics of established institutions, quite frankly I would not like to see them acting as our censors.
Today the news media offend people in a number of ways which are not open to remedy at law. They may intrude on a person who is entitled not to be intruded upon, and they may be unfair to an individual or to a group. And despite honest intentions they may he simply grossly inaccurate. The characteristic of all the media, especially when they are large and powerful, is to avoid whenever possible the shame and tedium of having to say that they got it wrong and that they are sorry. The purpose of the Press Council is to decide when legitimate news gathering has gone beyond the bounds of decent inquiry, or when a newspaper has been egregiously unfair or when it has simply got things wrong. Of course a newspaper enjoys an historic right to partisanship and it is allowed a lot more latitude than the broadcasting authority, which has a statutory obligation to be both fair and balanced; but there are limits for both Press and broadcasting, even though the limits are placed in a different position.
The objection of the broadcasters to any council drawn from outside is that the public safeguard is provided by the Governors or by the Authority. Certainly the Governors were a most adequate safeguard in the days when the B.B.C. was noted for its urbanity, its gentlemanly retreat from questions which passionately divide the nation and its excessive respect for people in public life. In those days the B.B.C. was not just paternal: it was patrician, too. They were the days of the dinner-jacketed announcer, when even a lapse from Received Standard English would cause a blush of shame to run throughout the Establishment. So in those days a gaffe was rare, and when one occurred Broadcasting House was red with embarrassment from the Director-General's office downwards.

569
Today, the B.B.C. is not urbane. It lives, quite rightly, on fierce controversy. It shows perhaps too little respect for people in public life, and it appears to have grown a suitably thick protective skin, which I think is inevitable and necessary. I admire its courage, I welcome its development; but I do not see how the Governors can be the guardians of the institution and at the same time the guardians of minority groups and of individuals who feel that in some way the B.B.C. has let them down. And the same thing applies, in a slightly different degree, to the I.T.A. They are too closely involved; they must participate in a kind of corporate loyalty; they must find it difficult to investigate and chastise those who have given offence.
The I.T.A. is, as I say, in a slightly different position: it is less involved with the programme companies; it is more remote. Yet one doubts its full competence to investigate, to judge, to wield sanctions against the electronic equivalent of newspaper offences. The sole object of any broadcasting council should be to safeguard the acknowledged though unwritten ethics of good journalism. So I hope that the two broadcasting authorities will get together and create a council. Of course it must include broadcasters and their trade unions, and it must include people who have no connection with broadcasting at all. It must be, as the Press Council is, a court of appeal; it must be the court of appeal after the listener has taken up the case with the broadcasting authority and has failed to find satisfaction. It will be able to throw out the frivolous and ill-founded complaint. I have just lost an 80 year old aunt who discovered in her later years the delightful pastime of sitting with the telephone at her side in front of the television screen waiting to be offended; then she would ring up the duty officer and vent her spleen upon him, and he would reply with an urbanity she did not always find in her nephews.
I think that this Broadcasting Council might publish its judgment on the cases it investigated, expecting that the same sanction which is used for the newspapers would be used by the broadcasting authorities: that is, when they had been found to have committed an offence they would then broadcast the finding. Of
570
course, it would necessitate the appointment of people whom it is now very difficult to identify—in each case a person who has final complete editorial authority over a news or current affairs programme. At the moment, from the outside at least, it looks as though that authority is so diffused that nobody is quite sure where the final authority really lies. I do not think that, in the event, the B.B.C. or the programme companies or the I.T.A. would find such a council onerous; and if they fail to evolve one, then I fear that they may find that their real liberties are affected, sometimes directly, but even more probably indirectly.
5.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT NORWICH: My Lords, I should like to preface the few remarks I have to make this afternoon with an apology: I fear it is absolutely impossible for me to stay until the end of this debate. I apologise most sincerely to your Lordships, and assure you that I shall be reading in Hansard to-morrow morning all the speeches I am unfortunate enough to have to miss this evening. I echo the congratulations and gratitude expressed by the previous speaker to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, for having brought this subject before your Lordships this afternoon. Unlike the previous speaker, however, I wish to oppose the Motion, while at the same time, once again unlike the previous speaker, agreeing that it is arguable that in recent weeks both television authorities, both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., have tended to express a rather Left of centre point of view. But, as I hope to show later in this speech, that is possibly inevitable and a thing we shall have to live with.
It seems to me, first of all, that the B.B.C. and the Independent Television Authority are far more, rather than far less, hemmed in by checks and balances than are the newspapers of this country. They are first of all controlled from the top by nominees of the Government: the Governors of the B.B.C., appointed by the Queen in Council, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, consisting of people who have been selected for their distinction, their experience, their wisdom and the breadth of their political and other interests. Looking down the list this afternoon I remember picking out at random a pre-

571
vious British Ambassador to Greece, the General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers and the Professor of Poetry at the University of Oxford. The same very broadly is true of the Independent Television Authority. Its members are not in fact appointed by the Queen in Council; they are appointed by the Minister for Posts and Telecommunications. But they are of equal distinction: under the chairmanship of one Member of your Lordships' House they include two others—I feel I need say no more than that about their distinction. But it is not only those two Boards who have the control and the ultimate responsibility for all programmes, every word which is broadcast and every picture transmitted on the screens in this country. There are also two other organisations already in existence whose duty it is either to watch or to control the output.
We have heard briefly already in this debate this afternoon about the two general advisory councils. They are, admittedly, only advisory. I had the good fortune to serve on the General Advisory Council of the Independent Television Authority for several years, first under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, and subsequently of that distinguished physicist Professor Ring, who still holds the chairmanship. I was enormously impressed at each meeting by the quality of the debates we had. The members, once again, were taken from extremely broad political, social and academic spheres. I remember two architects, a psychiatrist, a sociologist, a couple of journalists, at least six housewives from various parts of the country, representatives from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I believe that everything that we said was taken very seriously by the Authority, just as we ourselves took our duties extremely seriously. We were encouraged to suggest subjects about which we were not happy, transmissions seen which we were discontented with—encouraged to complain and given every facility to see programmes again. We had long discussions about various codes: codes of advertising, codes of the amount of violence, codes of the sort of transmissions suitable for children's pro-
572
grammes. On the whole I felt that we were doing a very useful job.
One might think that with the Governors or the members of the Authority at the top, and such broadly based and responsible general advisory councils on the second level, this in itself would be enough. But in the last six months or so both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. have in addition appointed yet a third body whose sole and explicit purpose is to deal with complaints. The B.B.C. produced the Programmes Complaints Commission only a few weeks ago, and the Independent Television Authority the Complaints Review Board. I personally have serious doubts whether either of those two were even necessary. I am glad to know that in both cases their principal occupation is to deal with cases where members of the public feel that they have been treated unjustly or unfairly, and if those boards concentrate and confine themselves to such cases of individual complaint, then I think that they should do nothing but good. I also think that they will probably have very little to do, because I know from my own experience how desperately anxious both the B.B.C. and the Independent Television Authority invariably are not to give personal offence to individuals.
I remember once in fact unwittingly giving personal offence myself long ago, in I think 1965, in a discussion programme on Independent Television. I had the misfortune to confuse a high official of the Mothers' Union, whose name was Mrs. Prudence Halifax, with a building society. The moment the programme was over it was intimated to me that a little letter of apology to Mrs. Halifax would not come amiss. I immediately wrote one, pointing out, among other things, that in view of the number of telephone calls and letters that I received addressed to the Norwich Union Assurance Society I knew exactly how she felt. However, that is regression. I cannot think that there will be many cases like that which cannot very easily be settled.
I think the analogy of the Press Council must from the start be a false analogy. "The Press" is a general term, a collective term, an inchoate sort of term which has no cohesion, no solidarity. It has

573
no responsibility to objectivity or impartiality, nor does it claim to be either objective or impartial. Also the Press, were it not for the Press Council, would be almost immune from criticism. As the late lamented Randolph Churchill pointed out, "Dog don't eat dog." One very seldom reads criticisms of one newspaper in the columns of another. On the other hand, how often do we read criticisms of the television services and the sound broadcasting services in the columns of the newspapers. We read them all the time, and not only from review critics but also from members of the public. We have Mrs. Whitehouse, and we have people writing in daily to complain about things that they have seen or that they have heard. The broadcasting companies are under a constant fusillade of criticism from all sides.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will forgive me for interrupting, is he not overlooking the fact that in all the weekly papers, as well as on both television programmes and on radio, there is now systematic criticism of newspapers, their practices and errors and shortcomings?
VISCOUNT NORWICH: My Lords, I agree and accept what the noble Lord says. It is true that there is a certain amount, but there is nowhere near a comparable quantity with the criticism of television and radio in the columns of our papers. That being the case, it seems to me that surely we have now enough checks and balances, enough controls, enough commissions and committees. We surely do not need any more. I am sorry to see that neither the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, nor the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, are going to speak this afternoon. I naturally understand their reasons for prefering not to do so. At the same time I am sorry, because I think we should have heard some views.
LORD HILL OF LUTON: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will forgive me, may I point out that they are precluded by the Addison Rules from contributing to the debate.
VISCOUNT NORWICH: My Lords, I apologise. I did not realise that. I can only say that I wish very much that they were not. As they are precluded, perhaps the noble Lord would permit me
574
to quote a short extract from his introduction to the 1972 B.B.C. Handbook, which seems to me to be appropriate at this time:
"The B.B.C. is proud of its right, within proper limits of responsibility, to broadcast what it likes and to choose its time for doing so."
Then I miss two paragraphs. Later he goes on:
"Our critics never say that they want to destroy our independent responsibility. They say they want a broadcasting council. Some who are calling for a broadcasting council evidently want no more than the chance of having a court of appeal when they feel the Governors of the B.B.C. have not dealt fairly with some complaint. This view has now been met by the appointment of a Programmes Complaints Commission. But others have deeper and wider plans. They really want to control the switches.
Who are they? Some are politicians."
Then I once again omit a paragraph. It continues:
"It is not only politicians. There are others. There are ladies—and lords!—who want to make sure that nothing on television should raise a blush on a maiden's check. Not only no Frankie Howerd, but I suppose also no Shakespeare. There are others who want all power transferred to the producers. They seem to envisage control by some sort of workers' councils. They would like to see no central authority or responsibility in the B.B.C. That would be a sure way to lose our independence, because it takes strength to resist pressure, and they would disperse our strength."
This is the point that I should like to end on. I believe that at this moment it is more than ever necessary to accept both the major broadcasting organisations for what they are. They are admittedly slightly to the Left of centre on the level of the producers and the directors of the programmes, but television is a young industry and it is full of young people. I am afraid that it is inevitable that there should be some slight bias on this side. Ideally it should be corrected. If it can be corrected I am perfectly certain that the Governors of the B.B.C. and the members of the Independent Television Authority, assisted by the general advisory councils and the two complaints boards, should be able to do this. If they cannot do it nobody can, and no other commission will be able to do it any better.
Let us therefore not have any more commissions. Let us be grateful that we have at this moment by far the best

575
broadcasting and television organisations of any country in the world. Let us give them their right to stick their neck out a little from time to time, to make their gaffes and to remain as they always have been: stimulating, adventurous, exciting organisations. Let us be grateful for that, and let us please keep them as they are and allow them to continue; otherwise it is we, all of us, who will be the losers.
5.56 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I join in the expressions of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, for giving us the chance to debate this most interesting and important subject. The noble Lord suggests that a Broadcasting Council might be a valuable means for allowing ordinary citizens to have some influence on this all pervasive modern means of communication.
I begin by saying that your Lordships will understand that I am speaking for myself and in no way representing the corporate mind of the Church. The Church, as yet, has made no pronouncement on the question of a Broadcasting Council. In July, 1970, the Church Assembly at its final session before it gave way to the General Synod set up a Commission to look into a number of questions to do with broadcasting. For the past year the Commission has been hearing evidence from a great many interested people, and I do not doubt that the question of a Broadcasting Council is one of the matters upon which it is spending time. But your Lordships will readily understand that until the Commission reports to the General Synod I can only give my personal opinion, for what it is worth, on the question before us. There are many questions which need to be asked before we might be able to approve such a Council. What would its powers be? How would it stand in the matter of pre-censorship of programmes? Or would it be merely an independent complaints commission? How wide would it be allowed to range in items for its agenda? On all these questions I hope we might have some guidance during this debate.
We know that the Pilkington Report ten years ago strongly urged against such a Council. At the time no doubt they felt that they had good reason for so
576
doing. We can appreciate the principle then enunciated that responsibility for the content of programmes should reside with those who bear overall responsibility for broadcasting. As they put it:
"Authority and responsibility for the exercise of authority must go together."
But having quoted the Report in that respect, I must remind your Lordships that the Pilkington Committee went on to urge the broadcasting authorities to
"… welcome and indeed invite criticism … which should not be resented because some of it may be misconceived."
Have our broadcasting authorities always exhibited such an attitude? And have not complaints, especially levelled at the British Broadcasting Corporation, grown in recent years? I believe I am right in saying that the general attitude of the public is much more critical now than it was when the Pilkington Committee was at work. To my mind, therefore, it would appear that for this, if for no other reason, a fresh look ought to be given to the proposal for a Broadcasting Council.
We are all aware—and we have heard about it this evening—of the newly formed complaints review boards set up at Broadcasting House and by the Independent Television Authority. These seem to us to be a step forward. But I believe there is a large section of the public who feel that work of this kind cannot all be left to the broadcasting authorities alone, and that a quite independent body should be set up. I say this with some reluctance, because much of me wishes to subscribe to the view that those administering the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. should be trusted to be at all times so sensitive to their immense responsibilities that they should need no independent Council as well as a Minister to whom they should be answerable.
I want now to refer for a moment to a matter which is causing some anxiety to the Churches. I refer to the Statement made by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications in another place on January 19, when he announced the end to the restriction at present imposed on the hours of television broadcasting. As no specific mention was made of the so-called "closed period" on Sundays from 6.15 to 7.25 p.m., there has naturally been some anxiety lest this should have been ended; and ended, not with a special

