Lords Sitting of 23 June 1972

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

HISTORIC BUILDINGS: CONDITION OF No. 49 BANKSIDE
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the house on the south side of the Thames where Sir Christopher Wren lived while St. Paul's Cathedral was being built is rapidly decaying, and whether any action is being taken to save it from further deterioration.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the Government are aware that this house, No. 49 Bankside, is in need of repair, but I understand from the Greater London Council that the owner intends, as soon as he can, to carry out repairs to the building.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Arising out of it, I should like to ask two supplementary questions. First, is it true that this is a listed building, so that the owner is required by law to keep it in repair? Secondly, is he aware that, apart from its interest and connection with Sir Christopher Wren, it has connections with Catherine of Aragon, and that she lodged there on her way to be betrothed to Henry, Prince of Wales, later King Henry VIII?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, in answer to the first question asked by the noble Lord, it is a listed building, and therefore is subject to service of a repairs notice if the owner does not comply with what the local council requires. With regard to his second question, I am aware of the
494
plaque on the house. Whether it applies to this house, which is late seventeenth century or early eighteenth century, I am not quite sure. My information is that Catherine of Aragon, who landed in 1501, came in by way of Banstead Downs in Surrey. A previous Lord of my name was one of the party that went to meet her and brought her to London.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in a very short time there will be a dearth of stone craftsmen? These buildings were built of Clipsham stone, Portland stone and Bath stone. The repairs to these old buildings have now become a matter of urgency, because in far less than twenty years' time there will be very few, if any, craftsmen left who can handle these problems.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the Southwark Council and the G.L.C. are both aware of this problem, and if these owners do not comply, I expect that the authorities will be serving a repairs notice. But there is no reason to suppose that this owner will not carry out repairs as soon as he can.

STERLING: FLOATING POUND DECISION
11.8 a.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
"Despite the continuing surplus in the balance of payments, sterling has been under increasing pressure for some days, both in London and in overseas markets. As the House is aware, an announcement was made this morning that dealings in sterling will not necessarily be confined within specific limits: that is to say that, as a temporary measure, sterling will be allowed to float. The London foreign exchange market will be closed today and Monday in order to provide for an orderly transition to the new arrangements.

495
"A number of Sterling Area countries no longer link their currencies to sterling. With a floating pound there could be a speculative outflow from the United Kingdom to these countries. Pending consultation with the Governments concerned, we have taken immediate temporary measures applying exchange control to transactions with the Sterling Area. The details are being announced by the Bank of England.
"The immediate cause of this decision has been the weight of international short-term capital movements, which have proceeded despite concerted intervention by the Bank of England and other European central banks. There was nothing in the objective facts of our balance-of-payments position or the level of our reserves to justify these movements. The trade balance has deteriorated in recent months: but this was from an exceptionally and unusually favourable position and was foreseen in my Budget speech. Our invisible earnings continue at a high rate and, while the full figures are not yet available, there seems little reason to doubt that we remained in current surplus during the second quarter. Looking ahead, there are prospects of an upturn in world trade which should have a beneficial effect on our exports.
"But it is a fact that short-term movements developed with consequent loss to the reserves. If this had continued at the rate of the last few days, we might have found that in due course our reserves had been greatly diminished in response to this pressure. I was determined that we should not revert to that situation or allow ourselves to slide into a situation where we would have to borrow substantial sums. It was therefore necessary to act decisively.
"One of the underlying causes of this situation has undoubtedly been the concern about inflation. In my Budget speech I warned that 'There can be no soft options if we fail to get a grip on ever-rising costs'. To curb inflation remains our first priority.
"We have set our national economy on the path of a 5 per cent. rate of expansion—more than twice as fast as
496
the rate we have achieved over the past decade. Recent statistics, especially those showing the very big reduction in unemployment, confirm that we are well on course.
"There is still room in the economy for considerable further developments without straining either capacity or the labour force, or pressing on demand. The general growth in exports will not therefore be impeded by limitations on capacity and, unlike some previous occasions, it is not necessary, or indeed desirable, to introduce restrictive measures. "
11.12 a.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making what I think the House will recognise is a very grave Statement. I think there must be a touch of sadness in the fact that it comes at a time when the Government have recently celebrated their second year in office. They took office when the pound was strong and was rising, and for the first time in many years there was a real belief, not only in this country but throughout the world, that the old problems that had beset this country were behind us. Now, two years later, we are confronted with a very grave situation not only in terms of this country but of all those other countries and people who have put their money on deposit in this country. Undoubtedly one of the problems that has caused the decision of the Government has been their failure to cope with inflation. I think this can be attributed in the main to their policy of "confrontation". The balance of payments has been causing great concern in the last few months. Can the noble Lord give any assurance that there is any sign of an upturn in our exports and a lessening of our imports, which are clearly rising as a consequence of the various incentives that were given by the Chancellor in his Budget? Can we hope for a Statement next week from the Government?—because quite clearly immediate and urgent steps will be needed to restore confidence.
May I ask the noble Lord three specific questions? In the Statement there is reference to "pending consultation" Are we to assume that Her Majesty's Government took this decision without consulting the I.M.F. and other associates

497
of the E.E.C.? Secondly, will the Government now consider removing those parts of their policies that are directly inflationary—in particular, the Housing Finance Bill and also their proposals on V.A.T.? Will the noble Lord undertake that the proposed major salary increases to the chairmen of the nationalised industries, to senior civil servants and senior military officers will not be proceeded with—because these are bound to have a provocative effect on the trade unions?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. The situation is a serious one and I would hope myself that it would not turn at this moment into a matter of Party political controversy. We have some very hard days ahead of us internationally, and there will come a time when we can debate the sort of subjects to which the noble Lord has referred. But this is a reminder of the seriousness of inflation in this country, and it is an inflation for which all of us have a responsibility.
May I ask just one question of the Government? Is it not time that we had another look at the principle of the "crawling pen" whereby the pound can float only within very narrow limits over very short periods, instead of being faced with this shock tactic of allowing it to float without knowing exactly where it is going to settle? I wonder whether the Treasury ought not to have another look at this with some urgency.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the root cause of our trouble has been speculation against the pound and that we are confident of the underlying strength of the pound. We are allowing the pound to find its own level, and I am sure that its underlying strength will become apparent on the free markets. We certainly intend to return to a fixed rate, in accordance with our international obligations, as soon as possible and certainly before the date when we join the European Economic Community.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for what he had to say. I am sure we should be ill-advised to go too deeply into this matter at the moment, especially as regards making it a Party political issue, when what is at stake is sterling.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD CHAMPION: Memories are short.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it is perfectly true that inflation is at the root of the whole problem, but this has nothing to do, I would suggest, with what the noble Lord called "confrontation"; and certainly we have done our utmost in every way to discourage inflationary wage settlements.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked three specific questions. First, as regards the International Monetary Fund, we are of course consulting the Fund in the usual way, but they have not yet had time to reach any formal decision.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the question I asked was: did the Government consult the I.M.F. before they made this decision?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this was a decision which had to be taken immediately if it was to be effective and, as I have said, we are consulting the Fund. The noble Lord asked me about the Housing Finance Bill and about the value added tax. We have no intention whatever of changing our policies on these matters. The noble Lord further asked me about the salaries of higher civil servants. As he knows perfectly well, this is a matter for the Boyle Committee, and that Committee is an independent Committee.
11.19 a.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would agree that the atmosphere in this Chamber would be slightly more healthy if we had less humbug about Party politics, especially when we think back to what was said both by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and by noble Lords opposite at the time when we had difficulties about the exchange rate.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, Hear!
LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, says that the root cause of this situation is speculation. Would he not agree that there can be no speculation over a basically sound currency, and that the difficulty is that this Government, having inherited one of the strongest currencies in the world, have