577
announcement that this was so but almost, it would appear, by inadvertence. It is true that the Minister went on to say that "The Authority"—that is, the Independent Television Authority, who had asked for derestriction of hours—had
"… made it clear that it would not allow any fall in the amount of time given to educational, Welsh-language and other programmes exempt from the present limits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 19/1/72; col. 478.]
To many people it has not been clear whether religious programmes were to be included in this derestriction, and it has been widely assumed that the natural interpretation of the sentence was that they were. Taking this interpretation, many Churchmen have been quick to point out that the I.T.A.'s phrase, "amount of time", was by no means the same as "amount of peak viewing time", which is what the "closed period" has allowed.
However, earlier to-day the Minister met a small group of Anglicans, and I have before me a statement which the Church Information Office has just released, in which the Minister is quoted as saying that:
"The derestriction of television hours does not involve the ending of the 'closed period' on Sundays."
The Minister went on to say that:
"It is for the B.B.C. and I.T.A. to judge what religious broadcasts they should do and when."
And he concluded by saying that:
"Both organisations have indicated that they have no plans for changing the 'closed period' or for cutting back on any religious programmes."
The crucial point for the Churches is the avoidance of a situation in which religious programmes may be relegated to times when most viewers are otherwise occupied. I myself was very glad to take part in a programme on television this month called "Dialogue with Doubt". And I did not in the least object to the fact that it was shown at 12.15 or 12.30 a.m. But I will say that my wife remarked, slightly maliciously, that this was not exactly "a peak viewing hour". Of course that is what we fear might happen; that all religious programmes might be pushed into times which are not peak viewing hours.
578
I am making no reference at this time to the quality of the programmes which have been put on in the "closed period". It may well be that the best use has not always been made of this time. My only point is that it should not be ended without full explanation and, I hope, consultation. I expect your Lordships are aware that it has often been remarked that more people go to Church in this country than watch first-class football. Since audiences of religious programmes frequently exceed those for current affairs, there is a strong feeling that if the proposed change resulted in the ending of religious programmes in the peak hours, it would be a serious loss to a great many people. However, the Minister's assurances are most welcome, though it seems surprising that a decision has been taken without any consultation between the Minister and the Central Religious Advisory Committee.
But his assurances still leave us with one major anxiety. It would seem that any future decisions must rest between the B.B.C., the I.T.A. and the Central Religious Advisory Committee. Your Lordships will no doubt know that that Advisory Committee is appointed by the B.B.C., in consultation with the I.T.A. It meets only twice a year. It seems to some of us that a body supposedly representing the Churches, though not appointed by them, must, in conjunction with the two most interested bodies which have the power to determine its membership, decide on the future of religious broadcasting. If those three bodies decided at some future date to make major changes in the timing and content of religious programmes, to whom could the Churches then appeal? It can no longer be the Minister for, if I understand the new situation rightly, he would not wish to be responsible. May it not be that a Broadcasting Council, such as has been referred to in this Motion, could help both the Minister and the public in such a situation? It could be a kind of court of appeal. And so, though we may at the end of our inquiry come to the conclusion that the Pilkington Committee made the right decision 10 years ago, I still believe that a new look ought to be given to the situation to-day. I am very glad indeed that we are doing that to-night, and I very much welcome this Motion.
6.9 p.m.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, I should like to join with others of your Lordships who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing on giving us the opportunity to debate this extremely important matter. Right at the start of my remarks, which will be very brief, as my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing has told me that we are running a little behind our schedule, I should like to express the hope that no early decision will be taken on the setting-up of a Council.
In the first place (and I think the right reverend Prelate made this point), who would appoint the Council, and to whom would it be responsible? That is a very important matter to consider. I think I am right in saying that the Press Council—and I hope my noble friend Lord Ardwick will not disagree with this—has no control over editorial opinion. I believe that this is a very important point to bear in mind, because it seems to me that many people who are in favour of setting up a Broadcasting Council in fact want to control the opinions which they hear on the B.B.C. We should also bear in mind the fact that the Press can, and in fact do, criticise the B.B.C., but I doubt whether the B.B.C. could make very strong criticism of an editorial opinion which they had seen on any particular morning. So, again, we must bear that kind of thing in mind. In addition, we should remember that people read the papers of their choice. If one is on the Right Wing, one reads a Right-Wing paper; one applauds the editorial opinion, a nice glow comes over one, and one thinks everything is lovely. If one is Left Wing, one reads a Left-Wing paper, and again one applauds the editorial opinion and feels that everything is all right. But, unfortunately, there is only one B.B.C. or one I.T.V., and you have to take what you get. This, in my view, is why they cannot possibly cater for the tastes of all those who are either watching or listening.
May I now say a little about Radio 4—and I gather it is suggested sound broadcasting should come into the purview of this Council? I have often thought that if I could not read a newspaper, I should be perfectly content if I could hear Radio 4. Why? Because
580
it is a superb production. Anybody who has been to America frequently and has listened to American sound radio knows how much we are indebted to the B.B.C. for this programme. There is no studio manager running the sound programmes in America: it is all done by a disc jockey who every now and then takes off a record, reads out the latest news and then puts on another record. It is a privilege for us in this country to have Radio 4, and I certainly should not like to have a Council inquiring into that particular programme.
I would say, by all means let us watch the situation. I think that it should be watched; there is a certain amount of anxiety. But I think it would be wrong to decide that a Council should he set up. And if people are advocating a Council from the point of view of censorship, then I certainly believe that this would be a very grave step to take—and the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, made this point earlier. I have always noticed, my Lords, that the Government of the day are critical of the B.B.C.; and, to be quite frank, if we ever reached the point when the Government of the day were not critical of the B.B.C. I should be a little worried. The last Government's anti-B.B.C. attitude carried on, I think, right up to the programme, "Yesterday's Men". It may be that it is changing now, but certainly there was a strong hostility to the B.B.C. on the part of the previous Government. Now, with the present Government, once again we have that same situation. This is how democracy works; and, as I say, if ever it comes about that the Government of the day think the B.B.C. is quite wonderful, then I think we may find that they are not carrying out their necessary duties.
I do not want to prolong this discussion, but I hope that this House will not come to any early decision to set up a Council. We are perfectly entitled to watch the situation, but at the same time we should be very thankful for the wonderful service provided. If I have mentioned the B.B.C. the whole time, it is because the B.B.C. is chiefly the service which is under criticism. I personally think that it does a good job in difficult circumstances. Let us watch for a little longer and see whether it does not sort out its own problems without a Council.
6.15 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, for introducing this Motion; to congratulate him on winning the ballot, and to say that I share the concern behind his Motion. Now that the Fourth Estate has acquired the new dimensions of television and radio and can invade our homes with varying degrees of responsibility and accountability, I think it is right that the Lords and Commons should be jealous of such a powerful rival. I think they are manifesting their jealousy in some extreme ways, and I shall certainly leave it to much more experienced Parliamentarians to deal with what many regard as a direct threat to the democratic processes or the functions of Government—the threat of the "new men", the "new priesthood", as they were referred to—who, by becoming television personalities, artefacts of the medium, can exert and influence or demolish an argument, or destroy an authority by professional swashbuckling.
But, conversely, I am not going to discuss what many have been tempted to propose in the form of greater political interference or restraint; and I want to say how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, in the remarks he has just made. I think it would be disastrous, and certainly at the moment would be asking for serious trouble, if we in fact conceived, or attempted to conceive, the imposition of restraints, and, above all, political restraints. Having been Director of Political Warfare during the war, when for military and political reasons we had to have powers over the output of the B.B.C., I can only say that the big stick is always most dangerous, and it was only by rational understanding and shared responsibility that we achieved our purpose. The B.B.C. maintained its integrity while cooperating fully in the exercise of discretion. I insist that this is the relationship which should be maintained.
Everything since the war, not only in Communist countries but in France, with De Gaulle's thumbscrews on the French radio and television and Vice-President Spiro Agnew's recent onslaught on the American media, confirms that the only healthy condition for the Press, the television and the radio is freedom, with
582
responsibility. The operative word—and this is what we are really talking about in this debate—is "responsibility", and whether a Broadcasting Council can ensure that responsibility. I do not seriously think that the Press Council is a valid analogy. As a journalist for most of my adult life, I would remind your Lordships that journalism as a profession and the Press as an industry had no corporate responsibility. The individual journalist who observed the code of ethics found himself vulnerable; and, no matter what people say, we were pressurised by proprietors and advertisers and all kinds of people who, through us, were imposing their views on the public. When it finally came to "protecting the public interest and the individual", the Press Council had to be invented.
But the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. are chartered bodies, subject, if not to day-to-day scrutiny by Parliament, at least to periodic review. The behaviour of the programme companies—the nearest approach, if you like, to the Press proprietors—is subject to the supervision and ultimate sanctions of the I.T.A. So the B.B.C. Governors and the Authority are supposed to be vigilant in the public interest—and, I may point out, with more statutory authority than the Press Council has. If we feel that those public servants have somehow become the "stooges" of the B.B.C. or the I.T.A., then of course we should be doing something about it. Certainly something must be done in the revision of the Charters if we feel that the present provisions are inadequate.
Perhaps there is general misgiving that leaving the handling of complaints to the Governors and the members of the Authority is rather making them judge and jury in their own assize. This misgiving may be justified because our access to those who are supposed to be our watch-dogs is through the Establishment itself. When I have been on delegations and have been called upon to make representations about possible reforms or the removal of abuses, the Chairmen and the Director-Generals of B.B.C. and I.T.A. have always received us with courtesy and tolerance; but they would then put the case to the members. Perhaps there is a case for ensuring that there should be a means of direct representation—a

583
hearings committee, a hearings committee which would be more than simply a complaints committee that would be dealing with specific things. But to reassure the public I feel that there might be more apparent access to those who are supposed to be watching our interests. I would emphasise the complaints committee. After all, we are now getting accustomed to the idea of ombudsmen, and here we have three ombudsmen in the case of the complaints committee.
When looking at the Charters, perhaps we should have a look at the advisory councils to see how effective they are in reflecting the interests and the concern of the public or whether they are merely consulted to give the go-ahead to predetermined plans or decisions of the staff. The politicians and Governments can take care of themselves; the professional lobbyists, like Mary Whitehouse, can take care of themselves; I am more concerned with the rest of us. I am genuinely concerned, not so much with the structure of the B.B.C. agencies but with the nature of broadcasting itself. We are in grave danger and it is something that we ought to be watching, but it is something which I do not think the equivalent of a Press Council would meet. In the words of the ineffable Marshal McLuhan, the "Father Divine" of techno-theology: the medium has become the message. We are in danger of being embraced by the mere gimmickry and techniques of the presentation.
This, I think, is very important because at the moment there is more and more evidence that we are in fact getting in our presentation of productions a great deal of "composting", if you like, of montage productions; and the danger there is not in the deliberate motives of distortion of the producers but in the more efficient production of this kind of thing. By discarding a great deal of what is put in, the "ins", "buts" and "maybes"—we have all had it, all we paraprofessionals in this game—things are taken out of context (and notoriously so in "Yesterday's Men") and, indeed, misrepresented. Here I think there is a strong case to be met by the complaints committee. But there is a great need for a vigilance committee, and I hope that this House will, in fact, constitute itself such a vigilance committee.
6.24 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I have much of an open mind on the question raised by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. I think that probably the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, will agree with me that we might sit back and read this debate and think out what we have said before we make up our minds. While on that subject as the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, was properly corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Hill, whereas we are denied his contribution and that of the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, I am looking forward to hearing the noble Lord. Lord Aldington, who is chairman of the General Advisory Council, which has already been referred to.
As other speakers have done, I should like to start by emphasising my faith in and respect for the B.B.C. and the fact that this faith has in a measure been eroded over the last few years. Listening to the last speaker, I have a feeling that it began to crack in the case of the "Yesterday's Men" programme. It may be that some sort of committee is advisable and it may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has said, that conceivably it might be welcome to the B.B.C. I do not think myself that the I.T.A. are on the same footing. They are concerned only with television; they are only commercial, and they are only in this country. They do not have the vast responsibilities of the B.B.C. Similarly, I do not believe that the Press Council is quite on the same footing as a Broadcasting Council, as was said by the noble Lord Lord Orr-Ewing—if only because, as other speakers have pointed out, the Press constitutes a channel through which listeners can attack and criticise the B.B.C. whereas the reverse is not the case.
Returning to the question of respect for the B.B.C.—and there are those who remember the war years, particularly if we were many thousands of miles away—one cannot but feel that "Auntie" is a most important part of the whole body politic of the nation. We all respect "Auntie" and it is only because we do not want "Auntie" to become sick that we are being angered at some of the things that are going on. I think it fair to say that during the past few years

585
there has been a growing surge of complaints, rendered the more bitter by the sense of helplessness induced by the attitude of the Corporation itself—which we see in the Charter and in the Foreword of the noble Lord, Lord Hill, to which the noble Viscount referred. There is I admit some merit in the contention that there should be no censorship; but nevertheless a steady and imperceptible lowering of standards of taste seems to be on the way.
As an illustration I propose to make a brief reference to the current "British Empire" series. I do this for two reasons. First, I am greatly disturbed about it; and, secondly, it is quite outwith, to use a Scottish expression, the "four corners" of page 166 of Handbook 1972 of the B.B.C. Any errors or inaccuracies in it are not offensive to good taste, they are tampering with history. Your Lordships will forgive me if I do not mention many items of this problem because I want to await the end of the series before taking a view. We can always have another debate about the whole series when that opportunity occurs. Although I have not seen all the programmes—I have seen the two Indian ones—I believe that some of them have been unworthy on the grounds of approach and of accuracy. In mention of the latter and in talking about inaccuracy, there is the besetting sin of omission; of the producers not having "done those things they ought to have done."
Some of your Lordships may have seen the correspondence in The Times that arose from a letter of mine. I have been flooded with letters about it. I feel that it would be fair in terms of the "four corners" of this debate if I quoted a few words from a short letter, typical I think of the middle of the road:
"What you said needed saying. My wife and I were also greatly disappointed with the tawdry and unworthy presentation of the 'British Empire', ignoring as it did and as you say the great achievements and bold experiments in democracy and freedom. Please try to ensure that some of these positives are brought out in subsequent programmes"—
against which I noted, "Too late, I fear".
Of the many letters which I have received, only one was highly critical of me and I think that I should quote from it as it has a bearing on what we are discussing. This programme is an entirely
586
new set-up in that it is worked out in collaboration with the Time Life Corporation. This other letter contains these words, referring to the first programme about India:
"It makes me feel sick and wish that I had never been born as a member of this revolting race. What I shall feel when I have seen the rest of the series will remain to be experienced."
In other words, it cuts both ways, my Lords. But in this context it is important, and it is conceivable that it might be wise to have some sort of advisory body. That is not an altogether unfair deduction from the first programme and, to my mind, it is disturbing when the B.B.C. declares its intention to repeat the series on Sunday afternoons "so that the children may see it."
Where do we go from here, my Lords? Would a Broadcasting Council help? I doubt it, but we shall see. The B.B.C. has rejected my criticisms but has it referred the matter to the General Advisory Council? I hope that we shall hear about that from the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and also his views. I leave the matter there, and will endeavour to see the subsequent programmes. Perhaps, when we have another debate, noble Lords better qualified than myself will refer to the programmes on Africa, Canada and the West Indies. It is this sense of helplessness in the face of the apparently absolute power possessed by the B.B.C. which makes one feel like supporting the outcry for a council or something of the sort. I believe that absolute power rests with the B.B.C. which has a quite different set-up from the as was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and I think that it must be watched very carefully.
My Lords, to return briefly to the programme on India there were little things, some of which I will quote, to indicate what slant may be put on it. This is a facility which broadcasting has, but which the Press has not got; namely, the angle and the tone of voice or the use of words. In the programme a reference was made to a particularly ornate railway station in Bombay and it was said that this station was built in that style "to awe the common people". That is not so, my Lords; it was built to impress the common people. It was built because there was competition, involving British

587
capital, against another rail company, with British capital, which was building on the other side of the town. Some of these people would say that it was not a question of much-needed sterling being poured into India for its development but rather money invested for filthy profit—how shocking!
As to sins of omission, my Lords, we had a reference to Curzon's American wife and her dollar fortune; and this in a programme which does not mention the great breach between Curzon and the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Kitchener! In fact, I do not think that Lord Kitchener was mentioned at all nor indeed was there mention of the Partition of Bengal. Yet the B.B.C. denies that the series was made with an eye to the American market. If it is suggested that there was no time available, I would say that there was plenty of time when you think of the endless "stills" of memsahibs and their servants. There was no mention of the discovery that the Anopheles mosquito was a vector of malaria. And so on, my Lords. I feel that it is very important that there may be an angle or a slant about broadcasting which does not occur in respect of the written word.
There is another item which I hesitate to touch on but of which I have had personal experience. It is the power of the lighting crew and the camera men to sabotage a production by their skills or lack of them. I think it is a pity that we are denied the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Hill, and the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone. Apparently, Parliament has little or no control over these matters. I should very much like to know what is the tie-up between Time Life and the Empire series. I think that Parliament is entitled to ask that. In a mischievous moment I suggested to the usual channels that when the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, asked permission to withdraw his Motion I might object and declare that I would like to see certain papers, the contract between the B.B.C. and Time Life.
My Lords, on February 7 The Times published a long letter from a member of the Consultative Committee which concludes with the words:
"I understand that the B.B.C. are hoping to sell this series all round the world.
588
Neither in the interests of historical understanding nor of our good name does this seem desirable."
This letter was written by the author of the official history of the I.C.S, Men who ruled India As I said, I still have an open mind, but I feel so strongly about the series on the British Empire that I hope that the noble Lord who will reply for the Government, or perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, may be able to let us know what is the position regarding Time Life and the B.B.C. I think that there has been too much mystery about this and I am not alone in that view. As I have indicated, the series is unsuitable for worldwide dissemination and unless it can be very severely cut—and I do not see how that may be done—it is also unsuitable for British children.
My Lords, I have nothing further to add. I have made my point about the camera crews and the lighting. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that the B.B.C. might welcome a Broadcasting Council; and I feel, with the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, that the Press and broadcasting are not on the same footing.
6.38 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I make my speech in a critical tone. I feel that at the present time we are being too complacent. We have terrorism in a part of the United Kingdom; we have industrial unrest, and society is changing on a scale and at a pace that we have not seen for many years. There was a time when the B.B.C. possessed great power to influence public opinion over issues of this kind. Reference has been made in the debate to the power of the Press, but a single broadcast on sound or television made by the B.B.C. reaches millions of people in this country and the impact upon them is instant. It lies in the hands of the B.B.C. to do a great deal of evil or a great deal of good.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord' Orr-Ewing for introducing this Motion but I wonder whether the establishment of a Broadcasting Council would be the best way to achieve a balanced and objective view of the serious issues which face us. If one has cause to disagree with comments or representations by the B.B.C. one has to make one's

589
complaints after the event. The broadcast word or the televised picture, as I have said, is one of instant impact. Millions are conditioned instantly by what they see. The damage is done; the effect created can hardly be rectified by an appeal to the Council afterwards. The same applies to the complaints in letters which the B.B.C. receive from the public from time to time.
I should be the first to agree that the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing would assist in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, but I think that something much stronger is wanted at the present time. I say this in all sincerity and with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hill, the Governor of the B.B.C., who is present in your Lordships' House. I should like to see the B.B.C. stripped of all freedom to make political comment at the present time. I will give but one example. As I have said, the violence is with us now.
What happened at the B.B.C. two or three mornings ago? Robert Robinson, in "Today" a daily programme, was interviewing a union representative of the nurses. He asked her a question about their pay claim. It was couched in language as to secure an opinion from that union representative as to whether she thought the union could succeed with their claim by strike action if it were able to bring such power to bear against the nation as was recently exhibited by the miners. I think that interview was thoroughly irresponsible. Millions of people would be listening to this. Do not commentators and interviewers at the B.B.C. realise that such questions give comfort to the lawless elements which exist in our society to-day? Can anyone doubt that such a question would bring despondency to those who have upheld law and order in the most difficult circumstances in this country, and in Ireland? I refer, of course, to our Armed Forces. Can anyone doubt after yesterday's outrage at Aldershot, with the murder of civilians and the terrorists' murder of British soldiers, that despondency would be caused by a broadcast of that type?
I have quoted only one example, but similar broadcasts and incidents on television have taken place. It does not help when a questioner at the B.B.C.
590
so frames his question as to imply, "If you want to succeed you must get the nation by the throat". That happened, as I have said, in the recent miners' strike. Debates on current affairs and political comment should take place in Parliament, which is responsible to the electorate. It is not the province of the B.B.C. to carry out debates of international importance of this kind. Let the B.B.C. concentrate on objective news reporting. It has a world-wide reputation for truth, and nobody can question the validity of this. The final extremity is whether the Government of this country governs or does not govern. I would ask my noble friend the Minister who is to reply to be one jump ahead and not one jump behind. He should accept the setting up of a Broadcasting Council, and he should advise the Governors of the B.B.C. that for the time being, in the interests of the country, all political comment by the B.B.C. should cease.
A NOBLE LORD: Censorship!
6.45 p.m.
LORD ALDINGTON: My Lords, I do not think it would be useful if I were to follow too far the noble Lord who has just spoken, but, speaking for myself, I reject altogether the proposal that he has made, and I am sad that in a reasoned debate about the pros and cons of a Broadcasting Council it should have come out so clearly that some of those who support the case for a Broadcasting Council do so for censorship reasons. Also, if I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, I think that he should choose his words rather carefully. He said that the B.B.C. should make no political comment. The B.B C., as such, do not have a political case; they never deploy the B.B.C.'s political case; they provide a medium through which other people make political comments I think it is right for me to correct the record on that small point.
The case for a Broadcasting Council is one about which we have read a great deal, and I think it is fair to say that what has been written has put forward a whole variety of Broadcasting Councils for a whole variety of reasons. I think it is also fair to say that the Broadcasting Council of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, is not the same as the Broadcasting Council of the noble Lord, Lord