499
increasingly weakened it? That is the basic trouble in this situation.
May I also ask specific questions? Could the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, tell us how Her Majesty's Government reconcile this Statement with the undertakings that they gave in Washington in the Smithsonian Agreement? Secondly, when he says that there have been no consultations with the E.E.C. countries does he mean that this is in accordance with the declared policy of the E.E.C., or are we to assume that this is a preparatory step to a devaluation to enable us to meet the competition of Europe? If Her Majesty's Government are now contemplating a devaluation, can the noble Lord give any estimate of the increased cost of our entry fee into Europe? Lastly, may I ask the noble Lord whether it will now be absolutely essential, apart from the departure from the dear food policy and the higher rents policy, to do something about money supply? Would he not agree that the reckless way in which the Government have allowed money to increase in supply by 23 per cent. has something to do with our present difficulties?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I would not wish to shy away from Party politics; but when sterling is at stake it is rather a different matter, and I should have expected noble Lords opposite to give some assistance in making sure that there was less speculation against the pound. The noble Lord asked about the Smithsonian Agreement. It is a matter for regret that we have not been able to continue to observe the Smithsonian Agreement. The fact is that we have been under this considerable pressure and we have this morning informed other Governments concerned. I am sure they will understand the pressures which have led us to make the decisions that we have been obliged to make. The noble Lord asked about the E.E.C. countries. We have also had to inform them this morning of our decision. What the eventual outcome will be will depend on what happens over the next few days and at what level the pound finds its value. I would remind your Lordships that the pound was floated at the end of last year between June and December. I have noted the views of the noble Lord on other points,
500
such as money supply, but I do not think that I should enter into those matters today.
LORD HALE: My Lords, while congratulating the noble Lord on this unexpected show of speed in the last furlong, may it not result in a stewards' inquiry at Brussels—because there appears to have been some bumping and boring of our Common Market support financial partners? If it really be the case that the snake has emerged from the tunnel which would appear immediately to become a snake in the grass, could it not develop into an asp in the common aspic, or has there been full consultation with the parties to the Agreement? Secondly, would the noble Lord say that the Government will show equal speed in considering and disseminating the pending report of the International Monetary Fund experts upon the United Kingdom under a Conservative economy?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I find it a little difficult to follow some of the noble Lord's metaphors. Certainly our E.E.C. partners have been informed and we shall be in close consultation with them. I have taken note of his second point.
LORD ROBERTHALL: My Lords, while I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the reason for this situation is inflation and the difficulty the Government have had in dealing with that matter, I also agree that this is not the place to talk about it. One ought to say that this particular action of the Government, faced with this situation, is absolutely right. Without going into the matter of how we got here, I believe that at least one economist should go on the Record as saying that with heavy short-term speculation to try to hold a fixed rate has all the odds against us. This puts the balance right so that at least so far as this action is concerned, may I say how glad I am that the Government have faced it and acted quickly?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, for having said that. I am sure that he echoes what the majority of your Lordships feel.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in his last

501
volume of memoirs, Pointing the Way the right honourable Harold Macmillan, who was a Prime Minister that mattered, pointed out the difficulty that he had with discussions with the Treasury? All Governments are prone to try to rescue the pound and osclerise the people. Is the noble Lord aware that my noble friend on the Front Bench pointed partly to the core of the problem when he referred to not taking physical controls over speculation? Is the noble Lord further aware that the Radcliffe Report, which was published during the term of office of the Macmillan Government, pointed out that while Macmillan did not endorse the patriotism of investment overseas, to him it was good business; namely, a famous banking consultants that I will not name? After 30 years of this problem may we now have a new look at the relationship of the Exchequer to the reality of production and the distribution of wealth in this country?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am afraid that I have had great difficulty in finding time to read the last volume of the memoirs of Mr. Harold Macmillan as I have had to spend so much time in this House recently. I will certainly take note of what the noble Lord says. Physical controls over speculation are international matters. It is not very easy for us unilaterally to control these short-term capital capital movements.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask whether the Governments of the Commonwealth countries have been informed of this position, and whether consultations will take place with them regarding the effect on the prices of their primary products?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords; the Governments of the Commonwealth countries have been informed this morning and we shall be consulting closely with them.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, has any consideration been given in that information to the sterling guarantees that were given to Commonwealth holders of sterling in this country?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this also will be discussed with the Commonwealth Governments.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
11.28 a.m.
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT AND EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
Read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

POISONS BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As I told the House when I sought leave to introduce it, it is a pure Consolidation Bill deriving almost entirely from the second and third parts of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, as amended by the Medicines Act 1968. The safeguard is that the Bill will be examined by the Joint Committee in the usual way, and I therefore beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE BILL
11.30 a.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it gives me very great pleasure indeed to be able to rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. As many of your Lordships will know, I have wished from the first to find a place for it in our overcrowded legislative programme, and if it had not had manifest financial implications it would, I believe, have made an admirable candidate for introduction into your Lordships' House instead of into the other place. The credit for the Bill must be shared between the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee, who since 1966 have been drawing attention to the need for a scheme of this character, and the Law Society, which in February, 1968, at the