591
Orr-Ewing, and probably not the same as the kind of Broadcasting Council that my noble friends behind me, Lord Ferrier and Lord O'Neill of the Maine, might reach after the watching period. I think there is a good reason for this, as I will try to show during the course of my speech.
In short, I must tell your Lordships that f agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich (I am sorry that he has had to leave), that the case for a Broadcasting Council, for whatever reason, has not been made out. He rightly said that there are checks and balances sufficient already; there are duties and responsibilities carefully laid down for the authorities. I think the only point of difference that I would have with the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, is that I am not quite as defeatist as he is about the necessity to have a Left Wing bias even among young men in creative positions in broadcasting authorities.
I should now like to give a little of the background as seen from the General Advisory Council, if I may put it in that way. I have been a member of that body for a great many years, and chairman for only one year. I do not attempt to put forward to your Lordships the views of the Council, but only my own views. Of one thing there is no doubt, and that is that the power that is placed in the hands of broadcasters, whether sound or television, is enormous. We all agree about that. And I think we all agree that any nation is wise to lay down rules to see that conventions are established and, having done that, to establish boards of governors, members of authorities, or whatever they may be called; carefully to choose these men and women (and two distinguished women have been on the Board of Governors of the 13.B.C. in recent months), people who combine in themselves both the responsibility for making the right policy decisions in the nation's interests—for that is what they have to do—and have the power to implement those decisions.
There has been an expression of opinion that the B.B.C. have absolute power. I do not think that that is true, though I suppose we could have a metaphysical argument about what is meant by "absolute power". They have power which goes with a very clearly
592
laid down responsibility over a number of matters, together with the final general responsibility to do what seems to them to be in the national interest. Let us look at what the Governors' power is. I believe that their power must be looked at in relation to the difficulty of the task which any persons have in directing broadcasting authorities. I believe this must be one of the most difficult tasks facing any man or woman during his or her life. To help the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. there are advisory councils: they are there only to help and advise. They have no responsibility to the public, nor any public position. In the B.B.C.'s General Advisory Council there can be up to sixty men and women, drawn from every kind of background and with every kind of experience and, I must tell your Lordships, with most kinds of temperament as well.
In my experience, that Council will be unanimous on certain things: on everything that protects the independence of the B.B.C. (they would have risen in wrath to hear the noble Lord, Lord Gridley); on everything that goes with the idea of public service broadcasting, for in that they believe; on their insistence and on the B.B.C.'s insistence on the highest standards of fairness and balance. They will also be unanimous on understanding the very particular management environment that is needed for encouraging creative talent, for monitoring and maintaining the initiative of producers, and doing the same in the case of entertainers, interviewers and so on.
As has been said, many of these are young people, all of them highly idealistic but not, as I have said, all of them Left Wing. Now the task of directing that kind of undertaking is very different from the task which your Lordships may have known in business and in other walks of life, and I believe that one of the real problems in broadcasting is that of direction and management. I do not believe that a Broadcasting Council would help that. I believe that it would positively hinder it, because it would take away from the authority of the B.B.C. Governors and from the authority of the Independent Television Authority.
I make that my first point because I must stress to your Lordships that I

593
have seldom seen any disagreement between sensible men, the Governors and the Director-General of the B.B.C. on what they are trying to do about the codes affecting current) affairs broadcasts and about codes of taste and so on. I have seen problems arise because, frankly, of the difficulty of implementing reasonable intentions and seeing that they are carried out. So I say to your Lordships: do not let us detract from the authority of the B.B.C. Governors or of the I.T.A. Let us rather seek to add to that.
That is the first thing. That is, on the power side, what they have to do. What about their responsibility for reaching decisions, and in particular their responsibility to the private individual or bodies of opinion who may be offended? I agree with what has been said by other noble Lords: that it is surely better to try to anticipate and prevent damage of that kind rather than to rely upon a council which is confined solely to post hoc examination. But if it is supposed that there must be some outside body independent of the Governors, because the Governors are too near the Director General—and frankly I do not accept that argument—then it is said (and it was said forcefully and, if I may with humility say so, lucidly and attractively by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick) that there is a resemblance between the problems of the television and broadcasting authorities and those of the Press. The noble Lord then came up with his electronic Press Council idea. I must tell him that I agree with Lord Norwich and others that this seems to me a false analogy. In the first place, the Press Council, because it has a majority of Pressmen on it, would not seem to meet all the objections as to what has been done before by the Governors. Secondly, it is designed to deal with a highly competitive industry; and, thirdly, in that industry no one has the duty to be impartial. This is one of the problems. There are, of course, other—
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me interrupting, I would point out that we are engaged ourselves with highly competitive news gathering—reporters and cameramen side by side, working together under rather different ground rules. This is where the analogy exists between the newspapers
594
and the broadcasting authorities: we are all reporters, we are all cameramen together, on the same jobs and competing with one another.
LORD ALDINGTON: My Lords, I see the noble Lord's point, but I am afraid I do not accept it. I think we should have greatly to alter the Press Council if that were so. But, frankly, I have to tell him, too, that he is dealing with only a narrow front of what I believe the problem to be.
LORD ARDWICK: Yes.
LORD ALDINGTON: I think that the whole problem faces the Governors of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. But the Governors of the B.B.C. have accepted that there is a case for a second opinion on the Governors' judgment on representations from individuals about unfairness, misrepresentation and so on. It was for that reason that the Programmes Complaints Commission was established, and I cannot think of a better triumvirate than the former Lord Chief Justice, the former Speaker of the House of Commons (whom I see sitting near me) and the former Ombudsman. If anyone believes that those three distinguished men are incapable of being independent or, as it were, are men who might become the "stooges" of my noble friend, Lord Hill, behind me, that person really is capable of believing anything.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? I do not think anyone has suggested that they are not capable of being highly independent and objective in their judgment; it is their terms of reference, as listed on page 169, which give rise to difficulties. These are clearly defined terms of reference, and the Commission are allowed to deal only with people who believe themselves to have been treated unjustly and unfairly in connection with a programme. We have all heard instances in this debate to-day which fall way outside that specific detail. A person has himself to make a complaint to the Complaints Commission. He cannot do this on behalf of somebody else.
LORD ALDINGTON: My Lords, with respect to my noble friend, I cannot see any great harm in that, because it is not only individuals actually; it is organisations. And it does include unfair treatment generally, which also includes

595
unwarranted invasion of privacy and misrepresentation. This Complaints Commission, or rather, the B.B.C., have to publish their adjudications in one way or another. If noble Lords examine that, I believe they will see that, far from being a second best to what the Press Council does, this Programmes Complaints Commission is an improvement on it. In my humble opinion it is also an improvement on the I.T.A.'s Complaints Commission, in that it is a little more independent.
I will not refer here to the big problem of tastes and standards, except to say that I agree with the noble Lord who introduced this debate (and in respect of whom I should like to join in the expressions of thanks for his having initiated this debate this afternoon) that these matters of taste and standards must be the responsibility of the Governors. So I come back to the point with which I started, which is that we should seek to strengthen the authority and, if you like, the responsibility of those men and women whom we, as the nation, have asked to look after the direction of broadcasting in our country. I believe that is the way to solve the problems. Of course there are problems and of course there are complaints. We know that in a free country there will always be complaints about taste. I should be horrified, and most of your Lordships would be horrified, if there were not complaints about taste. I should be horrified if we became so intolerant as a nation that we agreed on everything.
Let us look at how it is best, in principle, to tackle a problem like this. Surely the answer is to rely on the B.B.C. Governors and on the members of the I.T.A., and to support them in what they are trying to do to protect the private individual's interest. One can agree with my noble friends Lord Ferrier and Lord O'Neill of the Maine that we must watch how this progresses. We must be ever vigilant. One thing remains: if we in this House can recover our confidence in the machinery as it exists, can we be sure that the public will do so? I believe that it can; I believe that we can be sure on this point. I believe that the public, properly led, will re-establish its confidence in the Governors of the B.B.C. and the members of the I.T.A. For that
596
reason I hope that this Motion will not be pressed and that my noble friend who is replying for the Government will not give us a hint that he is considering establishing a Broadcasting Council.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and in relation to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, perhaps the noble Lord could let me know afterwards how any complaint about the British Empire series could be lodged with the Programmes Complaints Commission.
LORD ALDINGTON: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not reply to the noble Lord when he dangled a bit of his fishing rod in front of me. That is the kind of thing that is discussed from time to time by the General Advisory Council. I am sure that if he writes to the B.B.C. in the normal way he will get a perfectly good and satisfactory explanation on his doubts.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I hope that no Broadcasting Council will be set up without a full public inquiry.
7.3 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, we must congratulate the last speaker on the brevity of his speech. Before starting my own, I should like to say that when we made arrangements last week for these mini-debates my noble friend Lord Beswick, the Opposition Chief Whip, said that they were to be occasions for Back-Benchers and that the Opposition Front Bench would exercise great restraint in the length of their speeches. I hope therefore that the House will not think me disrespectful if I speak for a very short time indeed.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness? There are 41 minutes left on the schedule for this debate.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I have never before been urged to speak for longer than I had intended. What I was about to say, particularly as this has been such an extremely powerful, well-argued and forceful debate, was that I did not want to waste the time of the House in summing up the arguments.

597
After congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, upon initiating such a good debate, I am afraid I must say to him that I cannot really see the desirability of setting up a Broadcasting Council to try to give a balanced and objective view to what goes on. I simply do not think that is possible. What may seem balanced and objective to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, might well seem highly biased to me and, I do not doubt, vice versa. Judgments of this kind must be subjective. Indeed. I thought that one or two of the noble Lord's remarks tonight were a little biased, and I was a little sad that he brought out the old jibe about the anti-British Broadcasting Corporation.
I find myself in tremendous agreement with the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, and the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich. With the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. we have a uniquely good service in this country and we should look around and count our blessings when we see the kind of service that we get. I do not enjoy the "B.B.C.-bashing" that has been going on. Of course we do not always agree with the views that come across; we could not conceivably do so or even think that they are always put in a completely fair way. That is inevitable. I think that the standards are absolutely superb and we ought to admit it freely and frankly to ourselves.
I am afraid that I do not think that the analogy of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, of the Press Council really holds water. The newspapers are private companies and are responsible to their shareholders. Each newspaper has its own special line which it puts across and for which its readers buy it. This is completely different from the B.B.C. which, as the noble Lord said, does not have a B.B.C. line. I do not think there is a parallel. Nevertheless, I believe everybody knows the tremendous importance of the impact of television on viewers, and of course this applies to listeners, too. Think for a moment of the impact of those satellite programmes from China being beamed all over America. What a breakthrough that is to the American people to see what China is really like!
The importance of T.V. can hardly be exaggerated, and, because of that, and with all the natural fears about violence
598
on T.V. and the fears of the politicians that they will not be as influential as the commentators, and with the feeling about at the moment that we need ombudsmen of one kind or another (though I do not share it myself), I can quite understand why the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. have responded with their complaints councils. The House in general has more or less said that they do not care very much for either of the councils. The general opinion is that the B.B.C. council is almost too distinguished and too august to be a channel of communication for the complainants. The I.T.A. council is felt to be too inter-departmental, if I may put it that way, although I should like to welcome the fact that at long last at least the I.T.A. have a woman on their council. I rather reproach the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, for not having done the same thing on his council.
There has undoubtedly been a feeling through most of the speeches that there is a fear of censorship; that we must at all costs keep the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. free from governmental interference, and the setting up of these bodies might well bring about the things that we are afraid of. There is one point which transcends everything else—and this is a plea that I want to make to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, when he replies. He will know that on this side of the House we do not consider members of Her Majesty's Government to be fountains of political wisdom, nor do we think that they have a lightning ability to adjust to new circumstances. Nevertheless, the noble Lord's right honourable friend, the Minister, is one of the most nimble-witted of Her Majesty's Ministers and I am quite sure that he must by now have regretted that doctrinaire and hasty decision to break up the Commission of Inquiry which we set up and to which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred.
There are tremendously important issues before us now, with the possibility of a Broadcasting Council, with the extra T.V. time, with violence on T.V. and with the possibility of a fourth channel. Above all—something which is never mentioned—there are the astonishing technological advances in telecommunications, and with the Charters of the two sides running out in 1976 surely we could have a proper Commission set up. I plead with the noble Lord to ask his right

599
honourable friend to reconsider that decision so that we can have a reasoned, broad and farseeing review, so that we may make the best of these perhaps frightening but absolutely fascinating new media which are at our disposal.
7.10 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, broadcasting is a subject of such absorbing interest to almost everyone and, so many people feel, such an influential factor in our daily lives that I think the whole House welcomes my noble friend's debate on this particular aspect of it. It has proved an ideal subject for this experimental form of debate in your Lordships' House. My noble friend, if I may say so, was very well qualified to institute this debate because he must be one of the few, if not the only one, of your Lordships who can claim to have been engaged in the television service during its pioneer days in the 'thirties.
The noble Lord has given expression to a point of view which, to a greater or lesser extent, undoubtedly has found support on both sides of the House. In its essentials, this is that the Governors of the B.B.C. and the members of the I.T.A. have, by reason of their office, a predisposition to support what their organisations do. Therefore, so the argument runs, they are not impartial judges of the performance of those organisations. Therefore there is a need for some other body to be established, so selected as to be able to judge objectively. Its purpose would be to give free expression to the public view of criticism and comment on the programmes broadcast by the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. Such a body would not be hampered, as are the Government, by constitutional inhibitions on intervention in the affairs of the broadcasting organisations. Nor would it have tics of loyalty for the broadcasting organisations themselves. The noble Lord has made it clear that his primary concern is with the maintenance of balance and objectivity in broadcasting. Others who favour the setting up of a Broadcasting Council vary in what they would like it to do, but perhaps the general feeling of supporters of this kind of organisation is that it would give public expression to criticism, and give guidance and perhaps even warnings to the broadcasting authorities themselves. Finally, it might be
600
able to call the attention of Parliament or of the Government to continued or serious breaches of what it regarded to be the obligations of one or other of the broadcasting authorities.
My noble friend's proposal is for a Council to be run on the lines of the Press Council. Whatever the merits of the arguments for having a council of some kind, there are, as has been pointed out by a number of noble Lords, grave difficulties about emulating the Press Council in this context. The bodies with whom the Press Council is concerned, privately run companies responsible only to their shareholders, are of a very different kind from the public authorities appointed by respectively the Queen in Council and my right honourable friend to run the broadcasting services as trustees for the public. The noble Lord particularly mentioned balance and objective view in the terms of his Motion. Newspapers are neither required nor desired to display either characteristic. Most of them openly advocate a particular line of editorial policy and, to a large extent, readers base their choice on the editorial aims of the paper they select. The functions of the Press Council therefore do not include the conservation of balance, objectivity or neutrality. Its main purpose is concerned with the relationships between the Press and the individual, the protection of his privacy and his right not to be persecuted by journalists. The maintenance of standards or the evaluation of journalism from the point of view of its calibre as a medium of information, education or entertainment is right outside the Press Council's purpose.
Furthermore, a Broadcasting Council on this model would not satisfy those who do not consider the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. to be sufficiently accountable to the public. The members of the Press Council represent for the main part the newspapers who form its membership and the trade associations and unions who work in the medium. If that analogy were followed in a Broadcasting Council the effect would be that the examinations they conducted would be to a great extent into their own conduct; into the conduct, that is to say, of one of the only two bodies who are responsible and from whose ranks or from the ranks of whose directors the membership would be

601
mainly drawn. One might get the position in which I.T.A. personnel were being invited to criticise the B.B.C. or vice versa; or in which directors or employees of television programme companies were being invited to criticise each other or to criticise the conduct of their own controlling authority the I.T.A. One might get the position where producers or editors of the B.B.C. were being invited to criticise the judgments of their own Board of Governors. Such a situation could hardly lead either to objectivity or to good personal relations.
My Lords, of the various kinds of more broadly based council, one appointed by Government would stand the best chance of impressing its views and findings on the broadcasting authorities, themselves appointed by Government. To describe it is, however, to expose the anomaly of its position. Already the Governors of the B.B.C. and the members of the I.T.A. are selected for their public standing, wide outlook and experience. They are appointed to take responsibility as trustees for the public for the conduct of broadcasting. They are deliberately appointed on a part-time basis; thus their scope for participation in the executive direction of the organisation is very small. The most important part of their function is to fulfil their trust by making judgments in detachment from the burden of executive control.
It is very difficult to see how a further body composed of just such people would make superior judgments or judge by better criteria. To the extent that they meet less than the Governors or members, they could be expected to have less understanding than they. What is certain is that the more active they were and the more influence they had, the more the Broadcasting Council would come to be regarded as responsible for standards but without having the authority to impose them, while the broadcasting authorities would have been relieved of the responsibility and yet would remain in charge of the provision of service. The feeling would almost certainly emerge that the broadcasters were not really responsible and the new body might come to operate as a buffer between the broadcasters and Parliamentary and public opinion.
602
Moreover, if a Broadcasting Council were appointed by the Government to make such decisions, it would either be making them for the Government, in which case the independence of the broadcasters from Government control would have been gravely jeopardised; or, if not, for whom would they be making judgment and how would the judgments be publicised, and who would be responsible for implementing them? My Lords, these are all matters that have to be taken into account.
Several noble Lords have mentioned a Programmes Complaints Commission of eminent independent witnesses set up by the B.B.C. to take a critical and dispassionate view of how it is carrying out its responsibilities. That was a decision of the B.B.C. to set up a body to help it. The I.T.A. has also established a committee to consider complaints, chaired by the Deputy Chairman of the Authority and assisted by the Chairman of the General Advisory Council. These bodies bear no comparison with an outside body set up to criticise them. Supposing one were to concede, which we do not, that there was some place for a piece of inspectorial apparatus to look over the performance of the broadcasters: at once one finds oneself faced with the necessity to define terms—terms which specify what they are to do, terms which specify who they are to be, terms which specify, their powers of action.
But, having said that and having put, I hope, some of the difficulties that occur to my right honourable friend, I should like to say that he should read very thoroughly all the opinions that have been expressed from all sides of this House in this debate and not close his mind to them. And we should continue to think about ways of helping broadcasters to improve the service they can render to the community.
7.19 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I should like to thank all those who have remained to take part in this debate. This is a matter of some importance. I still believe there is quite a measure of disquiet in the nation as a whole and therefore we have done a duty to air this problem this evening. I would thank my noble friend who replied from the Front Bench. Normally on such occasions—this is what 22 years in politics