503
request of the Advisory Committee, first devised the scheme which forms the basis of Part I of this Bill. There have also been schemes by the Society of Labour Lawyers and the Society of Conservative Lawyers which, though not followed so exactly by Part II of the Bill, formed part of the inspiration behind it. The actual genesis of Part II can reasonably be ascribed to a joint meeting, held under the auspices of the Society known as Justice, which resulted in a second memorandum of the Law Society, published in July, 1969, and approved in turn by the Advisory Committee in January, 1970.
The principle of the Bill, which after all is what we are discussing on Second Reading, is to fill a gap in the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 which has existed since its very inception. The original Bill which became that Act originally provided for legal aid in proceedings, but only for oral advice—advice by word of mouth. Before the Bill reached the Statute Book, as it did, it was amended and the amendment allowed also for assistance in negotiations, but only for assistance in negotiation where this took place within the framework either of the assertion of a claim which could form the subject of litigation or in the course of disputing such a claim. Moreover, in order to attract the advantages of Section 5 of the Act (as the Amendment became) a claim so asserted or disputed must itself be one of the class which, if litigated. would attract legal aid. Thus the Act does not permit more than oral advice where the person concerned is involved in proceedings before tribunals, or in criminal proceedings; or where, for instance, he is negotiating for a lease and the negotiations do not end in litigation, or is quarrelling with a next-door neighbour or his landlord or has a minor consumer problem. Even the provision for oral advice, which is provided under Section 7 of the Act, is limited in scope and thus in the actual use to which it has been put in practice. Thus the existing legislation provides mainly for legal aid and only for a limited kind of advice and assistance.
In July, 1971, the Advisory Committee reported to me that the Scheme on which the present Act is modelled would radic-
504
ally improve the service to the public by helping to resolve different personal and social questions in their earlier stages, which is of course precisely when recourse to litigation can most helpfully be avoided. I agree with their conclusions. The Scheme will fill a recognised gap in the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, for which of course I am not departmentally responsible, by providing for advice in police stations and in prisons. It can help to provide a remedy for grievances in race relations. It will provide advice for tenants and small landlords. It will reduce the problem of small claims in the consumer field. It will help those appearing before administrative tribunals. It has also been commended in principle by the Committee on the Rent Acts, by the President of Industrial Tribunals, by the Child Poverty Action Group, by Justice itself in their recent Report on Litigants in Person.
No doubt the proposals in the Bill may not be the complete and final answer to everything in the way of legal assistance. Further research into the problem, at the moment generously financed by the Nuffield Foundation, is now proceeding on the advice of the Advisory Committee. But the present Bill which represents the present state of consensus will go a long way along the right road and will itself provide experience on which future legislation may wish to build.
The Bill itself is, as I have indicated, divided into two main Parts, the third Part being really supplementary. The purpose of Part I is to give effect to the so-called £25 scheme. This enables lawyers in ordinary practice to give legal advice and assistance up to £25 without prior permission, and to give legal advice and assistance above £25 with proper authority. The purpose of Part II is to enable the Law Society to employ solicitors and subordinate staff, first to provide an advice liaison service, who of course will work closely with the Citizens' Advice Bureaux and other social agencies, but whose main function will be to identify the real nature of the applicant's problem, and where necessary to introduce him to a suitable solicitor who will operate the main scheme. Secondly, Part II will provide legal advice and assistance, and also, if necessary, legal aid in areas where solicitors in ordinary practice are not available.

505
Clause 1 of the Bill offers legal advice and assistance to persons with a disposable income of £20 a week or less, and disposable capital of £125 or less—the word "disposable" meaning the rate of income or amount of capital after making deductions for dependants, income tax, rates and a few other matters. The concept corresponds roughly to the existing limits under the Legal Aid Scheme. The Advisory Committee have recently recommended to me that the free capital limit under the Legal Aid Scheme should be raised from £125 to £325. If this recommendation is accepted for legal aid (it is too early for me to make an announcement to-clay whether it will be) the £125 figure under the Scheme will of course be correspondingly increased. This can be done by regulations.
Clause 2 describes the persons who will give the legal advice and assistance. This means solicitors and, where necessary, counsel. There must be, in order to attract the advice, a real problem. The object is not to give an academic exposition of the law; and the law concerned means of course that either of England or of Scotland, as the case may be. Practical advice is limited to advice on what to do about the application of the law. For instance, supposing in a matrimonial case you identify the real problem of the person coming to be a desire to compose the wife's differences with her husband. Then the solicitor would probably send the applicant on to see a marriage guidance counsellor. But if the problem were separation or maintenance or divorce, he would then give the advice himself. If actual proceedings then take place, legal aid will of course be attracted under the ordinary Legal Aid Scheme—the existing Scheme. But even here solicitors may pursue negotiations, short of proceedings, outside the ambit of the existing Scheme, and may give advice as to what to do or say in proceedings to which the existing Scheme does not yet apply at all. This is the reason why I said that the scheme will help people who have to appear before administrative tribunals. Subsection (4) of Clause 2 enables a solicitor who may be in the precincts of the court on another matter to act in proceedings to which an applicant is a party, whether those proceedings are criminal or civil. This will, among other things, go some way to meeting the suggestion by the Society called
506
Justice for a Duty Solicitor in England. There is in fact already such a person in Scotland.
Clause 3 deals with aid in excess of £25. It will be administered through the existing machinery. Clause 4 and Schedule 1 provide for contributions for the applicant in cases where he has more than the nil assessment under the existing Scheme. Clause 5 deals with the machinery for meeting solicitors' costs in excess of contribution. I do not think that at this stage I need refer in detail to Clause 6.
In Part II, Clause 7 entitles the two Law Societies—that is to say, of England and of Scotland—to employ solicitors to give advice and assistance, to give legal aid and to carry out liaison with citizens' advice bureaux and other bodies. Clause 8 describes the arrangements for employed solicitors and for their remuneration. Clauses 9 and 10 are pure machinery. In Part III, Clause 12 gives a regulation-making power, and Clauses 12 to 14 are supplementary.
My Lords, the cost of the Bill is difficult to estimate. We have put Part I at between £1·6 and £2·65 million, based on an assumed workload of 400,000 new applicants a year. There will be some savings, both direct and indirect, in reducing the need to litigate—and I hope they will be great— and in bringing home responsibility to parties liable who might otherwise escape altogether. We cannot estimate the costs of Part II. We shall probably start with a liaison service. There will probably be 12 liaison officers to begin with, each with his secretary and office costing £7,000 a year. Advisory units will probably cost about £13,500, £25,000 or £50,000 each, according to the scale of service provided.
My Lords, I have tried as compendiously as I could to say what the Bill does, and I now beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
11.42 a.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition I should like to welcome this Bill and to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his comments on the background of the Bill and his explanations. I should like to associate my noble

507
friends with the tribute that the noble and learned Lord has paid to the Advisory Committee. It is a matter of satisfaction to this side of the House that the present Government have brought forward this Bill which the Labour Government were considering, although admittedly this Government have only done so in their second legislative Session.
As the noble and learned Lord has said, this Bill embodies the proposals made by the Law Society in their Memorandum of February, 1968, as developed and expanded in their second Memorandum of July, 1969. It follows upon the Report of the Advisory Committee on the Better Provision of Legal Advice and Assistance, which Report was made in January, 1970, to my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, and gave approval to the Law Society's proposals and recommended their adoption. The Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill begins by saying that its purpose is to give effect to the recommendations of the Report. The Report sets out on page 3 the problem which the Advisory Committee was seeking to solve:
"All those who have considered the matter agree that there are people who would benefit by going to a solicitor but who do not do so."
The Report then sets out five reasons. These are: defects in the existing legal advice scheme; insufficient publicity; lack of solicitors in the areas concerned; reluctance to consult a solicitor; and failure to recognise that legal remedies may be available. The Committee says:
"We agree that people fail to get the legal help they need for one or more of these reasons."