603
has taught me—you would say that this is the wrong moment or you say it is the right idea but you are going about it the wrong way or you list the difficulties which make the idea impossible to carry out. My noble friend tended to take the third of those three choices. I would remind him of Winston Churchill's phrase:
"The difficulties speak for themselves; tell us how to get on with it."
If I score the boxing aright I make it that I have a slight margin of "pros" rather than "antis". But there were quite a lot of, not neuters (I would never say that of anyone in this House) but neutrals who are sitting on the fence. Let me
say straight away, having grown up in the television age, having designed the first television receivers, having joined the B.B.C. in 1936 in the television service in its embryo days, I am a person who loves television and I want to see it set or maintain standards which are an example to the world, and I just felt in raising this matter that a Broadcasting Council might help it re-establish the position it has held in the affection and respect of everyone in this country.
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, that the B.B.C. has no editorial policy. It is just done by the producers. I was a producer and naturally I selected chaps I liked working with. As I was in the sporting and outside broadcast field there were no political views; but naturally you select people—whether you are a producer in the film industry or in the theatre or in television—with whom you work well, and you therefore produce better results. It is the producers who count. This is why the book The New Priesthood underlines the power which a producer now has in this mass media, with audiences of 10 million people, which cannot be censored: and I have never wished for censorship. It is the producers who select the speakers and the interviewees. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, in making such a very able speech, said he did not like the analogy with the Press Council. I should like to associate myself with Lord Ardwick's expression because I thought he chose his words extremely well and effectively. I think we have to remind ourselves that the Press themselves stood out against a Press Council until the weight of public
604
opinion forced them to set up one—first, entirely "within the house", and in the second stage with a neutral chairman. I would endorse his view that the Press has become more independent and more secure as a result of the Press Council than it was before; and I really do not think that the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. have as much to fear.
Much was said, and I interjected, about the Complaints Commission. It is an admirable idea, but I come back to this. Complaints must come from people or organisations who believe themselves to have been treated unjustly in connection with a programme. Again, I come back to something that occurred only last week, on "24 Hours", on February 16. Who complains because those selected for the interviews, who claimed sympathy with the miners, were the shop stewards from the pub just outside the Austin works at Longbridge—known to be extremely militant Left-Wing shop stewards? They were selected to open the programme. Who complains? The people who should complain, of course, are the great British public or the old-age pensioners, because they stepped up, by virtue of the views they put forward, massive inflation which may well lead to industrial anarchy. But under present procedure I cannot see who is going to lodge a complaint.
LORD ALDINGTON: My Lords, may I make my points clear to the noble Lord? The question is not only who complains, but what is done. Who does things? The Governors of the B.B.C. put it right. Who put right the problem of Ulster on the news reports and so on? The Governors and the Director-General; not anybody else.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I will agree that the situation regarding Ulster got very much better after there was literally a wave of anger, I think, in our nation at the way in which the I.R.A. had been treated by publicity. There was a double operation. There was a publicity operation by the I.R.A. as well as a bestial operation in what they were carrying out. I agree that it was put right. I am delighted that it can be put right. I hope that the confidence of my noble friend Lord Aldington is justified. I feel it is a shame that the Addison Rules prevent the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, whom we should

605
love to hear speak on this matter, from justifying his views. Particularly I should like to hear him justify the "24 Hours" programme I have referred to, with an audience of 6 million people, at a very critical moment in the negotiations. When I kept hearing that the British people were entirely sympathetic with the mineworkers' claim, I wondered whether the other view, about inflation and possible industrial anarchy, was ever put forward to the people at large.
I still feel that something would be accomplished by this proposal and I believe people should consider it. The B.B.C. have made nine public apologies so far in the last year, and I feel it would be easier if these matters came before an independent body. I hope they have nothing to fear, because I am the first, like every democrat in this House and in the other House as well, to defend the independence of the communications media. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL 01, LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Question is, That the Bill do now pass? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Contents have it. Clear the Bar.
My Lords, Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. It is therefore my duty to inform the House that a Division cannot take place. I declare that the Contents have it.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON, KING'S COLLEGE (LEASE) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE: NORTHERN IRELAND
7.31 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to move the first of the two formal Motions of which my noble friend the Leader of the House gave some indication this afternoon. The formal Motion is that the Clerk do read Standing Orders No. 42 and No. 78. Standing Order No. 78 requires the reading aloud by the Clerk of both these two Standing Orders as a condition of the use of the emergency procedure to pass a Bill through all its stages in one day without notice.
My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if this Motion were treated as being purely formal and any remarks I might have to make could be confined to the second of the two procedural Motions. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That the Clerk do read Standing Orders Nos. 42 and 78.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The said Standing Orders were then read by the Clerk of the Parliaments as follows:
42. No Bill shall be read twice the same day; no Committee of the whole House shall proceed on any Bill the same day as the Bill has been read the Second time: no report shall be received from any Committee of the whole House the same day such Committee goes through the Bill, when any amendments are made to such Bill and no Bill shall be read the Third time the same day that the Bill is reported from the Committee, or the order of commitment is discharged.
78. No Motion shall be granted for making any new Standing Order, or for dispensing with a Standing Order of the House, unless notice shall have been given in the Order Paper to consider the said Motion:
Provided that on an occasion of grave national emergency the House may, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 33B resolve without notice that it is essential for reasons of national security that a Bill (or Bills) should immediately be proceeded with and that the provisions of Standing Order No. 42 should he dispensed with to

607
enable the House to proceed that day with every stage of a Bill (or Bills) which it thinks necessary; and if the Clerk shall have read Standing Orders Nos. 42 and 78 at the Table and the motion for the said resolution shall have been agreed to, any such Bill may be passed through all its stages on that day.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I now come to the second Motion of a procedural character which I have to move—namely,
To resolve that it is essential, for reasons of national security, that in the event of the Northern Ireland Bill being received from the Commons this day it should be immediately proceeded with and the provisions of Standing Order No. 42 be dispensed with to enable the House to proceed this day with every stage of the said Bill.
My Lords, I noted with gratitude that when the two Statements were made this afternoon the noble Lord who leads the Opposition was good enough to say that he did not think it would be a difficult matter for the Government to persuade the House that conditions of emergency existed to justify the unusual procedure which I am now proposing, and, strictly speaking, I suppose that would enable me to move this Motion rather shortly. But, as my noble friend the Leader of the House explained when he made his Statement on Business this afternoon, we do not know exactly when another place, if it thinks fit to pass the Government measure which is before it, will be ready to send it up to this House. Moreover, I do myself consider both that the strict requirements of the Motion require me to explain why the emergency is so sharp and why the circumstances are such as to require the unusual procedure, and also that it would be more convenient that I should explain at a time when your Lordships are present in substantial numbers the broad principles upon which the Government have thought fit to act.
My Lords I explained in brief earlier this afternoon what I am now going to say at somewhat greater length, but I should like to spell it out a little more fully than perhaps I was able to do in answer to questions arising out of the Home Secretary's Statement which I was then repeating. It is sometimes said that in this country we have no Written Constitution in the ordinary sense of the words "Written Constitution"; but to
608
this general truism there is one complete exception, and that is that the Six Counties of Northern Ireland which form part of the United Kingdom have a Written Constitution in the strictest sense of the word. That Written Constitution is contained in the Government of Ireland Act 1920, an enactment which was originally intended to apply to both parts of Ireland but which, in the events that subsequently happened, remained alive only for the purpose of the Six Counties in Northern Ireland.
The Government of Ireland Act gives fairly plenary authority to the Stormont Parliament to legislate for the peace and good order of the remaining part of the Province of Ulster. But there is an exception in respect of a matter relating to the Armed Forces of the Crown. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 provides by Section 4 for the legislative powers of the Northern Ireland Parliament. Section 4(1) reads in these terms:
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, … the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall … have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of … Northern Ireland with the following limitations, namely, that they shall not have power to make laws except in respect of matters exclusively relating to the portion of Ireland within their jurisdiction, or some part thereof, and (without prejudice to that general limitation) that they shall not have power to make laws in respect of the following matters in particular.…"
There then follows a series of enumerated matters in respect of which the Legislature of Northern Ireland thereby set up is not to have power.
No. (3) is as follows:
"The navy, the army, the air force, the territorial army or any other naval, military or air force, or the defence of the realm or any other naval, military or air force matter (including any pensions and allowances payable to persons who have been members of or in respect of services in any such force or their widows or dependants, and provision for the training, education, employment and assistance for the reinstatement in civil life of persons who have ceased to be members of any such force)".
It had always been assumed that that prohibition was limited to matters relating to the Armed Forces, in the sense that the Armed Forces were under the orders of the United Kingdom Parliament; and this had been assumed for a very long time before the present emergency in Northern Ireland. What happened in substance was that the Northern Ireland

609
Parliament provided, by its Special Powers Act 1922, that the Minister for Home Affairs in the Six Counties should have powers to make Regulations, and many of the powers—though not all of them—now exercised by Her Majesty's forces in Northern Ireland in relation to the Emergency have been made under such Regulations. The Regulations were not called into being for the purposes of this emergency; they were in existence from the start, and the relevant alterations to them, which were introduced at a later stage than the original Regulations and which purported to give power to Her Majesty's forces on duty, were introduced, some of them as early as 1954, some of them as early as 1957, and all except one, I think, before the commencement of the present Emergency.
To show how important they are, they ace Regulations at least including Regulations 4, 5, 6, 11 and 38. The same point arises in all of them, and therefore I shall only read a short version of most of them. I shall start by reading the words of Regulation 4:
"Any police officer or constable or member of any of Her Majesty's forces on duty may, if he suspects that any house, building, land, vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other premises or anything therein are being or have been or are about to be constructed, used or kept for any purpose or in any way prejudicial to the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order, or that a crime or offence against these Regulations is being or has been committed thereon or therein, enter, if need be by force, the house, building, land, vehicle, vessel, aircraft or premises at any time of the day or night and examine, search and inspect the same or any part thereof and may seize anything found thereon or therein or any such vehicle, vessel or aircraft which he suspects is being used or is intended to be used for any such purpose as aforesaid or is being kept or used in contravention of these Regulations."
The words at the beginning of this Regulation included, in the form in which I have read them out, not merely any police officer or constable but also "or member of any of Her Majesty's forces on duty"; and those words were in this case added by an amendment to the Regulation as long ago as 1957. So they have been in force for a very long time.
No. (5) allows similarly any police officer or constable or member of any of Her Majesty's forces on duty to
"stop any vehicle travelling along any public road, and if he suspects that any vehicle upon any public road is being used for any
610
purpose or in any way prejudicial to the preservation of the peace"
he may
"search and seize the vehicle and seize anything found therein which he suspects is being used or intended to be used for any such purpose or in any such way as aforesaid."
No. (6) deals with the finding of ammunition and provides that if any member of the Armed Forces or a police officer or constable suspects that any person is carrying any firearms or ammunition, and so on, he may stop the person and search him; and it shall be the duty of any person, by Regulation No. 7, if so required by a police officer or constable or member of Her Majesty's forces on duty, to stop and answer to the best of his ability and knowledge questions which may reasonably be addressed to him. There is a power under Regulation 11 to arrest in similar circumstances. Under Regulation 38 there is a power, where it is suspected that any assembly of three or more persons may lead to a breach of the peace or serious public disorder, for the persons constituting the assembly to be ordered to disperse. The only difference there is that the order must be given by a commissioned officer of Her Majesty's forces on duty and not by any member of Her Majesty's forces on duty.
Those, my Lords, are the Regulations which are absolutely essential for the troops to carry on the business they are carrying on under the Emergency at the present time. This is not simply the opinion of Her Majesty's present advisers; it is the view which was formed very emphatically by the previous Administration, and as we say perfectly rightly. In a Written Answer to a Question in the last Parliament the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence said this on November 28, 1969; that is, virtually at the beginning of the Emergency:
"The powers conferred upon members of the armed forces on duty by regulations made under the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Acts include those of stopping and searching persons and vehicles, entering and searching premises, requiring persons to answer questions, and arresting persons without warrant. The regular exercise of these powers has been essential for the conduct of peacekeeping operations by the armed forces."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 28/11/69, col. 158.]
And a few days earlier Mrs. Shirley Williams, then Minister of State at the

611
Home Office, said this in the House of Commons:
"Any Government who swept aside the Special Powers Act, would have to bring in other legislation beforehand, or the Northern Ireland Government, and, for that matter, the British Amy would find that they did not have the kind of legislation which is essential at present."
That appears at col. 337. Then at col. 340 she said:
"In the present situation the control over extremists of both sides by the British Army is operating at present under these Acts, and they simply cannot be swept away and not replaced at all.'
She said the same thing even more emphatically later. On December 1 the Minister of Defence for Administration, Mr. Roy Hattersley, said this (cols. 1211–12):
"This is exactly the sort of task the army is at present carrying out. It is exactly the sort of task which the new Regiment should carry out … and we must rely on those parts of the Special Powers Act which make it possible for us to go on doing the job which is vitally necesary in the interests of the community as a whole."
Nobody, I think, for the moment supposed that the prohibition in the Government of Ireland Act in respect of military matters had any bearing at all upon the powers which I have enumerated, or on any subsequent or other powers. This was confirmed last year in September when, as some Members of your Lordships' House will remember, Mr. Justice Ackner, on an application for a writ of habeas corpus, held that the Regulation then in question was not ultra vires and that such Regulation could be exercised by Her Majesty's forces and could be applied to the Army. That was the view not only of the Government but of a High Court Judge in England, and I think of both Administrations in this country, and in Stormont.
This morning a case came before the Divisional Court in Northern Ireland, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and two Puisne Judges beside him, and they came to a contrary conclusion. I have seen only a Telex version of their judgment, but I have read it and it quite clearly establishes that, if that judgment be held to be correct, the Regulation which was then in question—Regulation 38, the last of those which I read out, which had formed
612
part of the Code only since 1970—was invalid on the ground that it fell foul of the prohibition that I have read from the Government of Ireland Act. Quite clearly, from the terms of the judgment this would invalidate not merely Regulation 38 (under which the Notice of Motion was launched to quash the convictions for failure to disperse), but any act done by Her Majesty's Forces under any of the Regulations to which I have drawn the attention of the House. It would mean, therefore, that the whole of the operations of the Army would be at risk, except of course in so far as the Army would still possess the ordinary powers which Forces of the Crown possess in any part of the United Kingdom under Common Law: that is to say, the duty to go to the aid of the Civil Power, the rights of self-defence and the duties under military law to obey the commands of their officers. It would leave them virtually stripped of their powers.
Obviously, the Crown could appeal against the decision of the Northern Ireland High Court, but for the reasons that I gave earlier this afternoon, this is not a practical proposition. Leave to appeal was obtained, but it would be some time at least before the appeal could come on, and in the meantime the whole of the Northern Ireland security situation would be at risk. The Government therefore decided to legislate, and I think I have established by now that a situation exists justifying the special use of this unusual and unattractive procedure to which we have drawn the attention of the House by reading the Standing Orders. I feel quite sure that it is the only thing we could do and when I gave notice of this this afternoon I was much encouraged by the reception which I received both from the Liberal and from the main Opposition Benches.
My Lords, there are two points that I should like to emphasise arising out of what I have said—perhaps three. The first is that if the Bill is passed by this procedure the convictions which have been quashed this morning will of course remain quashed, because it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to abandon any thought of appeal. They will have established by Parliamentary action what we maintain was always the intention of the Act. Therefore those who have gained their judgment this

613
morning will be entitled to rest upon their judgment in respect of the convictions which would otherwise have been sustained.
The second point is that what will be proposed in the form of a Bill will not validate anything except what was rendered invalid by the judgment this morning. It does not draw a veil of protection over any acts of the Crown Forces which are admittedly illegal, any excess of power, any act in excess of the powers conveyed on them either by Common Law or by the Regulations. It does not justify anything which cannot be justified, or was not believed to be justified as of yesterday afternoon.
The third point is that the noble Earl, Lord Longford—athough I do not see him at present in the House—asked me to give an assurance, which I happily do give, that the Bill will not give the Northern Irish authorities any power to give orders to Her Majesty's Forces. They will remain under their existing command, and it is not intended in any way to extend the amplitude of powers by means of this Bill. It is simply intended to declare valid something which was declared by the High Court of Northern Ireland this morning to be ultra vires the Government of Ireland Act.
I have introduced this Resolution rather more fully than I was able to do this afternoon. I hope that I have succeeded in making it intelligible, and I equally hope that I have not wearied the House by what is necessarily a rather technical exposition. I shall, of course, be happy to deal with any points that I can deal with if they are raised in debate. I beg to move.
Moved, to resolve, That it is essential, for reasons of national security, that in the event of the Northern Ireland Bill being received from the Commons this day it should be immediately proceeded with and the provisions of Standing Order No. 42 be dispensed with to enable the House to proceed this day with every stage of the said Bill.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
7.56 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the difficulty of the situation in which we find ourselves this evening has been well illustrated by the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I personally am very grateful to him for
614
giving such a full explanation, amounting almost to a Second Reading speech. I make no complaint of that, because if we are to accept the suspending of our Standing Orders in this way it is certainly incumbent on the Government to justify their reasons for so doing. None the less, this presents us with difficulties.
I do not propose at this stage to debate the Bill. Although it is always very dangerous to interpret the view of the House on the basis of one or two remarks, I think this was the view of the House this afternoon. It is almost certain, however, that we shall need to debate the Bill when it finally comes to us. We are doing something which was well summed up by the noble and learned Lord when he referred to this as an unattractive procedure. It is an unattractive procedure to abandon the safeguards which we have to ensure that legislation receives proper consideration.
On the face of it—and I shall avoid debating the merits of the Bill itself—it seems to be a very simple matter. I would emphasise straightaway that I have no doubt that if the Bill comes to us your Lordships should pass it; none the less some questions do arise. One question is set out in an Amendment which may be moved in Manuscript form by my noble friend Lord Brockway. I think that we, as a House, ought not in a matter of this importance, just because of convenience of time, to shrink from giving proper examination to legislation of this kind. May I ask the noble and learned Lord whether it would be possible for his very clear exposition to be reproduced, so that those of us who were following what he will agree was a very carefully argued line of argument, have an opportunity to study what he said before the matter comes to us later tonight? I do not know what time the Leader of the House expects it to arrive, but it may, for instance, have some effect on what my noble friend Lord Brockway wishes to say. It is not easy for noble Lords always to be here. My noble friend Lord Longford has had to go away, so perhaps I may suggest this Course.
Further, if we are going to adopt this sort of procedure in future, there ought to be some sort of way, some sort of practice, for looking at what we have done. Here we are sweeping away one