This Bill will go some way towards solving these problems. The £25 scheme will help. There have been criticisms of the fixing of the sum of £25 as a limit for permissible expenditure, but the Bill contains power for the authorities to exceed that figure, subject to an assessment by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The £25 scheme should therefore be regarded as fulfilling a double purpose: it will enable most problems to be dealt with and it will also serve as a lead into the full facilities of both the civil and criminal legal aid schemes.
As I understand it, no limit has been laid down in respect of the expenditure
508
that can be authorised. The scheme will enable a solicitor to deal with an applicant in exactly the same way as he would a paying client. Every client who is found to be eligible can be regarded as one whose bill, initially, will not exceed £25 and who has, in effect, put up £25 to cover either the whole expense or the major part of it, the rest (if any) being payable by arrangement—as so often happens now when a paying client of small means consults a solicitor. The service which the solicitor will be able to give will include not only advising him but also giving the necessary assistance to put that advice into effect, whether it be in a contentious, non-contentious or criminal matter.
This £25 scheme is the foundation on which all the other facilities rest. It is one thing to offer help, but it will not persuade people who are reluctant to consult a solicitor to do so. It will not persuade solicitors to enter areas where they are needed. It will not help people to recognise that legal remedies are available. What would go some way to solve these problems is Part II. Part II refers to the proposed advisory liaison services, neighbourhood law offices, and so on, and I expect that my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner will comment further on this Part of the Bill. In another place the Government said that they were not going to operate Part II now, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to assure the House that that statement was not correct.
There are some matters which it has been suggested should have been included in the Bill. For example, the problem of tribunals. But it may be that the appropriate way to deal with this would be by a commencement order under the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949. The same applies to a matter which is tending to be raised more frequently; namely, representation in the coroner's court. We may have to come back to that in Committee. Changes and improvements in general eligibility for legal aid and, in particular, contributions out of capital are certainly capable of being dealt with by regulations under the main scheme. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has to-day referred to this and we hope that the Government will

509
make the necessary orders in the near future. My Lords, we on this side of the House welcome the Bill and hope that it will go some way towards solving some of the defects in the existing legal aid scheme.
11.47 a.m.
BARONESS ELLES: My Lords, it is with a strong feeling of inadequacy that I get up to speak for the first time in your Lordships' House, especially on a Bill which deals primarily with legal matters. I am in fact a member of the Bar, although a non-practising barrister, but it is not as a lawyer that I wish to make some comments on the Bill before your Lordships' House.
For many years I have had experience as a voluntary worker on what used to be called care committees, which are now part of the educational welfare service of the Inner London Education Authority. As a result of this experience I was asked, with other members of my Party, to give evidence to the Finer Committee on one-parent families. It was quite clear in our studies that there was need for legal advice, especially for certain types of matrimonial cases, and we wrote in our evidence of the need for every local authority throughout the country to set up legal centres to operate on one or two evenings a week, or at weekends, and to be well advertised locally. Barristers and solicitors should be asked to give some free time and to contribute to those services, and it was as a result of the publication of this evidence that we received a large number of letters from organisations, both consisting of and concerned with the situation of single parent families. It was quite clear from their evidence and also from individual letters, many of which were very moving, and all of which were extremely disturbing, that there was a great need for legal service and advice and assistance, both of which should be prompt, easily available, competent and also at a moderate price, if not necessarily free.
It is for these reasons that I so warmly support this Bill. If I have spoken somewhat too much about myself to begin with, which is a thing I dislike doing intensely, it is only because, being ultima inter pares, and very few of your Lordships knowing of me at all, I felt that I should at least state the experience
510
that I have of this subject and the reason why I am addressing you so early since having had the honour and privilege of being made a Member of your Lordships' House.
From the evidence that we received there are various points that I should like to make. The first one is on the subject of delay. We were only too well aware of the intolerable situations created in families where there is delay in getting a legal remedy. There is only one thing worse than being poor for a week and that is being poor for two, three, or four weeks or not even seeing the end of the period at which some remedy might be achieved. We read in the Comment and Recommendations of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee of delays up to, I think it is, three months between applying for a legal aid certificate and getting one—omitting all the intermediate steps of making up your mind, seeing a solicitor, getting a letter written to the Legal Aid Committee, and so on. There were delays of something like six months between when the situation arose and before anything could be done.
This must be seen in the context of the figures published quite recently on the marital situation in this country. We have all seen the results of the Divorce Reform Act 1969. In the last two years, over half a million people have been intimately involved in divorce situations. To give a breakdown of the figures, there were over 58,000 divorces in 1970 involving, therefore, if one multiplies by two—one does not have to be much of a mathematician to do that—116,000 individuals, plus a figure which is not very often quoted, of 93,000 children, making a total for 1970 of 210,320 individuals. In 1971, there were over 110,000 petitions which would make 220,000 grown-ups, and it would in fact be a very conservative estimate to imagine another 80,000 children. That makes half a million people who are involved in some kind of matrimonial disturbance.
The other point that was also very clear was that it is not, as people so often imagine, those who live on the real poverty line who suffer from a lack of legal aid. This category of people, however unfortunate and however much poverty they endure, are on long-term supplementary benefits and they get all

511
the forces of the social services to support them and the welfare benefits available. It is the ostensibly better-off families, the ones we are so often told are typical of this country, where the husband works for a reasonable wage, the wife looks after the children at home, where the house is on a mortgage, the car is on hire purchase, as is the cooker and the refrigerator and there is the T.V. rental to pay, to say nothing of the more elementary needs like food and clothing.
It is in these situations that when the breadwinner deserts—and I do not necessarily want to make a point against the men, because on the figures women are just as bad and cannot claim to be any more virtuous—the wife, who in this very unpleasant modern jargon is called the "weaker economic unit", is left to cope with the family and the bills. The only thing that she knows is absolutely certain will happen every week is that she will get bills in and will not have the money with which to meet them.
Under this Bill there are two very real gaps that can be filled to assist in this kind of situation. The first one, which I would suggest and recommend to solicitors—because so often they seem to be unaware of this fact or unwilling to take the step—is that a spouse who is not the legal owner of a property should be advised to register the right to occupation of the matrimonial home under the Matrimonial Homes Act. With great respect and admiration for Lady Summerskill's excellent Act it did not provide any means of informing the non-legal owner of the right to register this right of occupation. This has been a lack and this will go on being a lack unless and until the law on matrimonial property is changed.
The next point I would urge to be done is that when the husband deserts and cannot be traced, the solicitor should take the first step of writing to the D.H.S.S. at Newcastle in order to trace his address. Under the circular issued in 1957 by the Home Office, both the courts and solicitors have the right to do this. Very few people take this step. I have had tragic cases of taking people to court when they have not had their maintenance paid and the courts have never suggested that they should take this step. People may go to the Salvation Army,
512
right at the other end of London, perhaps wasting half a day's pay in bus fares, only to be told that they have to go back to the court before the Salvation Army can get on with their own magnificent work in tracing lost relatives. These are two ways in which I think help will come under the new provisions of this Bill.
I should like to say a few words about tribunals. The Child Poverty Action Group has written an excellent paper on the subject of this Bill and they have pointed out very clearly that the decisions of the tribunals do affect the financial interests of the lives of so many people. Therefore I welcome particularly in this Bill the possibility that people can at least get legal advice and written statements even if they cannot get legal representation at tribunals. I very much welcome this first step and it is a welcome which has an element of hope for the future. If the solicitor is paid £25 for preparing a statement, if he has a burning social conscience there is nothing to stop him appearing at a tribunal even if he does not get a fee.
Speaking of those who give advice, I think this is a slightly difficult point, because in another place there was mention of the idealistic young solicitor. It may be because I myself am getting older, but I find that idealism and youth are really no substitute for wisdom, experience and forensic skill. I would ask all members of both professions to cooperate in making this Bill really work. With the good will of all members of the legal profession this Bill, which on the face of it is a modest one, can contribute greatly to the welfare of people who are so much in need. I thank your Lordships for your patience and courtesy in allowing me to speak.
11.58 a.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, it is my privilege to have the first opportunity of congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, on her speech. This field of our law is, I feel, one of which she has made a considerable study, and in particular in its effect upon the family. What she said about delay is of course very true; indeed, there was considerable substance, if I may say so, in everything she said. I hope very much that she will continue to give the House the benefit of her knowledge and advice

513
on the remaining stages of the Bill, and we shall all very much look forward to that.
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds, I welcome this Bill. On May 15, 1970, I announced widespread reforms which the then Government were introducing, mainly by statutory instruments, in the whole field of legal aid. I accepted the £25 scheme but pointed out that that would require legislation, that it was clearly too late in that Session—and, indeed there was then foreknowledge of the General Election. But I said that if we were returned to power we would attend to it then. We understood why the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was not able to find time for it last Session, but we are delighted that this Bill is now before Parliament. I would not wish to say or do anything to hold up its swift passage into law. In the six days of Committee and two days on Report stage in the other place, many Amendments were tabled, some of which were accepted by the Government and others of which were not. It is not my own intention to revive any of those points on the Committee stage of this Bill, although, naturally, in saying that I speak only for myself. However, I should like now to raise four points.
Many hours were spent in the other place in discussing the whole question of legal aid before tribunals. There is at the outset a myth building up which I should like if I can to remove. This myth is that the Legal Aid Advisory Committee have decided that the only Tribunal before which there is to be legal aid is the Lands Tribunal. That is not at all the position. Of course, the whole of our legal aid system comes from the Report of the Rushcliffe Committee of 1945, and in paragraphs 169 and 170 of that Report they unanimously recommended that legal aid should be granted to persons within the scope of our recommendation when they are concerned in matters coming before coroners' courts and any tribunal where audience is normally granted to barristers and solicitors.
In November, 1948, the then Government published a White Paper and a draft Bill in this field under the heading Legal Aid and Advice Bill 1948: Summary of the Proposed New Service.
514
While accepting the recommendations of the Rushcliffe Committee, in paragraph 10—I will not read it because it is rather long—the draft Bill would apply legal aid in the High Court, the county court, domestic proceedings in magistrates' courts, but only allow for it being applied to all tribunals before which there was a right of representation by Statutory Instrument. And the reason given was not that they doubted that the Rushcliffe Committee were right in saying that, of course, there ought to be legal aid before all tribunals where there was a right of representation; it was simply because they were apprehensive, they said, that the legal profession might be swamped it everything contained in the Rushcliffe Committee's Report was brought in at the start: they thought that for a start it should be applied in the High Court. county court, domestic proceedings before magistrates, and that they would leave it to a later date to apply it to tribunals by Statutory Instrument.
I remember that Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller (as he then was) who had been a member of the Rushcliffe Committee, protested and said: "Legal aid is just as essential before tribunals as before courts", but the Government, for the reason they had given in the White Paper, left it to be applied to tribunals by Statutory Instrument. When the Act was passed there it was: there was legal aid before the High Court, county court and before magistrates' courts dealing with domestic matters, and at every local legal aid centre there were to be salaried solicitors giving legal advice, for old age pensioners half-a-crown, and so forth.
That was in July, 1949, and then your Lordships remember came September, devaluation, and they said to Lord Chancellor Jowitt: "Of course, you cannot do any of that now". It was a year before he was able to bring it into force in the High Court. We then had to battle—I will not say "against", but there were Conservative Governments in power—for 10 years before legal aid was applied in the county court, another three years before it was applied in domestic proceedings in magistrates' courts, and the salaried solicitors in the legal aid centres never appeared at all.
It was in 1958, when we were in the process of recovering from the enormous