615
of the most important Parliamentary safeguards, taking all stages of a Bill—which again I repeat I think is justifiable—without much opportunity for consideration. I know that other noble Lords—including some with a legal background—have expressed concern; and I think it may well be that if we have to adopt this course there ought to be some automatic drill whereby perhaps the Procedure Committee considers the proceedings. When we recall the very weighty words which the Clerk of the House read to us, we ought not to underestimate the seriousness of what we are doing. I shall not speak to the merits of the Bill, and I may not need to do so later tonight. But I should again like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he can make available to us in written form the arguments that he set forth.
8.0 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for giving us his explanation of the background to this Motion, which I think should be approved. But that does not necessarily imply that the Bill will be approved, although I think there is agreement among all noble Lords that an issue has arisen and that the Army should be protected. Earlier this afternoon, there was some suggestion that the debate on this Motion might serve as a kind of preview to the debate on the Bill, but I feel sure that it would be more useful to limit this discussion to the actual Motion before us. Therefore, while I appreciate the information given to us by the noble and learned Lord, I feel that the proposed Bill cannot usefully be discussed at this stage. At the time when the Statement was made earlier this afternoon we had not had an opportunity of looking at the draft Bill. We have now had an opportunity, and I think the Bill raises some legal complications which may not have been foreseen when the Statement was made. Therefore may I suggest that we accept this Motion without prejudice to what may be said on the Bill itself? Putting it in that way, I hope that the Motion will be accepted.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, there was a suggestion that we should debate
616
the Bill on this procedural Motion, but I think that would be a mistake. Any remarks that I have to make will certainly be reserved until we come to the Bill itself, and I think it would be wrong for the House to be discussing in this Motion the merits and principles of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords who have expressed themselves so shortly on this Motion. I was very much flattered by the suggestion that I should make available to the House the remarks which I uttered in moving the Motion. Unless Hansard can do so, I am afraid that that is not possible, for the reason that, as some noble Lords may have observed, although I read from a number of documents, such as the Government of Ireland Act, the actual structure of my speech was not from a manuscript of any kind. Perhaps the House will acquit me of any discourtesy in saying that. I have been working very much under pressure this afternoon, and I thought it far better to get an up-to-date account. It was only a very few minutes before I entered the Chamber that I actually saw the judgment of the Northern Ireland Court—so that, although I was able to hazard a fairly sound guess as to what it contained, I could not give a text to noble Lords.
I happen to have with me, if it is of any help to the Opposition Benches, a note of what the Attorney General intended to say in the other place, which would give noble Lords a perfectly accurate statement of the arguments in quite different language. But that is the utmost I can do, unless the Hansard reporters can get out a typescript, and unless it can be reproduced in some photographic form, in which case I should give all the help I could to noble Lords who wanted to study it.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it possible in the time available to have a copy of the judgment put at our disposal?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There again, my Lords, all I have is a Telex report of the judgment which came into my hands a few minutes ago, and I doubt whether it is in a form which can be photographed. It is rather faint and is already a photograph of something,

617
although I can read it. I do not know whether there is any staff available to type it, but if any noble Lord would care to come to my office and read it in, I am afraid, the all-too-long period before we shall actually be debating the Bill, I should, subject to the usual safeguards, be only too glad to help in every way possible. But—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble and learned Lord. I am sure he is trying to be very helpful to us, but this is a serious matter and I really feel that the resources of the Government, the Constitution and one or two other things might be put at the disposal of the House. I do not want to put all the responsibility on the noble and learned Lord, but there are other resources. I think the noble Earl the Leader of the House could perhaps help to put facilities at our disposal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend has heard what the noble Lord has said. But I must tell the noble Lord firmly that his request must be addressed to the Leader of the House. In what I have already said, I have exhausted my own capacity to assist. But those offers remain open, quite irrespective of what others may be able to do. I think that that part of the discussion ought to be pursued through the usual channels. But, at any rate, I am very grateful to noble Lords for having been so indulgent to me, and I trust that the Motion may now pass if I put it to the House in the ordinary way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
7.57 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to say straight away, in response to what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition said, that if I had had any warning that there was to be a request—and it is very natural that it should have been made—for a copy of the judgment to be made available, I should have seen what could be done by way of intelligent anticipation. I cannot, speaking off-the-cuff, guarantee what can be done, but I shall certainly make it my business as soon as we conclude our present discussion to see in what way the wishes of the House can be met in this respect. I am told that there are already a great number of copies of the judgment available in the Printed
618
Paper Office and in the Library, and that is the Stop Press news on the subject.
So far as the question of how we might continue our discussion is concerned, I find myself in some difficulty, and I wish to apologise to the House because it has been very difficult to predict in any way the timing of the passage of this Bill through all its stages in another place. In fact, I understand that, up to now, it has been proceeding a good deal more rapidly than had been anticipated in some quarters, which places us in some difficulty. It certainly would not be my wish to suggest that your Lordships should come back prematurely and then find that the Bill had not completed its passage through another place. On the other hand, in view of the fact that this matter is both urgent and in the nature of an emergency, I think it would look wrong if there were too great a hiatus in the timing of the passage of the Bill through the two Houses. It is my understanding that the business in another place—it is no more than a guess—may be completed in something like an hour's time. In view of that, I suggest to noble Lords that we should adjourn during pleasure, in expectation that we may wish to resume our discussion of this matter in about an hour's time. All I would say, by way of consolation, is that I am told, through the good offices of our Refreshment Department, who have, as always, risen to the occasion, that there are what are delightfully called "heavy snacks" now available in the Refreshment Department. I apologise for springing this on noble Lords opposite, but this is a rather unusual situation, and that is what I suggest to your Lordships in this unusual situation.
8.10 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I can see that the noble Earl is trying to be helpful and is in some difficulty, but I think it was not unreasonable for the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Opposition and others to make their request and for the Government to be aware that the material was available. The Home Office is a vast organisation; I am sure they could provide anything. If it is of any help, I am sure the Opposition Whips' office would type copies. This is a fairly serious matter, and I hope these

619
copies will be made available. Furthermore, an impression has got around—I do not know whether I and others were responsible—that the House would not be meeting until rather later. I understand the difficulty. My experience is that a Bill takes a long time to get from another place to this House. We have had difficulties before; and I hope that perhaps they will send the Bill up smartly. I am wondering whether it would not be better to suggest an actual time, such as 9.30 or 10. I think it would not be unreasonable if we adjourned during pleasure until 10 o'clock. I do not know what the sense of the House is on this point: I am not sure whether Members are attracted by "heavy snacks" or not. It is not that we want to delay anything that is of great importance, but I think the convenience of the House might justify our saying a time like 10 o'clock. If the noble Earl would look behind him he would see a large number of nods in support of this view. Why does he not suggest that we should leave it until 10 o'clock?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if it would be helpful that I should intervene now, I should very willingly fall in with that suggestion. The difficulty about naming a time is that we may very well guess wrongly, but I should prefer to err on the early side because I think it is important that there should not be too much of a gap between the proceedings in both Houses. I should like to suggest 9.30.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I just supplement the generous offer of my Front Bench of secretarial assistance to the Leader of the House and to the noble and learned Lord? If they desire the services of my secretary, they are available.
8.13 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord, but we
620
had anticipated his kind offer and, as I mentioned just now, there are copies of the judgment available both in the Printed Paper Office and in the Library. My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn during pleasure until 9.30 p.m.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 9.30 p.m.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House adjourned during pleasure accordingly.
9.35 p.m.
House resumed.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am afraid that we are still, as it were, legislatively in a state of suspended animation. In my view it would be inadvisable for us to take too many bites of this particular apple. I should therefore like to suggest, having tried to take as much stock as I can of the very uncertain position at the present time, that it might be sensible for us to adjourn for, say, two hours, until 11.30 p.m. If that is agreeable to your Lordships, I beg to move that this House do adjourn until 11.30 p.m.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 11.30 p.m.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would suggest that we accept the advice given by the noble Earl the Leader of the House. This is not the first occasion when a Leader of the House has found himself dependent upon events in another place. I think that we should take the noble Earl's advice and hope that his present guess is a little better than the previous one.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House adjourned during pleasure accordingly.

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL
11.31 p.m.
Brought from the Commons.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Bill read 1a.
Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, pursuant to the procedural Resolutions which we passed this afternoon, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I explained at some considerable length, in connection with the second of the two procedural Resolutions, the reasons which had led the Government to take this course; and I outlined, at any rate in general terms, the nature of the legislation which, in pursuance of that course, it was determined to introduce.
My Lords, I know that the text of the Bill is in the hands of certainly the Front Bench of the Opposition, but as it is a very short Bill, and as exposition is sometimes more misleading than recitation, I think the best course that I can pursue is to begin by following the terms of the Bill fairly closely. The first thing to notice about it is the Long Title. The Long Title establishes that it is a Bill declaratory of what we believe to have been the law. The Long Title is:
"A Bill to declare the law as to the legislative powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland under section 4(1) of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, so far as relates to Her Majesty's forces and in particular to the conferment of powers, authorities, privileges or immunities on them."
My Lords, that establishes the main point which I was seeking to explain this afternoon; namely, that all that is desired to be done by this piece of emergency legislation is to establish the law as it was universally believed to be, and as it had been held by a Judge in the High Court in London to have been from the start, from 1920 onwards, and as it was supposed to have been, as I say, universally, until the decision of the High Court in Northern Ireland this morning. It
622
seeks to validate nothing except what was universally believed to be that, and it seeks to achieve nothing outside the ambit of that very limited and technical purpose.
The text of the first clause of the Bill—and the first clause is the only operative clause; and I read it out because again noble Lords have had it only for a short time, if they have had it at all—is as follows:
"The limitations imposed by paragraph (3) of section 4(1) of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 on the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to make laws shall not have effect, and shall he deemed never to have had effect, to preclude the inclusion in laws made by that Parliament for the peace, order or good government of Northern Ireland of all provisions relating to members of Her Majesty's forces as such or to things done by them when on duty, and in particular shall not preclude, and shall be deemed never to have precluded, the conferment on them by, under or in pursuance of any such law or powers, authorities, privileges or immunities in relation to the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order in Northern Ireland."
Clause 2 is the Short Title and can be ignored. As I sought to emphasise in what I had to say this afternoon, the situation arises from a limitation, or an interpretation, placed upon the meaning of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 in the courts by the judgment this morning of the High Court of Northern Ireland.
The Government of Ireland Act 1920 conferred on the Parliament of Northern Ireland power
"to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Northern Ireland."
In passing, may I say that this phrase, "to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Northern Ireland" is a technical phrase hallowed by countless precedents to confer legislative powers in their full amplitude to all Legislatures to which these powers are given. There is no power not included, so far as I know, in that general phrase. But upon the general phrase the Government of Ireland Act 1920 imposed a particular exception which I read this afternoon, and the particular exception which is relevant to this piece of legislation is:
"that they shall not have power to make laws in respect of the following matters in particular namely … the navy, the army, the air force, the territorial army or any other naval, military or air force or the defence of the realm, or any other naval, military or air force matter …".

623
I need not read the rest of the section. The exception related to the phrase, "any other naval, military or air force matter" and to the preceding phrase. Under the Special Powers Act 1922, of which I gave a general account this afternoon, the civil authority, which for these purposes includes the Minister for Home Affairs of Northern Ireland, is given general authority to make Regulations for the provision of the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order; and the Regulations under which the Army has been operating from time to time since the Emergency began in 1969 have been Regulations issued by the civil authority in Northern Ireland under the Special Powers Act, by virtue of Section 1(3), the enabling section to which I have referred.
Now it had been generally assumed that these powers enabled the Regulations to he made, conferring on members of Her Majesty's Forces, and in particular of the Army and members of Her Majesty's Forces when on duty, powers analogous to those already possessed by the civilian police. That was the assumption which was made. I gave a number of citations this afternoon, showing that it was an assumption made not only by the present Government and, as I have said, by a judgment of the High Court here, but by the previous Administration. In fact the Forces could not carry on their present security duties without these powers, since they include powers of interrogation, arrest, search and so forth. I enumerated them in detail this afternoon.
What was held in the High Court of Northern Ireland this morning was that these powers were ultra vires the Minister—or indeed the Parliament of Northern Ireland—to confer on members of Her Majesty's Forces, because they come within the prohibition imposed by the section of the Government of Ireland Act which I have read, Section 4(3), as being in respect of naval, military or air force matters. That is a matter which was obviously highly contentious—it could hardly be otherwise since a High Court judge in London decided one thing and two successive Administrations thought the same, and the High Court of Northern Ireland thought differently. What is clear is that unless that situation be reversed,
624
the powers under which our Forces in Northern Ireland are operating would be rendered nugatory and the whole peace and security of Northern Ireland would be put at risk.
As I explained earlier today, it would have been open to Her Majesty's Government to test the Northern Ireland judgment by appeal to the House of Lords. Indeed, counsel for the Crown sought and obtained leave of appeal, after hearing the result of the judgment. This is not a practical possibility: we could not leave these powers unused for as long as would be necessary to hear the appeal. We are certain that the Parliament of Westminster, when it enacted the Act of 1920, had the intention which we have embodied in this Bill; and we think therefore that the only possible course open to us is to validate the powers in the way in which we have done.
May I say again—although to this extent I am certainly repeating myself—three things which illustrate the extremely narrow as well as the extremely technical nature of the legislation we are now passing? We are not validating anything which was not invalidated this morning. If any acts were done illegally outside the powers conferred upon them by the Minister, they are still illegal and they would still give rise to an action in the courts: they would still give rise to an action for civil damages, where civil damages are proper, and they would still give rise to criminal proceedings if a criminal offence is committed. Nothing of that kind is validated. Secondly, the particular convictions which were quashed by the High Court will remain quashed if this legislation is passed. This is because, although leave to appeal was obtained, we shall abandon our appeal if this Bill is given legislative force. Therefore those who gained the advantage of the judgment this morning will be allowed to keep it for all time without interference.
I am glad to see the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in his place because I can now repeat to him what I said earlier this afternoon, and what he asked me to say explicitly. The Stormont Parliament does not by this Act gain any powers to give orders to our Forces. They remain under our command and under the command and responsibility of my noble

625
friend in this House. There is no power given to anybody else to assume command of Her Majesty's Forces.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Noble Lord!
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am always glad to elevate the noble Lord to still further than his high position already demands. Since the noble and learned Lord has given that answer, may I ask whether he could just spell it out because this is of great importance? On the face of it this clause seems to remove any limits on the power of Stormont in relation to the Army. I am sure his intention is the one he has stated, but can he explain how this particular clause achieves his purpose?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, all we have said in this clause is that the prohibition in Section 4(1)(3) of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 does not preclude the conferment of powers on Her Majesty's Forces for the sake of the good order and government. It does not entitle the Government of Northern Ireland to give orders to Her Majesty's Forces; it is for us to give orders to Her Majesty's Forces. There is no doubt whatever under the Government of Ireland Act regarding the giving of orders to Her Majesty's Forces to defend the Border or to do anything else. Matters of internal discipline remain entirely the prerogative of Her Majesty's Government. All that is said is that it does not preclude the kind of power which has been hitherto conferred by the Minister for Home Affairs which it is within his power to confer, so I would have thought, and without question, on any other member of the public, including the noble Earl or myself.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask one further question at this stage. and then remain relatively quiescent? Would it be in the power of Her Majesty's Government under this new provision to delegate their authority to give these instructions to Her Majesty's Forces? Would it be within the power of the Government to delegate that power to the Stormont Government?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This provision has nothing whatever to do with that. It only provides—and it is for this reason that I read out the actual terms of the proposed clause—that the Northern Ireland Government shall not be held to be acting ultra vires simply by virtue of the fact that it confers on members of Her Majesty's Forces powers which it can confer on anybody else. It does not add anything to what they have already assumed, and it does not give Her Majesty's Government any power which Her Majesty's Government do not now possess, either in common law or by virtue of Statute over Her Majesty's Forces. The noble Earl will remember that it is not only a matter of law but a matter of policy that we should retain the control of Her Majesty's Forces under our own hand for these purposes. I do not think that there could be any fear that this Bill would give any additional power in that regard.
The noble Earl flattered me by referring to past glories which I am now for ever debarred from re-assuming; but in spite of his good wishes in the matter, there was a third point that I wanted to make clear to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. It is our intention to validate ab initio the things which have been done within the scope of the powers purported to be conferred. Except for the case here I think three applicants to the High Court this morning obtained their rights in die form of a crystallised judgment, it does not intend to take away from anybody what he would otherwise have had in the way of a right to damages, except to the extent that the Forces are indemnified if and in so far as they have acted within the scope of the powers which are validated by this Act. It does not remove any other right from them, and it does not confer any other, right upon them.
My Lords, I think I have explained sufficiently the purpose of this legislation. Earlier this afternoon I explained its urgency, and I think I should be detaining the House and wearying it unduly if I were to do more at this stage (although of course if I am asked to I shall reply to the debate) than to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
11.51 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: The House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, and I am sure he will be one of the first to recognise that your Lordships' House is in a very difficult position this evening. I think it was about 4 o'clock this afternoon that the noble and learned Lord made an important and grave statement as a consequence of a judgment made in the High Court in Northern Ireland. At about 8 o'clock we had an opportunity of hearing a full explanation of what the Government have in mind—and I am most grateful to those who were involved in making a copy of the noble and learned Lord's speech available to some of us so that we could consider carefully what he had said. But I think the House must recognise that it is only a matter of hours, perhaps three at the most, since a copy of the Bill was in the hands of any Member of your Lordships' House. That is the first difficulty: that we are being asked to approve a Bill of very major significant importance, but a Bill that has been in the hands of Members of this House for only some three hours.
Having said that, my Lords, and recognising the very grave position in Northern Ireland—and I feel that one must accept what would be the legal consequences and the military and security prospects in Northern Ireland if your Lordships' House were not to pass this Bill this evening—I believe that your Lordships' House should pass this Bill. But I hope that the noble Earl, the Leader of the House will give us an undertaking that if we do pass this Bill this evening, and if in the course of our consultations with some of our colleagues in another place (and the mere fact that the Bill was going through another place prevented us from having these discussions which are normal, as the noble Earl will know), and as a consequence of further discussions, we find that there are matters that we wish to raise, I hope the noble Earl will give an assurance that time will be provided for these matters in the Bill to be examined. And if there is a feeling that some Amendment is necessary, I hope that the noble Earl will consider ways and means of meeting the House in this matter.
628
My advice to my friends on this side of the House is that this Bill should be given a Second Reading and should be passed into law as soon as possible. There is an Amendment, I believe, from one of my noble friends. I hope that the House will listen to the case made. I can imagine that there will be difficulty about the Government's accepting it, merely again because of the urgency of getting the Bill through. But, my Lords, if the House feels that there is merit in the case that is made by my noble friend yet is unable to accept it today, I hope that the Government will not close their mind to it and will consider meeting this matter either through further legislation or by some form of regulation or administrative decision. I do not ask the noble Lord to give a specific undertaking but I hope that he will keep his mind open, recognising the difficulties of your Lordships' House in passing this Bill this evening.
My Lords, there are other matters of constitutional importance which we ought to discuss on another occasion, as to whether there are not other ways and means of assessing the wisdom of passing such legislation at such time. But that is for another occasion. At this moment I would prefer to leave my own advice to my noble friends that we should pass this Bill this evening.
11.55 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, may I start by saying that there has not of course been much opportunity for any of us to consult with our noble friends as to what attitude we ought to take to this Bill. and I am at the disadvantage that we have not had the opportunity of full consultation. But it is my hope that the few words that I shall address to your Lordships will have the assent and the support of my noble friends, and I think that that is likely to be the case. May I follow the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in saying this. We recognise that something must be done in the face of the decision of the Divisional Court in Ireland this morning. Our reservations—or, at least, my reservations—are as to whether what is being done in this Bill is the right way to go about it. I am bound to say that I have very serious reservations about the way in which this Bill has been framed.