515
balance of payments deficit which we inherited and on our way to turning that into the largest balance of payments surplus the country has ever known, that I said to the Advisory Committee: "I have not got any money at the moment, but I hope to have some before long. Will you consider the whole field of legal aid and advice, and tell me what you think needs doing most?" The basic income figures had not been uprated to allow for the fall in the value of money for six years. There were some forms of action which, I think by mistake, legal aid had never been applied to. There was the whole question of legal advice. There was the question of legal aid before tribunals. I said: "It is no good opening your mouths too wide. Try and tell me what you see as the order of priorities." Under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, they did that, and that led to what happened in 1970.
The myth is that they decided that the only tribunal which merited legal aid was the Lands Tribunal. There is no foundation for this at all; that is not at all what they said. As I said, I warned them not to open their mouths too wide. They said that they thought legal aid before the Lands Tribunal was an urgent priority, for the reasons which they then gave and as to the other tribunals they said in paragraph 18:
"We approached our task with some measure of caution. We hope that the Council on Tribunals, or perhaps a university, will initiate a research project to examine how far people appearing before tribunals are represented, and by whom, and the extent to which people would avail themselves of a service giving them assistance in presenting their cases. We could then re-examine our findings in the light of such a report."
That was July, 1968. Four years have now gone by, and a good deal of research work has been done, by the Cobden Trust and others, in this field. It has, for example, been ascertained that a far higher proportion of those appearing before tribunals succeed if they are represented than if they are not.
Therefore, what I should like first to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is, where do we go from here in relation to tribunals? I shall not be amazed if he says: "What
516
I am going to do, in the light of research work which has now been done, is to ask the Legal Aid and Advisory Committee to consider again the whole question of legal aid before tribunals".
The second point which I want to raise is in relation to a particular tribunal namely, the mental health review tribunals. They are in rather a special position. A man or woman in a mental hospital is of the opinion that he or she has now recovered and ought to be permitted to regain liberty. They are in some difficulty, of course, in pressing that against the advice of a medical officer in the hospital, and the whole proceeding is, of course, strange to them. In 1968 I had an approach from the National Council for Civil Liberties and the National Association for Mental Health. They thought there was a great need for—I do not say representation, but for the assistance of some person to help the patient: not necessarily a lawyer, but someone to whom the patient would talk in confidence and who would go with the patient to the tribunal and, as it were, hold his hand. There was already considerable experience of this service, because in a then recent period the National Council for Civil Liberties had on 78 occasions found someone to act as the patient's friend; but the demand was greater than they could meet.
Accordingly both the National Council for Civil Liberties and the National Association for Mental Health came to me and said that what they wanted to do (and they thought they could find funds for it), was to establish a three-year pilot scheme, carried out in two of the hospital districts, for lay friends—someone, for example, like a former psychiatric social worker who had married and retired and who was prepared to give up time for that sort of work. We had a meeting, which the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, will remember, in November, 1968. It seemed to be only right that the chairmen of these tribunals should be consulted to see whether they thought this was a good idea or not. I consulted all the chairmen of the mental health review tribunals, and they nearly all agreed that this would be a good idea. Then, of course, the

517
Ministry of Health had to be consulted; and they also approved. Then, I remember, the Home Office butted in; I was not quite clear why, but as usual they butted in, and they had to agree. But by March, 1970, I was able to inform the two bodies that all relevant Government Departments agreed that this would be a good plan.
A steering committee was then appointed on which the Government Departments interested, arid the N.C.C.L., and the National Association for Mental Health, and the Council on Tribunals, I think, were represented, and they had their first meeting on March 25, 1970. I have been trying for some time to find out what has happened, and ultimately I put down a Question for Written Answer. I received the Answer yesterday, and it was that so far the matter has been held up because the bodies concerned have not been able to find the required finance and have asked for Government assistance. So I should now respectfully like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether that is in fact the position, whether this pilot scheme could now go ahead if the finance were found, and whether the Government are—as I very much hope—prepared to assist.
The third point that I want to raise is on Part II. I do not want now to revive arguments put forward in the other place. I am glad that Part II is in the Bill, but very disappointed that the Government are saying that they do not intend to implement it until some date which I have not yet heard. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will deal with this point, because some of us will be concerned about whether or not Amendments should be put down at Committee stage. Everybody agrees that Part II is right; everybody agrees that what it would provide is badly and indeed urgently needed; and we should like a much clearer explanation than we have so far had about when the Government propose to implement Part II.
The last point want to raise is on the question of the time factor in legal aid. The present position is a rather unhappy one, though I do not really know the answer to it. I should be interested to know what the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, with all her
518
experience, thinks. The Report of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee is a report on the Law Society's statistics for the year. The legal aid year ends on March 31. For some reason which I have never understood—because I know they have a computer—the Law Society take a long time to summarise the year's figures, and it is not until October that this Report usually comes out. Why it cannot come out in July I have never really followed, but that is the position; it nearly always comes out in October and they have got into that habit.
The result is that the Legal Aid Advisory Committee cannot start their work for the year until October and they usually take until the following April, by which time more than a year has elapsed since the year that they are discussing, and since the position which existed at that time. The Report of the Law Society was, as usual, in October of last year. The Report of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee is dated April. I think it is unfortunate that, during the long discussions which took place in the other place—six days in Committee and two days on Report and Third Reading—the Members of the other place did not have a copy of the Report, because it dealt with a number of the very Amendments which they were putting forward. They were told at one stage, for example, on an Amendment to increase the £125 capital disregard, that the Legal Aid Advisory Committee had recommended an increase to £325, but they did not know why, because they had not seen the documents. I cannot help feeling that that was unfortunate.
May I make it crystal clear that I am not suggesting for one moment that the Government were saying to themselves, "This Report gives a good deal of support to Opposition Amendments, so we had better keep it up our sleeve until the Bill is out of the Commons"? I know the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and I am quite sure that he would not do that; nor would his officials. I imagine that what really happened was simply that they followed precedent. On the day the Report arrives in the Lord Chancellor's Office, the official who deals with legal aid has of course to prepare a memorandum and to ask the Lord Chancellor for his instructions, the first question being, "Is it to be

519
published?"—and of course it usually is. Then the Lord Chancellor has to find time to consider it and to decide Government policy on the recommendations contained in the Report. Then, if it is to be published, it joins a printing queue, with other printed matter which Ministers want printed. But it is unfortunate in the circumstances that, although the Report is dated April and it is vitally relevant to this Bill, it was not published until Wednesday of last week.
When I speak of the day on which the Report arrives in the Lord Chancellor's Office, I should point out that that is itself a little mystical, because the very experienced official dealing with legal aid—who probably knows more about legal aid than anybody else in the country—is himself the Secretary of the Advisory Committee. What in fact happens is that on some date or other he says, "I, as Secretary of the Advisory Committee, now present to myself this Legal Aid Advisory Committee Report which, as a matter of fact, I have written myself." Apparently, according to the date on it, it has been in the Lord Chancellor's office since April. There are photocopying machines—even the Lord Chancellor's Office has a photocopying machine. Only about a dozen people were really dealing with the matter on both sides in the other place, and I should have thought they could easily have been given photostat copies of the Report. I know that it has to be laid before Parliament, but I know of nothing to prevent something which has to be laid before Parliament from being laid in typescript, or to prevent copies of it from being given to certain people first. If that situation again arises I hope that that course may be taken.
Lastly, my Lords, I should like to know what are the Government's intentions on this Report, which they have now had since April. In particular, I should like to know their intentions on the important recommendations on the assessment of resources in paragraph 10; on those on income in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17; on capital in paragraphs 23 to 26, and on the Citizens' Advice Bureaux and advice centres. I should particularly like to know—and it is very important that we should know this to-day, in order to decide what Amendments, if any, to put down on the Committee stage of the Bill
520
—whether I am right in thinking that all the recommendations contained in this Report could be implemented by Statutory Instrument. If I am wrong and some of them would require legislation, the Committee stage of the Bill is the obvious place in which to deal with them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord allow me to interrupt? As at present advised, I think the answer to this question is, Yes. If I am proved to be wrong in that, I will let him know.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I hope very much that when he comes to reply he will be able to tell us which of these recommendations the Government are accepting.
12.19 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I preface my remarks by extending to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, our warmest congratulations on her maiden speech? It is always difficult to deliver a maiden speech either in your Lordships' House or in another place, and to have done so so competently must give the noble Baroness considerable satisfaction. Certainly her speech gave those of your Lordships who had the privilege of listening to it a great deal of satisfaction, and we look forward to hearing the noble Baroness on other occasions.
The point that I wish to raise in connection with this scheme is a purely Scottish one, and I do so on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland. At the present time, legal aid schemes are embodied in separate Statutes, one series for England and Wales and the other for Scotland. The development of legal aid outwith legislation or in pre-litigation situations has varied quite materially as between England and Scotland. In Scotland, such work is covered by Section 5 of the principal Act, under a scheme which came into force in 1960 and which is extensively used to deal with matters that, if not settled, could be the subject of a Section 1 certificate; that is to say, a court proceedings certificate. In Scotland, almost the same number of Section 5 certificates are issued as of Section 1 certificates. In England, however, very little use has been made of the Section 5

521
scheme. In England, the ratio of Section 5 certificates to Section 1 certificates is of the order of 1 to 155. In actual number, for the most recent full year England issued only 924 Section 5 certificates and 143,582 Section 1 certificates. In the same year, Scotland issued 7,850 Section 5 certificates and 7,989 Section 1 certificates—a ratio, as your Lordships will see, of practically 1 to 1.
The Bill therefore was designed to give better and fuller legal aid in England short of litigation; and in the English context, of course, this could best be done by repealing Section 5 and bringing in the £25 scheme, which is of wider scope than Section 5. This will cause little change in England so far as Section 5 administration is concerned; but in Scotland, the obvious way to improve the service, in view of the universal use of Section 5 facilities, is to leave the Section 5 provisions but to expand the scope to the extent of the matters now mentioned in Clause 2 of this Bill, and not to abolish Section 5, as the Bill seeks to do. To abolish the Section 5 scheme in Scotland will, it is feared, lead to considerable administrative problems, and is likely adversely to affect the legal aid services in connection with the advice and assistance given in pre-litigation matters.
If the Section 5 scheme had been as little used in Scotland as it was in England, then the substitution of the proposed £25 scheme would have made a workable method of bringing in a system for supplying legal aid in pre-litigation matters on the wider basis envisaged in Clause 2 of this Bill. But in the Scottish context this can be done far more easily and satisfactorily by retaining Section 5 but widening its scope to embrace all the matters included in Clause 2; namely, oral or written advice on the application of Scots law to the particular circumstances of the person seeking advice, and as to any steps that the person might take by way of settling a claim, bringing or defending proceedings and obtaining further legal or other advice or assistance having regard to the application of Scots law to those circumstances.
My Lords, there is another feature of the Bill which, quite frankly, I did not intend to raise but which has been raised
522
by the Law Society; and therefore, on reflection, I thought I ought to put it before your Lordships' House. One feature of the proposals in the Bill that would be likely to introduce a new factor, should it be applied to Scotland, is the requirement that solicitors should collect contributions from assisted persons. This is likely to cause dissatisfaction, I am told, among legal aid solicitors, who have hitherto had nothing to do with the collection of assisted persons' contributions. At present, the Legal Aid Central Committee have an organisation which collects all contributions in Scotland, whether in respect of Section 1 or Section 5 certificates. This organisation is specially geared for the purpose, and would require to continue to collect Section 1 contributions even if Section 5 legal aid were discontinued. As this organisation must remain in being, contributions under any new legal aid provisions could also be collected by the existing organisation rather than by solicitors. It is in the interests of the client that he does not become involved with the solicitor in questions of payment or non-payment of contributions. Any extra expense of collection by the existing organisations will not be significant, and would be far outweighed by the advantages to the person receiving assistance.
My Lords, the Council of the Law Society of Scotland feel very strongly that Scotland should in fact be included in the Bill; but if Scotland is to remain in the Bill, then the Society would wish that, so far as Scotland is concerned, all that should be done in the Bill is to extend the present scope of Section 5 so as to include therein all matters in respect of which advice and assistance may be given as mentioned in Clause 2 of the Bill. I would conclude by asking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to give his mind to this matter, because it is causing concern in Scotland at the present time. We shall be grateful for his opinion on it, and I can assure him that whatever is said in reply will have the consideration of the Law Society of Scotland. Future action will of course depend on the reply that we receive.
12.27 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY:
My Lords, I must crave your Lordships' indulgence for not having my name down