629
I should like to follow the footsteps of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in dealing with this Bill because I should like to read its terms and also read the terms of Section 4(1)3 of the 1920 Act, possibly with rather different emphasis from that which was given to it by the noble and learned Lord. If I may start with Clause 1 of the Bill, what worries me about this is the very broad and uncertain language in which it is framed. If I may read the relevant parts, the important parts, giving to them the emphasis I want to give, the clause reads like this—and I will omit words which are not material to my present point:
"The limitations imposed by paragraph (3) of section 4(1) of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 on the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to make laws shall not have effect…to preclude the inclusion in laws made by that Parliament…of all provision relating to members of Her Majesty's forces as such and to things done by them"—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, "or to things …".
LORD FOOT: I beg your Lordships' pardon—
"or to things done by them when on duty".
The words I want to emphasise are "of all provision". What does that phrase mean? Surely it can only mean provision of any kind. What it appears to be saying is that the law as it stands at the moment as declared by this Bill is that Stormont has power to make laws with provisions of any kind relating to members of Her Majesty's Forces as such or to things done by them when on duty—absolutely unlimited: anything that they like to think up. And the point is reinforced if we read on, because the Bill goes on to say this:
"and in particular shall not preclude … the conferment on them"—
that is, upon Her Majesty's Forces—
"of any such law of powers, authorities, privileges or immunities in relation to the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order in Northern Ireland."
According to this Bill, being the declaration of the present state of the law, the Stormont Parliament has the power at the moment—and has had conferred upon it the power—to give to the Armed Forces any power or any authority that
630
it thinks fit without limitation and without qualification. That is what it says, and that is the only thing that it can mean.
My Lords, contrast the breadth of the uncertainty and the ambiguity of that with the terms of Section 4(1) of the 1920 Act. What that Section says is this:
"Subject to the provisions of this Act … the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall … have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of … Northern Ireland with the following limitations"—
and I leave out the unnecessary words—
"they shall not have power to make laws in respect of the following matters in particular, namely"—
and then in paragraph (3) it says:
"The navy, the army, the air force, the territorial force, or any other naval, military, or air force"—
and so on.
My Lords, is there not a stark contrast between that and what this Bill says is the state of the law? To the layman, surely—and I am talking, I hope, about the intelligent layman—the meaning of Section 4(1)(3) is this, is it not? It is saying to Stormont: "You can make what laws you like about peace and order and good government as long as you do not seek to make any laws affecting the Armed Forces". That is what it means, and then when you come, as it were, to the layman's translation of the Bill it says what appears to be the exact opposite. It says that there is nothing in that section of the Act which prevents Stormont from including in laws relating to peace, order and good government provisions affecting the Armed Forces. It appears on the face of it to say the exact reverse of what is said in the original Act.
My Lords, I do not draw attention to these things in order to create difficulties, but to suggest that this Bill, carried through with the speed and drafted with the speed with which it has had to be drafted, is far from being adequate and is far too wide in the powers which it supposedly declares to have been conferred upon the Government at Stormont. The noble and learned Lord said, of course—and this has been the Government's case throughout—that in fact it is purely declaratory and that it is not altering the law as it has been understood

631
previously. Whether that be so or not, it is going to appear to all the world to alter the law, certainly to all the people in Ireland. That is the interpretation which is inevitably going to be put upon it by all persons in Ireland: that the Government today in this Bill are seeking to alter the law.
Further, my Lords, when one comes to look at the decision of the High Court in Ireland, and when one comes to see the rationale of the decision, is it not highly arguable that it is the High Court of Ireland who are right and it is Her Majesty's Government and indeed the English Judge who are wrong? In any event, it is highly arguable (to put it at its least, and my fear is) that the interpretation which is going to be put upon this in Northern Ireland, and indeed in Southern Ireland, is that the Government are in fact taking new powers and are conferring new powers upon the Government at Stormont.
The last matter, which is part of the same argument about the uncertainty of the breadth and the width of the language used in this Bill, relates to what the noble and learned Lord was speaking about; namely, that this Bill does not in any way alter the chain of command, and that the Commander-in-Chief and the British Government remain in full control of the Armed Forces. That may be so, but it depends upon a fine distinction between orders and powers. What the Bill says is that Stormont can confer powers on the Armed Forces, and indeed Regulation 38 purports to give powers to officers and to members of Her Majesty's Forces. So the Bill says that Stormont can confer powers and give authority to the Armed Forces.
The noble and learned Lord says, "But that does not mean that Stormont can give order to the troops." I accept that, but does it not mean that anybody in command in Northern Ireland will have to work within the framework of the powers that have been given by Stormont to the Armed Forces as a whole? I fear that there is going to be grave uncertainty, particularly in Northern Ireland, as to where the ultimate responsibility for the actions and the duties and the behaviour of the Armed Forces in Ulster really lies.
632
I would conclude by saying—and I apologise for taking up too much time at this very late hour—that we shall not oppose the passage of this Bill. I do not myself think that at this stage and with this very short notice the Bill can be suitably amended to meet the objections I have tried to raise. But I hope that when this Bill has gone through, as I have no doubt it will, the Government will be prepared at an early date to look again at this matter to see whether we cannot arrive at some formula which will be more satisfactory and which will more clearly define the rights and powers we want to confer upon the Government of Stormont.
12.7 a.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am sure we can all fully understand the practical necessity for this legislation, but I hope that before we are asked to pass it we shall have an assurance from the Government Front Bench that this is to be regarded as only a holding operation, until we have had an opportunity, at leisure and with advice, to consider the points put forward, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, which seem to me to have great relevance. I was considerably disturbed when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack invited us to follow him in his opinion, which was that he was certain the Parliament of 1920, in this legislation, the substantive Act, had the intention which is embodied in the Bill now before your Lordships' House. I find that impossible to believe, because surely the intention in the relevant section of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, was precisely to keep away from Stormont the power to legislate for military forces of any kind. This was regarded as one of the safeguards at that time: that while this Parliament might have certain other powers, it did not have authority over the forces of the Crown. So I think that historically the noble and learned Lord is surely in error.
To come to present times, we have had certain discussions in this House—and it has been discussed in public—as to whether the whole responsibility for security, in the fullest sense of that word, should not be transferred from Stormont to the Government here at Westminster. We are now being asked to do something which, whatever the legality of it, will

633
surely appear to public opinion on both sides of the Border as though we are reinforcing the authority of Stormont in some way. This may not be the intention, or even the effect, of the Bill before us; but I cannot help thinking that this is going to be the impression that will certainly be created, more especially because, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot pointed out, of the extremely wide terms in which this Bill appears to be drafted. I am not learned in the law, but when I see something which refers to "all provision relating to members of Her Majesty's forces", I take that literally, because the proviso at the end says, "… in particular shall not preclude …". Well, this is just a matter of emphasis. If you are giving all provision, then you are just drawing attention as a matter of emphasis in the last few lines of the first clause.
At this late hour I do not want to prolong the argument, but I do not think we ought to pass this Bill without expressing disquiet. We understand the practical necessity for it, but I feel that before we pass it, we are entitled to an assurance from the Government Front Bench that this is to be regarded only as a holding operation until we have had the chance more fully to understand what is intended.
12.10 a.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, like my noble friend I was not trained in the law, but I was trained in semantics and logic and I have been looking at what this Bill means. The first thing that it says is:
"The limitations imposed by paragraph (3) of section 4(1) of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 on the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to make laws shall not have effect, …"
So that is finished. That is the simple logic of what we are doing tonight.
My next problem concerns what the Act of 1920 says; so I take the trouble to look at it. The section we are talking about, Section 4, the Government have been kind enough to produce for your Lordships—which is a right and just thing to do. That section reads:
"they shall not have power to make laws"—
this is in Northern Ireland, at Stormont—
"except in respect of matters exclusively relating to the portion of Ireland within their jurisdiction, …"
634
Now come the next vital words:
"they shall not have power to make laws in respect of the following matters in particular, namely:— …"
here I will jump the gun a little and come to paragraph (3):
"the navy, the army, the airforce, the territorial force, …"
et cetera. I need not read any more, because the logic and the meaning is clear so far as a layman is concerned.
I do not understand the acrobatics of judges, but I do understand the nuances of the English language. Consequently all I say is—and I do not want to detain this noble House longer at this time of night—that I think it is necessary (and I speak now to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, with whom I had a little difference the other day about the emergency laws, but he may have been right and I may have been wrong) that the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and my noble friend here should be listened to. In this transition period this should be a holding operation, otherwise the world will misunderstand the rapidity with which tonight we have rushed this Bill through these two Houses, and will misunderstand the objectives. I should not like that to happen at this delicate stage in international affairs, because there is enough misunderstanding about this little old country of ours at the moment. Consequently, I say that by this Bill tonight, and by what we are doing in this House and what has been done in the other place, we are giving certain rights to Stormont and certain interpretations which were not there hitherto.
12.14 a.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, despite the hour of the morning I am grateful for the delay since the first notice of this Bill was given. I think generally your Lordships will agree that it has been extraordinarily difficult, even after the Statement made by the noble and learned Lord, to appreciate all the implications of the measure which is now before us. Even when one had the text of the Bill in one's hands, for those of us who are not lawyers it was very difficult to follow. May I say to the noble and learned Lord that when he speaks about the principles of political philosophy I can follow him more easily than when he speaks of the intricacies of law. I have enjoyed that, as he knows, not

635
only in this country but also in Africa. But we have now had some time to consider this Bill, and the more I have considered it with those who have some knowledge of the subject the more uneasy I have become.
There have been many since last August who have sounded warnings that many of the actions of the Army in Northern Ireland have been illegal. Those warnings have been sounded not only by the National Council for Civil Liberties, but by many of those who have specialised knowledge in this field. I do not often agree with Mr. Enoch Powell, but I think that on this issue he has been absolutely right. He has argued that the Army has assumed the powers of the police in Northern Ireland, and that that is not a function for the military forces. The Army in Northern Ireland, almost uniquely, has assumed the functions of search and of arrest without warrant. That is not a duty of the military forces. That is a duty of the police, and Mr. Enoch Powell has been absolutely correct in urging that that demarcation should be observed. These actions of the Army are now admitted by this Bill to have been illegal under the Government of Ireland Act, which precluded the Stormont Government in Northern Ireland from introducing legislation relating to the Armed Forces, and our House tonight cannot possibly carry without some disquiet a Bill which is repudiating that constitutional principle.
Secondly, this Bill is retroactive. I wonder how many of us appreciate that the phrase in the Bill, which states that actions are "deemed never to have had effect", repudiates a legal obligation which our country has undertaken in the sphere of international law. We are contravening the European Convention on Human Rights. This is worth emphasising. This is the only international convention which has the force of law. There is the Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations: that has no force of law. The European Convention on Human Rights has all the force of law upon our Government, our Parliament and our country. This Bill is fundamentally contravening that international law, and in that way, internationally, this is an illegal Bill.
636
Thirdly, I want to say this. I welcome the provisions in this Bill for safeguarding the position of individual soldiers in the Army in Northern Ireland. I regard them as the most terrible victims of what is happening in Northern Ireland to-day. That boys of 18 should be asked to undergo what we are asking of members of the Forces in Northern Ireland—[Interruption]. My Lords, I am not quite sure whether that interruption is in support of me or in opposition, but what I was saying was that the most desperate sufferers because of the position in Northern Ireland to-day are the boys of 18 who are in the Armed Forces. We are asking them to do an impossible task, and it makes me utterly ashamed that we should be requiring them to do the things they have to do. They are far worse sufferers than the Irish who are detained under the internment provisions. Therefore I welcome the fact that some provision is made in this Bill to safeguard them from damages which may arise as a result of their actions. But, my Lords, if we are to make that provision, what provision are we to make for those, recognised in this Bill, who have been illegally arrested and illegally detained without trial? Some of them have been found innocent; and in Committee I shall move an Amendment which will seek to ensure that, while we arc in this respect doing justice to those who are in the Army, we also do justice to those who have been illegally arrested and detained without charge or trial, and who equally have the right to compensation.
The last point I want to make—and I make it very seriously indeed—is this. We now have what is termed (and I say it with no disrespect) the Widgery Tribunal inquiring into the events in Londonderry. I am among those who have not only offered to give evidence personally, which I shall be doing, but who have also encouraged others to give evidence. I am among those who have urged the Northern Ireland Campaign for Civil Rights, the relatives of those who died in Londonderry and the Roman Catholic priests concerned to give evidence to that Tribunal. One had to meet considerable opposition. Those of us who have urged that have argued that this tribunal is the tribunal of the Lord Chief Justice, that it is a tribunal of law and, in that respect. we have said, "You

637
should make your contribution to it because it stands for the rule of law." What are we to say now?
A NOBLE LORD: Say nothing!
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, someone has interrupted to say, "Say nothing!" That might even be the best course to adopt, because this Bill repudiates the rule of law. This Bill destroys the whole argument of those who have urged that evidence should be given to the tribunal. This Bill recognises that illegal actions have been carried out and, by retroactive clauses, says that we will merely wipe them all out. It is a repudiation of the principle of law for which the Lord Chief Justice stands and which has been the case for our argument in favour of giving evidence to this tribunal. I regard this as a disastrous measure which, if we had time to consider all its implications, would never receive the endorsement of those who believe in the supremacy of law and in the principles which ask our citizens to pay homage first to what is the law of the land.
I should like to move the rejection of this Bill. I refrain from doing so only because I am concerned about the members of our Armed Forces in Northern Ireland; but I hope during the Committee stage not only to move my first Amendment but a second Amendment, of which I have given notice, to the effect that the Bill should be reconsidered in one year's time when its operation has been allowed to be examined. I hope that this may be accepted by your Lordships.
12.28 a.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I make no apology for encroaching on the time of the House because I feel the matter before us this morning is a very serious one. I think we ought to give it whatever consideration we feel is necessary. We have had a very clear exposition of the Bill from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack but, having said that, I know he will forgive me for saying that I think we have had also a clear exposition from the noble Lord, Lord Foot. This gives rise to considerable doubt in one's mind as to which of the two noble Lords is putting the correct interpretation upon the Bill. What it is
638
sought to do this morning, we are told, is to restore the position to what we thought it was yesterday. From my point of view, I hope that we do so and I hope that this Bill will be passed. But what I ask your Lordships to concern yourselves with at this particular time is the fact that, because of the urgency of the matter, this Bill has had to be rushed—and I use the word advisedly—through both Houses of Parliament. This is an important Bill. If we believe today that the measures that are put before your Lordships' House did in fact exist, can we be sure that in three or four months' time the Bill now before us will bear the interpretation which this morning we are told it does?
I should like to ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether he will say definitely, and give us an assurance, that within the next few weeks time will be found for this House to consider all the implications of the Bill. I do not think that anything would be lost by spending a few more hours considering its implications. Many of us are very unhappy that Stormont should have as much power as it has at present. Many noble Lords, perhaps from both sides of the House, would not like to feel that Stormont was being given more power than it has had in the past. This Bill may not give more power, but are we certain of that? I conclude by again asking the Leader of the House whether he will say definitely that he will give an assurance that within the next few weeks—not months—time will be found for Members of your Lordships' House to discuss the implications, so that we may be completely certain that the interpretation of this Bill, as given by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—whose authority in this matter I would not for a moment question—is the right one.
12.32 a.m.
THE EARL of LONGFORD: My Lords, I remember that a good many years ago, when I was Minister of Civil Aviation, the officials in my Department took powers which enabled them to destroy every house within five miles of London Airport in order to cut down one tree which was thought to be impeding the approach to the Airport, and it could be that something of that kind has happened here.

639
I can understand and sympathise with the Government for having made a mess of this. They say that other people have made a mess of it in past years. They say that all Governments have been wrong together and so let us all stand in the dock over that. I was not in the Government when the Army went into Northern Ireland in the new sense, but I might have been, and I am quite ready to share that point of view. Nevertheless, the question must concern all of us as to whether, in order to provide indemnity for what was done in a legitimate misunderstanding of the law by troops in the last few years, we have to pass this Bill at a few hours' notice. I hope that I may say without offence to the noble and learned Viscount and his legal colleagues, that it is impossible to believe that all legal wisdom has suddenly descended on them—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, what I will not forgive is that for the third time the noble Earl has called me a noble Viscount. I assure him that I am not a Viscount; I am a Life Baron.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am not exactly the one to talk, but the noble and learned Lord has changed his name and style so often that we must all be allowed to fail to keep up with him.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Earl has changed his just as often.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords that is a wonderful joke, but it is the one I made myself two minutes ago, so I do not know why the noble and learned Lord thinks it is so amusing. It is what I actually said. However, the noble and learned Lord is looking much happier than he was a few minutes ago when I felt that he was depressed by this dreadful little Bill for which I cannot feel that he takes full responsibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has called it a disastrous Bill. I would call it a rather regrettable and dangerous Bill. I think we must agree with what has been said by noble Lords on these Benches, that this will be generally understood in Northern Ireland—and not by
640
ill-intentioned people—as giving new powers to Stormont. That is inevitable. They will not all read that at 12.30 a.m. the noble and learned Lord said that no new powers have been conferred. This must seem to confer new powers on Stormont. The idea that the latest move is to give new powers to Stormont would surely beggar the imagination of someone far less intelligent than the noble and learned Lord. This surely is a very dangerous thing. It has come about, if you like, through a legal muddle; but we are told that it all has to be done in the middle of the night, because otherwise to-morrow—well, I do not know what would happen to-morrow if this Bill were not passed to-night but in a day or two—the Army would have to proceed under Common Law. Is it so appalling that they could not break into anybody's house or intern anybody for 48 hours? That is as I understand the situation to be. Is that wrong? I do not see any reason at all to so rush through this Bill that quite inadequate attention is given to it. I must assume that it was only to-day that the noble and learned Lord and his legal advisers were able to bring their minds to bear upon it. We cannot suppose that this is the height of their considered wisdom. There is no reason to think that at all. They have rushed into this and have taken these powers to destroy these thousands of houses in order to cut down one tree. Surely what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said is incontrovertible. We are told that this Bill declares the law. In fact, it contradicts the law. One cannot get round that. We are told that we must pass this Bill otherwise some ghastly consequence will ensue by breakfast time. Well, a pistol is held at our heads, and no doubt we shall be subdued by superior numbers, but not by superior reason.
I think it is a disgrace that at this short notice a Bill of this kind should be brought forward containing provisions which are so completely contrary to what the Bill proposes to do. I do not want to take up any more time at this stage, because there are Amendments to come. I sympathise with those who say they are very sorry that this situation has arisen, and hope that even now—I suppose it is too late to hope—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, a very fair-minded man, will see the

641
force of the objections made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. Until he gives an answer to what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said, he is bound to come before us as someone who brings forward a Bill which flatly contradicts its declared purposes.
12.36 a.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it is not for me to defend the Government's action in relation to the introduction of this Bill, and indeed the Government have something to answer in the debate. But having listened to my noble friend Lord Longford, I must say that I am not in agreement with him as to his judgment on the necessity of this Bill at this moment. I think the Government have much to answer for, and if I may say so, that is admitted by the previous Government in this respect. As I understand it, there is no admission by the Government that what has been done has been done illegally. They say that the purpose of the Bill is to clarify by a declaratory statement certain actions. As my noble friend Lord Longford has said, it makes no difference to the effect of the Common Law and the operation of the Army under the Common Law. But when anyone suggests that at a moment like this it would be right to deprive the Army of the right to search—and I am one of those who has been most doubtful about the wisdom of introducing internment in a situation such as this; but it has always been my view that as soon as it was introduced it was not possible to stop it—I cannot agree.
I think that this Bill has to pass whether we like it or not. It is, as the noble and learned Lord said before, an unattractive Bill. The procedure that we have adopted is an unpleasing one in a democratic State, and it is unpleasing that either in another place or in this House we have to proceed in this sort of way. As my noble friend Lord Shepherd said, no doubt we shall have to look to see whether we cannot improve our procedures, perhaps by some special Select Committee to go into the matter, so that the very powerful points made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and my noble friends can be threshed out, not under the immediate, almost guillotine effect of having to pass a Bill—and we all know that we have got to get this Bill through to-night—but so that
642
we can have the benefit of some sort of report. Now the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, to get his title right—has, I think, done his best to help the House and I would ask him to go on helping us. I would ask him in particular to answer—not perhaps at too great length—some of the very important points that have been raised, because clearly we shall be going on to a Committee stage and I think we shall be sitting here for quite a long while. The thing which is worrying me at the moment is the growth of violent feeling, not only in Ireland but in this country also. We ought not to lose our own sense of responsibility and do things in response to a violent reaction, but there is no doubt that if we do not pass the Bill tonight the people of this country are going to be pretty angry about it on behalf of the Army in Ireland.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD SHACKLETON: Now everyone has paid tribute to the Army in Ireland, and has said that they are the victims. My noble friend Lord Brockway used strong language about the tragedy of their being asked to do what they are doing, but in this situation we do not have much freedom of choice; and I have no doubt that the purpose of this Bill, whatever its further implications may be, is one that Parliament and the people of this country are prepared to accept. At the same time, I am quite sure that we have to find a way to look at the small print in rather more detail than is possible in these circumstances. Therefore I hope that the noble Earl the Leader of the House will respond—I do not ask him to do so now—to the appeals made by two of my noble friends that we might consider whether there are ways of examining this in more detail.
In the meantime, I think we should give the Bill a Second Reading. It reminds me painfully of another Bill, the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, about which my noble friend Lord Brockway was also very active in the small hours; but we are all toads under this particular harrow, and I think the sooner we get the Second Reading through the better. However, I should like a further explanation (and the greatest patience) from the

643
noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, at not too great a length.
12.43 a.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my papers are now in such a muddle that, with the greatest patience at my command, I shall be rather ill found to establish a complete inventory of all the points that have been made. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his opening remarks. The House is indeed in a position of difficulty, and it is placed in this position by a situation which was unexpected, if not altogether unforeseen for a day or two, but the knowledge of which I obviously could not share with other noble Lords. Therefore I think that I should perhaps begin by saying in general terms that I understand that in another place the Lord President of the Council has given an undertaking that discussions will be held through the usual channels about the timing of a debate on all the wider issues that have been raised. I am not authorised explicitly to speak on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, but I have no doubt that similar undertakings can be given here, when and if required, although my own feeling is that events will probably overtake this particular measure in various ways, some of which I think I can foresee and some of which I am not sure that I can foresee.
With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I thought he had not got the Bill right. I do not say that in any sense by way of reproach; this is a technical Bill and it has been wished on Parliament at relatively short notice. Everybody has had to do the best he could to deal with its terms in the best way available. With respect to the noble Lord, he read the word, "all" as if it were the word, "any", and that is a fundamental error in construction. "All" is not the same as "any". The Bill does not say that the Northern Irish Parliament are not precluded from making "any" provision whatever about the forces; it says only that they are not precluded from making "all" provision; that is to say, they are not wholly prevented from making provision. The decision of the High Court in Northern Ireland which precipitated these discussions purported to say that "all" pro-
644
vision which related to members of the Armed Forces on duty were within the mischief of the prohibition of Section 4 of the Government of Ireland Act. All the Bill purports to say is that it is not so, and that there may be some provisions relating to the members of the Armed Forces when on duty which are not within the mischief of the prohibition of the Government of Ireland Act.
At this stage, out of turn but logically, I should like to confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said about the effect of the Bill in contradiction, albeit courteous contradiction, of one or two of the things said by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford. The Bill does not admit that there has been any illegality whatever; it makes no such admission. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was perfectly right in his point that there are evidently two possible interpretations of the Government of Ireland Act 1920. One is the interpretation which has been universally held to be the law hitherto and which some (I say this without any kind of aspersions on the powerful High Court of Northern Ireland) may still think is the better view: the view of Mr. Justice Ackner last September; the view of the Labour Government; the view of the Stormont Government; and the view of the Westminster Government now. It is obviously not the only view. The other view is that taken by the High Court of Northern Ireland.
What the Bill purports to say is that, without waiting for the decision of the House of Lords on appeal, the matter has become so urgent because it relates to matters of search for firearms, and the like, that we must legislate to declare which of those views is correct. This is the High Court of Parliament, and the High Court of Parliament in matters of doubtful law is entitled to legislate and so cut the Gordian knot of legal difficulty. This is what this Bill purports to do. That is why the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, to which I will come in a moment, is based upon a false premise. There is no admission of illegality here. There is a candid statement that we thought that what was being done was legal, and an admission that a court in Northern Ireland, for which we have high respect and regard, has decided to the contrary. It does not

645
mean we are making any admissions that we were wrong. That is the basis upon which the law was based.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, at this stage says that as a matter of history I am wrong in saying that the Government of Ireland Act 1920 always was intended to have that effect. With respect to her, she did not understand what I was saying. Obviously the Government of Ireland Act 1920 intended to keep legislation about Her Majesty's Forces in the hands of the Westminster Government: that is where it is, and that is where it will remain under this Bill. What the Government of Ireland Act 1920 did, in our belief and in the belief of others who happen to have the misfortune to differ from the High Court in Belfast, was to allow, so we thought, the Government of Stormont to confer powers on Her Majesty's Forces which they could confer on anybody else—on the noble Lord, Lord Foot, or on me, or on Mr. Ian Paisley or on Miss Bernadette Devlin. They have power to do all that; but, so the High Court in Stormont has decided, the only people on whom they have not the right to confer these powers are people who happen to wear Her Majesty's uniform. It so happens that I think, and this is the answer to the second part of what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, was saying, that among all the persons who happen now to be dwelling within the Six Counties the most suitable to be given powers of search and arrest are those who happen to be wearing Her Majesty's uniform. They at least are under discipline. They at least are under the command of Her Majesty's Government here. They at least are not independent actors like constables. They are under orders, and precisely because these powers are of a wide nature it seems to me to be more suitable rather than less suitable that it should be at least open to the Northern Ireland Government before the passing of this Bill and after the passing of this Bill, by the authority of this House and of the other place, to say to Her Majesty's Forces that they are not to be second-class citizens in this matter. That seems to me to be the essence of this Bill.
Of course the fact that powers may be conferred upon the Forces to search for arms and to arrest or ask for information
646
—powers which are absolutely essential for the carrying out of their duties—and that those powers may have their legal root in Stormont legislation does not mean either that they will be used at all (although of course they will) or that they will be used under the orders of the Stormont Government. They will continue to be used, as they are being used now under the orders of the officers commanding the troops; that is to say, under the orders of the officers commanding the troops who are under the responsibility of Ministers who are responsible to this House and whose Minister of State is in this House. In other words, so far from giving an additional power to Stormont, what the Bill is doing is to validate an existing supposed power of the troops the use of which, although not the legal root of which, is already within the responsibility of this House.
That does not seem to me to be quite subject to the sort of objection to which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, seemed to think it was, and I feel that on reflection, once they have accepted as I have said, that there will be a great deal more to be said about Northern Ireland either in this connection or in some others in debates to be arranged through the usual channels, they will feel that there is not quite the ground for disquiet in the language of this Bill which they at first thought.
I now come to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. He said that he understood me when I was talking about political philosophy but he did not understand me when I was talking about law. Regrettable as that may be, that was painfully obvious because it was evident from everything he said that he had a very hazy idea about what the law was. The first thing he said was that the Army had assumed powers of police search warrant and arrest without warrant. My Lords, the Army has assumed no powers whatever; the Army has been given powers. What we are discussing here is not either whether it should have them or whether it should be allowed to assume them. It is not assuming them; it has not assumed them; it has not purported to assume them. It has acted in accordance with a power which was purported to be conferred by the Stormont Parliament and which the High Court in Belfast has said that the Stormont Parliament

647
had no power to give. And so we are allowing the power ourselves. That is the purpose of this Bill. The Army has not assumed powers. It has been given powers, and those powers are powers which are admittedly necessary if it is to be there at all and be of the slightest use in the present emergency.
Then Lord Brockway went on to say that it was admitted by the Bill that what the Army had done is illegal. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has already dealt with that point, so I will not deal with it again. He next said that the Bill is retroactive. Of course it is retroactive. That is what it is about. The object of the Bill is to validate something the legality of which has been questioned by the whole High Court in Belfast. Retroactive legislation is a very unpleasant thing, but if the House had thought that it was objectionable on that ground it would not have had to wait for the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, to throw it out. This is what the Bill is for. He then went on to say that the Bill contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights, but he gave no particulars of that, so it is quite impossible to deal with general allegations of that kind. He then gave us preliminary notice that he was going to move an Amendment about illegal detainees when the only certain fact about internment, if that is what he is talking about, is that it is done under the order of the Minister in Northern Ireland and not under the order of the Army at all. So that cannot have very much validity.
He ended up with a fine peroration about Lord Widgery, who is there to inquire into the facts and not to apply the law of Northern Ireland, which he has no authority or jurisdiction to do. So I do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, will understand me this time when I am talking about the law, because I must tell him that if at the end of the day he is utterly unwilling to understand what a man who has given forty years of his life to the study of the law is saying to him, it can only be because he is a person of unusual perversity.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble and learned Lord, up to about two or three minutes ago he was doing very well. If he would
648
refrain from attacking my noble friends we shall proceed better.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Well, my Lords, I thought the noble Lord called this a disastrous Bill. I think there has been levelled a good deal of criticism. He must not mind if a little criticism is made of his speech. I would say this by way of general comment upon some of the speeches, and not only the noble Lord's, which were made opposite. I must say that if I thought this was a disastrous Bill I would not have hesitated to oppose it on Second Reading. I would not have said, "Of course it has got to be passed." I would have called for a Division. The fact is that this is a Bill which is required and, I believe, admittedly required. Now another argument put forward—
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course, if the noble Lord wishes to intervene.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord very much. I am so much obliged to him. I just wanted to say to him that I did not mind in the least his remarks about me. They just passed like water.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am glad the noble Lord does not mind. I rather suspected he did not, because he and I have been political opponents for a very long time and I think he understands that my criticisms of him are based on that footing and are not intended to convey any personal imputation against him, whom I have known and respected for a very long time. I am very grateful for what the noble Lord has said.
But there is another criticism that I would make of some of the speeches from noble Lords opposite, which seemed to me to be rather willing to wound yet rather afraid to strike. I am referring to the kind of argument that says: Assume that this Bill is perfectly harmless, that it is doing exactly what the Lord Chancellor says and that it is not open to the objections which have been put upon it. Yet people in Ireland will think so. Therefore the argument is that we must say that people in Ireland

649
will think so, although we will not vote against it. With the greatest respect to the noble Lords who said this—and more than one noble Lord did—I think that in Ireland in the present climate of opinion there is such a tendency on behalf of both sides to believe what is not correct that nobody should seek to give currency to a view which is not correct without expressly stating that it ought never to be held. I think it does infinite harm, and I believe that I am entitled to say to your Lordships that I wish those noble Lords who put that argument forward, instead of putting it in the way they did, would go about in Ireland explaining why the view which people are so ready to hold is not the correct view, and that people whom they have known for years in this House in public life are not the kind of people that the people in Ireland are rather too ready to assume they are. I feel that rather strongly.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said that he had doubts whether the noble Lord, Lord Foot, or the Lord Chancellor was right on the points of construction. Well, if I have not helped him to a conclusion about that by now, I trust that I shall be able to do so on some subsequent occasion. But I do not think that I can add anything to that now. The noble Earl, Lord Longford said that the Government had made a mess. I do not think that either the previous Government or this Government made a mess. If anybody made a mess—and I am not admitting necessarily that a mess was made—it was made by the anonymous draftsman of the Act of 1920, who failed to create a clear impression of what he really intended; and I do not think that any of us need to be wearing too many white sheets on the present occasion, disagreeable as the present situation is.
I do not agree that this is a Bill which gives power to cut down thousands of houses in order to destroy one tree. I explained in great detail earlier this afternoon exactly what the Regulations did which the Bill seeks to validate, and they cover the whole range of security in Northern Ireland. So that was another perfectly wild statement; and, if I may say so, though the noble Earl talked about a pistol being held to his head, this is in fact a Bill to prevent pistols from
650
being held to people's heads, and I think he should be careful of the analogies which he chooses to draw in this particular connection. Apart from his savage attack upon me (which is not the first), I approved of almost every word the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition said. I am glad to see him back from his well-earned repose, looking so well and in such high vigour; and I am glad to find that on matters of substance there is no difference between us. With those remarks, my Lords, I hope that he is satisfactorily assuaged, and I hope that the House is ready to come to a decision.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
1.5 a.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD HENLEY in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Effect of Government of Ireland Act 1920 s. 4(1) para. (3).]:
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved to add to Clause 1:
"Provided that appropriate damages and compensation shall be made for those not found guilty in courts of law on charges involving internment or detention as a result of things done by Her Majesty's forces when on duty in Northern Ireland."
The noble Lord said: I do not want to detain the Committee at any length on this Amendment, though I wish to press it very seriously indeed. I think it has already been made clear that those of us who are supporting this Amendment appreciate very deeply the provisions in this Bill which will allow members of the Armed Forces to be exempted from the consequences of actions in damages or in compensation by any decision in the courts. I think it very important indeed, if there is to be fairness in this respect, that this should also apply to those who have not been found guilty in courts of law on other charges. Some of those who have been interned and detained have subsequently

651
been found not guilty and have been liberated. Many in this House will very much regret that internment has been applied in Northern Ireland and that persons should be involved in internment for indefinite periods without charge or trial. This Amendment is making the very fair suggestion that, in addition to the provisions of this Bill which will safeguard members of the Forces from being charged when they are obeying orders, appropriate damages and compensation shall be made to those not found guilty in courts of law on charges which involve internment or detention. It is very necessary in the present situation, when we are passing a Bill of this character, that we should show a sense of balance and of fairness in the situation of Northern Ireland. It is for that reason that I beg to move.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I should like to second this Amendment, unless the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor is going to accept it, in which case my remarks become otiose. I do not want to waste the time of the Committee if he is going to accept it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not sure what is required of me. I was waiting to hear the debate before replying.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: In that case I would second the Amendment. I suppose noble Lords who have been over in Northern Ireland in particular, and all those who keep in touch with the situation, will be aware that there are three kinds of action which the Forces have been taking, under the policy of the last Government and this Government, during the last 2½ years. On the one hand, there are acts which indisputably have been performed, breaking into people's houses, lifting all sorts of citizens without any warrants, and acts which would certainly not be permitted in Chelsea or Kensington. Those are acts which are clearly necessary, or thought to be necessary, under a policy of internment. These are acts which at any rate we are not arguing about now. We understand that they will be in some way protected under this Bill, and I am not complaining about that, though I disagree strongly with the policy of internment.
Then there are actions which are alleged to have taken place in large
652
numbers. Even since the debate in this House a fortnight ago, I have had twenty complaints at least—rather well documented complaints—about the behaviour of the Army and the Special Branch of the Ulster Constabulary, which I have passed to the Ministry of Defence, who are looking into them. At any rate, there are a great many complaints of that kind which may lead—in some cases have already begun to lead—to legal action. There are those actions which are disputed. They are allegations and are not necessarily accepted. But between those actions there would be the kind of internment referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, when people are "lifted", detained, interned, without any special complaint except that they may have had some rough handling; but they have the complaint that they have been detained without trial. There is no dispute about that because I have talked to people myself who have been arrested, held for several months, and then released.
There are those three types of people, and in the last two cases there may be a number of legal actions, some of which have been started and one of which has been successful. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says that no one will be protected against a charge of illegal action who would not have been protected. I understood him to say that no member of the Forces will be protected against a charge of illegal action who would not have been protected yesterday. Is that contained somewhere in the face of the Bill, or is that a personal assurance? I naturally accept his personal assurance—I accept it from him and from no one more so—but I wonder whether he can explain how it is provided in the Bill that if ayone has a legal action, or had one until now. this will still stand, and that an immunity will not be conferred.
1.13 a.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Although I did not give him any indication, the noble Earl was right in thinking that this Amendment is not acceptable to the Government. It is an Amendment which, I am sorry to say, betrays a complete misunderstanding about what this Bill is about, although I have done my best to explain it. The Bill is designed to remove a ground of invalidation of cer-

653
tain Regulations. It does not apply directly to any actions at all. It validates, as from the beginning, the Regulations which I enumerated this afternoon. So far as I remember they were Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 38, although I may have got them slightly, but not very much, wrong. They are Regulations dealing with search, arrest, seeking information, searching for firearms, stopping vehicles, I think, and telling crowds to disperse. In other words, they are not Regulations which have to do with detention; they are not Regulations which deal with internment.
Under the Regulations, detention and internment are carried out by the civil authority of one sort or another. I think detention may be by the police and internment by the Minister, but they are neither of them, as such, carried out by the Armed Forces. Therefore, this Bill has nothing whatever to do with them. If the noble Earl asks me whether that is something contained in the Bill my answer is that it is precisely something which is not contained in the Bill but excluded from it, and excluded by its terms from it. If he asks me whether that is my personal assurance, my reply is that that is the best of my professional opinion. I do not know that I can say more than that.
I ought perhaps to deal with the earlier part of the noble Earl's question. If the noble Earl is complaining that there have been actions in which the troops have exceeded their purported powers of arrest, either by going outside the powers which were purported to be conferred, or by misbehaving themselves in some way, either by assault or by force of some kind greater than was necessary and so on, it may be, or it may not be, that the party affected would have a legal remedy. Such a legal remedy, if it exists, is not taken away by this Bill, and the reason why it is not taken away by this Bill is that this Bill purports only to validate certain Regulations; it does not purport to validate any actions except in so far as they were covered by the Regulations. Again, if the noble Lord asks me whether that is in the Bill, the answer is that it is in the Bill in the sense that the Bill expressly excludes that area of validation. If he asks me whether that is my personal assurance, I can tell him that that is the best of my professional
654
opinion, and I am trying to help the Committee.
But all that this Amendment would do, if it did anything—although it is in itself meaningless, as I shall try to show in a moment—is to give rights for damages which already exist, or, conceivably, for something other than internment or detention, where a right of damage would exist for the benefit of a detainee or an internee as a result of the use of one of the powers in the Regulations which is validated. If it means the former, it is otiose. If it means the latter it is objectionable, because in fact we intend to indemnify the Forces and the Government against proper use within the ambit of the powers purported to be conferred, the validity of which was questioned by the Northern Ireland judgment yesterday. I have honestly done my best to explain that to the noble Lord. I am afraid that he is still looking puzzled, but I have tried to explain why it is that this Amendment is not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government.
LORD SHACKLETON: It is quite likely that any Amendment moved at short notice is not going to be satisfactory, and there is no blame attaching to my noble friend or to anyone else in this matter, although I am not suggesting that the noble and learned Lord was saying that there is. What I think concerns a number of people—and I have heard this expressed already by lawyers—is that up till to-day, or a couple of days ago, the state of the law in Northern Ireland appeared to be clear. It then came into doubt and to-day, by validating certain actions taken, we are taking retrospective action in the sense that the law is open to doubt. I may be misinterpreting my noble friend, but what I think concerns him, and what concerns us, is that we need to be very careful. The noble and learned Lord will recall the anxiety over the Burmah Oil Company and various other matters.
By this Bill are we taking away a right of anybody, regardless of this Amendment? We could raise these points on the Question, Whether the Clause shall stand part of the Bill. Are we taking away the right of anybody to bring an action for any purpose broadly associated with the action of the troops or the security forces? Are we to-day taking away that right to bring an action,

655
whether for wrongful arrest or for wrongful order? Obviously, we are making an order for a demonstration to cease or for somebody to stop marching. We are now making such power more legal than before. But are there any circumstances in which an arrest has taken place when it would have been possible to bring an action? I must apologise to the noble and learned Lord and ask him to be patient with my ignorance of the law in this matter, but it seems to me that we may be taking away a right of this kind. In so far as the law is at least in doubt, the Bill contains a retrospective element, and I think this causes some worry to a number of us and not just to those on this side of the Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This being Committee stage, I can speak again if the Committee desires me to do so. This is a totally different point. I was speaking about the Amendment, which is related to
"those not found guilty … on charges involving internment or detention …"
That is a phrase I do not understand, but it is limited to that and I was dealing with that. Obviously this can take away a right of action. Let me give an example. Suppose that, six months ago, the troops marched into a house in Belfast under the right of search conferred on them by whichever Regulation it is and found there under the floorboards which they prised up a cache consisting of 14 machine guns and 24,000 rounds of ammunition which they prised up. They had no right to do that unless they were given power to do it. I am assuming for the purposes of this case that that is the only objection that the owner of the house had to what they did: in other words, that when they say they found the arms there, they were there; that when they were there, they were there illegally; and that no more force was used than was reasonably necessary to effect the search and recover the arms. I am assuming those things in favour of the troops.
If there is doubt as to whether they entered into the house legally or illegally for the purposes of the search, it is of course conceivable that the owner of the house with the 14 machine guns and 24,000 rounds of ammunition might bring an action against the soldier who went
656
into the house. If all the soldier can say is, "I went in by virtue of Regulation 4 or Regulation 5," or whatever it is, the owner of the house may say, "But that Regulation has been held invalid by the High Court, and you must pay me damages for the damage to my house and you must pay me the value of the rounds of ammunition and all the machine guns." I am afraid that this Bill does take away his right to such damages, and it is intended to do so.
LORD BROCKWAY: I want to say only a few words before I ask the Committee to vote on this issue. The first is to express appreciation for what my noble friend Lord Shackleton has said about the difficulty of tabling Amendments at the very short notice which this Bill has allowed. Indeed, on both sides of your Lordships' House I was told that it would be quite impossible to table an Amendment on this subject which would be in order on this Bill. I have succeeded in doing so, but I appreciate that the terms of the Amendment may not be entirely satisfactory.
I want to reply to one point which the noble and learned Lord made. He said that the Army was not responsible for internment or detention. I accept that. The Amendment does not suggest that they are. The Amendment suggests that the members of Her Majesty's Forces are responsible for
"things done"—
that is a rather inadequate phrase, but it is taken from the Bill itself—
"… when on duty"
in Northern Ireland. I do not think there is any doubt that actions which members of Her Majesty's Forces have done led to internment and to detention. All this Amendment is seeking to do is to ensure that there shall be the same justice in the way of damages, in the way of compensation, to those who have suffered by being detained and interned as the result of those actions, without being found guilty in the courts, as there would be to soldiers in respect of their actions under this Bill. I very much hope that the Committee will agree to this Amendment.
1.25 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 3; Not-Contents, 62.

CONTENTS

Barrington, V.

Brockway, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Albemarle, E.

Gainford, L.

Aldenham, L.

Gisborough, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Aldington, L.

Glasgow, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gowrie, E.

Onslow, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Greenway, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Balerno, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Redmayne, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

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

Reigate, L.

Belstead, L.

Rowallan, L.

Bessborough, E.

Henley, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hives, L.

St. Just, L.

Carrington, L.

Jellicoe E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Saint Oswald, L.

Conesford, L.

Killearn, L.

Sandford, L.

Cowley, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Sandys, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Selkirk, E.

Davidson, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lothian, M.

Stamp, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lovat, L.

Terrington, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lyell, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tweedsmuir of Belhevie, B

Falkland, V.

Milverton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
1.34 a.m.
Clause 1 agreed to.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved the following Manuscript Amendment:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
("This Act shall operate for one year from the date of Royal Assent and shall be renewable only on an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment largely because I should like some assurance from the Government on this matter. I think it is generally recognised that this Bill is being rushed through Parliament and it may easily be that there has been an absence of consideration of its actual terms. There is wide uneasiness about how the Bill will operate when it becomes an Act. An Amendment similar to this was moved in another place, and as a result of the speech from the Front Opposition Bench an assurance was given by the Government that they would look very carefully indeed at the working of the Bill when it becomes an Act and would give some opportunity to Parliament to review it if that working was not satisfactory. I do not propose to press this Amendment to a Division, but I should like to ask that an assurance should be given in this House similar to the assur-
658
ance that was given in another place. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful for the noble Lord's assurance that he does not mean to press this Amendment. I am not at all sure of the exact words of the assurance that was given in another place, but I think, taking my courage in both hands, I can promise the same assurance totidem verbis, mutatis mutandis, and I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.
LORD SHACKLETON: I would ask the noble Lord, without going into Latin, how we have a Supply Day in this House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We have so many facilities in this House that I think we can have as many debates as the noble Lord wants, if the negotiations take place through the usual channels. I said in the Second Reading debate that I thought that probably events will overtake this particular Bill, which I think is less important that some people have thought, and that the debate which will take place will probably be wider in scope when it comes; but I am perfectly prepared to give the same assurance as was given in the other place. There is nothing I want less than to restrict discussion on this unhappy subject. When we have had a little time to see how it works, if a debate is desired I am sure we can have one.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble and learned Lord keeps on making remarks of a very—let me get the right word—pregnant or suggestive kind as to what will overtake this present Bill. I should not wish to press him very hard on this matter but I would ask him, and also the noble Earl the Leader of the House, to take note of the substantial concern that is felt, I am sure, by the whole House, and indeed, by the noble and learned Lord himself, about a Bill of this kind. I am not quite happy that it should be suggested that anything they can do in another place we can do as well, and possibly better. I should like to think that this matter is going to be taken very seriously, and I believe my noble friend would like not the general assurance that we will do whatever they do in another place, but that we will have talks on how to handle this matter in the future, and indeed a certain amount of retrospective examination. I think the noble Earl was in fact intending to consider this suggestion. We raised this point earlier on—I do not wish to prolong proceedings—and it is a serious matter.
EARL JELLICOE: I, too, have no great desire to prolong proceedings. I recognise the seriousness of this subject. I think there are two matters here. One is the procedural point which I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, raised, and that is certainly something that we could look at perhaps through the medium of our Procedure Committee. Then there is the other question of whether we need a deeper and further look at what has arisen in this debate. That is something that we can discuss through the usual channels. I think we can leave it there. I should be very willing to look at this procedural point.
LORD BROCKWAY: I am a little disappointed by the response from the Government Benches. I think this Amendment is extraordinarily moderate. I am perfectly sure that before a year has passed this Bill will be obsolete. No one can look at events in Northern Ireland without appreciating that before a year has gone by events will have taken place which will have overtaken this measure. All the Amendment asks is that we should look at the matter in a year's time and that the Bill should not be renewed for more than a year without
660
the consent of the two Houses of Parliament. That is a very moderate proposal. I would just say to the noble and learned Lord that I understood his Latin even less than I understood his discourses upon law, and therefore am unable to accept what apparently were the assurances which he gave in response to the Amendment which I brought before the Committee. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord would like to make a comment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought I was giving the noble Lord exactly what he had asked for, neither more nor less; but if he is thinking of this Amendment seriously (as he said he was when he proposed it) I shall have to deal with its merits, which are very small indeed. He asked for an assurance, and I thought I had given him one, in the same terms, although I was not exactly sure what those same terms were, as was given in another place. I did not say, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton appeared to think, that we would do everything which was done in the Commons: I said that I would give an assurance in the same terms as that given in the Commons, and that seemed to me the proper thing to do. I do not know what more the noble Lord wants; but if we are to discuss the merits of the Amendment I shall have to explain why it is no good.
LORD BROCKWAY: I should love to hear the noble and learned Lord do that. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
1.44 a.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord again how long this Bill is going to last and how soon is the new initiative which is apparent from his remarks going to overtake it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I never said anything about a new

661
initiative; nor is it within the scope of this Bill. What I did say was that I thought events would overtake it, and I am afraid that this was based on bitter experience of the last two years: that events in Northern Ireland do take place every day which necessitate at any rate some discussion in this House. This must colour any future debates that we have. That is all I meant. I do not know why the noble Lord should impute to me a promise of some new initiative which I never made. I am not saying that there will not be one.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, the construction most of us placed upon his remarks was that he really meant something by them, and that there was some intention that the Government would be taking some new initiative which would mean that we did not have to worry so much about this Bill because the Government were going to propose something else, and coming events were casting their shadows before.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may be allowed to make a second intervention of an equally short duration, I cannot think why the noble Baroness put that construction on what I said. When she looks at Hansard tomorrow morning she will see beyond peradventure that the construction she sought to put upon it was stretching it beyond what it would bear.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I wonder whether I could detain the House for one or two minutes before we conclude the discussion on this Bill. Some noble Lords who are in the House at present may not have been present when I had the opportunity of addressing the House before. May I say in one sentence that the burden of my criticism of this Bill was that the wording was so broad and indefinite as to contain considerable dangers. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, when he was good enough to reply to me, said he thought that I had, in one respect at any rate, misconstrued the meaning of the Bill The Bill provides that the limitations imposed by Section 4 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 shall not have the effect of precluding the Northern Ireland Parliament from including in laws for the peace, order and good government
662
of Northern Ireland of all provision relating to members of Her Majesty's forces. The noble and learned Lord said that he thought I had misinterpreted that as meaning that they are not precluded from any provision relating to members of Her Majesty's forces. Assuming the noble Lord is right about that, and if the meaning of the word "all" is that the Northern Ireland Parliament has the power at present, and indeed under this Bill, to make some provision relating to members of Her Majesty's forces and things done by them, surely it is essential that the area in which they are entitled to make provision should be specified in the Bill.
The history of legislation in this country is cluttered up with cases where legislation has been passed with one object in mind and later on has been put to an entirely different purpose. One can think of many examples of that. It is liable to occur particularly when legislation is carried through at speed and when there is no opportunity of considering all the implications and possibilities which are involved. Therefore in raising this point at this stage, raising the question as to whether these words are still far too wide and uncertain, I hope that I am raising a matter of principle and not arguing about semantics. I went on, when trying to illustrate the dangers in the wording of this Bill, to draw attention to the concluding words. It says in particular that the Stormont Government shall not be precluded from conferring on Her Majesty's forces:
"powers, authorities, privileges or immunities",
and I pointed out that there was no limitation whatever upon the powers and the authority which could be conferred by the Stormont Government upon Her Majesty's forces. The noble and learned Lord—I do not suppose deliberately—did not attempt to address himself to that point, or try to explain the limitations, if any, involved in the powers and authority that can be conferred.
My Lords, I do not regard this as a disastrous Bill, as it has been described. I regard it as a Bill which is full of dangers, and I think the dangers arise from the fact that it has been drafted and carried through in such haste. What I am afraid of is that in time to come, maybe twelve months' time, maybe

663
longer, some Government—the Stormont Government, if it is still in existence—may take advantage of the wide phraseology of the Bill to put into effect things that were never contemplated in this House or in the other place during the course of these dicussions. That is the danger of this Bill as I see it. We have in the past had many illustrations of Bills that have been passed to cure some particular mischief and, later on, used for some entirely different purpose. One thinks for example, of the Public Order Act 1936. That was passed to deal with the Fascist dangers of that time, and one remembers the way in which it has been used since for entirely different purposes.
I ask the House to consider this as an important matter, and I would again say to the noble and learned Lord and to the Leader of the House that I hope that in the near future, within weeks, not within months, we shall have the opportunity of considering the implications of what we are doing to-night. I realise the necessity of our doing it in order that we can give immunity to our troops, but I hope that the Government will ponder upon these things and will give us the opportunity in the near future to consider whether this legislation cannot be put into some better and some safer form.
1.52 a.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I can of course reply to that only if the House is willing to bear with me and give me leave. I think the noble Lord did me an injustice when he said that I did not reply to the second part of his argument. At any rate, I endeavoured to do so. What I said was—and he has not quite appreciated the significance of it—that what the Bill does is negatively, first of all, to say that the Stormont Parliament is not precluded from legislating at all in relation to the forces. It does not give that Parliament any power to legislate to the forces in every respect, and I said (and I added these words which I think were stated and were intended to apply to the second part of what the noble Lord was saying and what he has just now repeated) that
664
it does not give to the Stormont Government powers to confer on Her Majesty's forces any powers or immunities which they cannot confer on a civilian. That is to say, that is the limitation. The Stormont Parliament cannot give orders to Her Majesty's forces. It cannot, for instance, say to Her Majesty's forces: "Disregard the orders of your commanding officer and do this, and you have the power to do it." It cannot tell Her Majesty's forces to stay in Northern Ireland or to go to a particular part of Northern Ireland. It can do what it can do to an ordinary private citizen, and say, "You have power to enter a house without a warrant under the legislation we have passed." It can do things of that kind, but it does not extend the power to the point of the mischief at which the Act of 1920 was genuinely designed to limit Stormont's powers. That is to say, it does not give the Stormont Parliament control of Her Majesty's forces at all or give it power to disregard the orders of the United Kingdom Government. That is the principal limitation, although I would think it is not the only one.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do adjourn during pleasure until the Royal Assent.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL ASSENT
2.11 a.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Civil List Act,

Airports Authority Act,

Mineral Exploration and Investment Grants Act,

Northern Ireland Act.

House adjourned at twelve minutes past two o'clock a.m.