523
on the printed list. I put it down this morning after the list had been typewritten. I must ask your Lordships therefore to excuse its absence from the list. I felt I should like to say a very few words to welcome this Bill because it is the result of the work of the Committee over which I have had the honour to preside for the last six years. I am quite certain it will fill a very necessary vacuum in the present arrangements. But may I draw your Lordships' attention to our Report of this year, which has just been published. With reference to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, said about the delay, all I can say is that there has been less delay this year than last year or the year before; I think much of the delay is due to the Printing Office and is not anybody else's fault. It seems unfortunate, in a way—or perhaps fortunate—that this Report should have come out just at the moment when when this Bill is going through the House, but there are two or three points to which I should especially like to draw attention.
Our costs are naturally going up very fast. The majority of our expense so far as the civil side is concerned goes in divorce—85 per cent.—and there is an avalanche, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, so properly said, of new petitions for divorce coming up this year, which will very greatly increase our expenses. The inflationary side of our present situation will also give our Committee a great deal of trouble. The limits which were set quite recently are now already out of date. There is the question of the capital value of a house, for instance, which has to be allowed for, or the nest egg which is to be left as capital—all that will have to be looked at again, I am afraid, with a view to raising the limits.
One thing which has worried me with regard to legal aid in the future is the question of legal aid centres. There are a great many experiments going on which are very useful, but I think we have still to "hold our horses" there and to learn from experience the best way to set about providing legal aid in what we call the desert areas. Personally, I favour very much the C.A.B. set-up, for the simple reason that so many of the problems that people bring there are not
524
necessarily legal at all but social. The C.A.B. can separate one from the other and not waste the time of the legal profession on matters which are not legal. I hope very much that within the new local government boundaries, when they are set up, and within the new authorities, when they too are set up, it will be decided very soon where the C.A.B. is going—whether under the top authority or under the lower authority—and that wherever it goes, as much support and strength as possible should be given to that organisation to spread it wider over the country. I am certain that it is the best sort of device that we have for the citizen in difficulties. I think that we have also to anticipate—in view of the avalanche of legislation we have had from both the last Government and this one; and also because I am afraid that those people who draw up our Bills and laws do not make them as necessarily simple to read and to understand for the ordinary citizen as they might be—extra legal costs because the ordinary man and woman in the street does not understand what is going on or how to (shall I say?) "get round the law". In any event, there will be, I think, an increased necessity for legal aid.
My Lords, in conclusion I should like to thank my Committee for the tremendous work that they have done—and my honorary secretary is included in those thanks. I hope that the work which has been done in the past years will bear further fruit in the future. I am not going to touch on the matter of tribunals; it is a very complicated subject and one on which I might keep your Lordships a very long time. But I would say this. To my mind, representation before tribunals need not necessarily be legal; it may be expert, but of quite a different kind. You may need, say, the assistance of a surveyor or medical help. I think that the whole question of tribunals wants very careful consideration and that we should not jump to the conclusion that legal aid is the only way out.
12.33 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, it was rather remiss of me not to put my name down to speak. I shall take only one minute in view of the fact that, most constructively and cogently, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner,

525
dealt with the case in a way that I could not deal with it and because my noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds from the Front Bench mentioned the relationship of this Bill to tribunals. I consider it my first duty to apologise to the noble Baroness for rising before she made her charming, concise and congently constructive speech; it was a delight to listen to. From my experience over many years I want to reiterate the point of the need for some help to be given to those people who have to appear before tribunals in connection with industrial injuries cases. I could tell the House, from over 30 or 40 years' experience, many stories illustrating the layman's difficulties in understanding the law, if it ever made constructive sense, relating to tribunals. Although it may not be the appropriate time now to raise this matter, I hope that the Government, whom I wish to thank for the Bill will bear this in mind, in view of what has been said and in view of the speech of the noble and learned Lord. I very much hope a method will be found to implement aid to those who suffer industrial injuries and who have to appear before tribunals.
12.34 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think I should thank the House as a whole for the friendly reception which this Bill has received, and particularly I would thank those noble Lords and Baronesses who have taken part in the debate. Before I proceed down the list of speakers, I should like to thank the two noble Baronesses. First, because one was a Parliamentary maiden and her speech was a treat to listen to. I hardly thought, when a realised that it was going to be my task on a Friday morning to put what is necessarily a somewhat technical matter, that I should have had the pleasant surprise of welcoming my noble friend, Lady Elles, to her Parliamentary début; and I am delighted to have done so.
Secondly, I am also enabled to say, "Thank you" (and I am not sure whether I have done so before) to my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley for the immense work she has done on the Advisory Committee which, under her, has really been the mainstay of progress under this Scheme, under successive Lord Chancellors. I must say that I was sorry to part with her personally, and I hope
526
that she will from time to time give us the benefit of her ripe experience and advice.
To go back to the beginning, the Bill was welcomed from the Front Bench of the Opposition by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds. He raised two points with which I should deal at some stage in my reply; one about tribunals, which was reiterated by several noble Lords and one about Part II of the Bill which was certainly echoed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. Tribunals, strictly speaking, have nothing to do with this particular Bill. Legal representation before a tribunal was always, as the noble and learned Lord reminded us, within the prospect of the first Bill, the main legislation, of 1949; and I could, with an Affirmative Resolution, apply that Act by regulation so as to give representation before tribunals now. It is within my power to do so if Government policy backed it. It would not be appropriate to have anything about it in this Bill, because this is not a legal aid Bill—if we use "aid", as we do, in the jargon sense of representation; it is a Bill about assistance and advice, which is not the same thing. Therefore I do not want to say a great deal about tribunals, partly because I have not entirely made up my mind about them. I am not as keen a supporter of purely legal advice as is the noble and learned Lord or as was my predecessor, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller, as he then was.
Since 1949, tribunals have sprouted in almost every direction and performed almost every function. A common factor in many of them—not all, but many—has been that the Minister who brings in the new tribunal says, "We are not going to have any beastly lawyers about here if we can help it. We cannot keep them out entirely, for there are limited companies and disembodied entities who have to be represented; but we are going to have a nice, friendly informal atmosphere, with no legal technicalities of any kind." This is usually applauded loudly in both Houses when it is said; and all the lawyers look doleful. But the next thing is that somebody with a research grant from a university establishes that before these tribunals even "the wicked lawyer" sometimes wins his case when a man without a lawyer does

527
not. Then there comes in the lobby which says that everyone must be represented before these tribunals by lawyers in order to enable him to win his case—forgetting that every case has two sides and that only one side can win. The next thing is that the lawyers are brought in, and the expense goes up dramatically. There has to be a lawyer on each side, and you get all the complexities which you originally set out to avoid. Then at the end of the day, as my noble friend Lady Emmet reminded us, you find that what was originally wanted all along was, say, a surveyor and not a lawyer.
So, my Lords, I am not as wholly "sold" on this policy as some of my predecessors have been. I do not say that I have made up my mind against it; but it is not in the top rank of priorities. I would say basically that it is not really a question of legal aid, of simply providing the money for lawyers to represent their clients before the tribunals; it is a question of social policy, of what tribunals ought to do or to be. Should it be a place where lawyers have a paradise, which is what noble Lords are always complaining about when legislation is introduced in other contexts, or a place where lawyers are discouraged rather than encouraged? If the former, then no doubt there is a strong case for legal aid. If the latter, then I should have thought that there was a poor case for legal aid, and at the end of the day one may find oneself saying one thing about one type of tribunal and something else about another. It was clear, whatever the mythological character of the advice which the noble Lord received, that the Advisory Committee of the day were keener on the Lands Tribunal than on any other, I think rightly. I cannot give a definite answer to-day about that, but I hope that I have opened up the subject. It is certainly not appropriate to this particular Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, then raised a slightly cognate point about his scheme, on which I know he was keen when he was Lord Chancellor, about lay assistance—not legal representation—before mental health tribunals. This has gone on rather on the lines the noble and learned Lord described and is at the moment before my right honourable friend the Secretary of
528
State. It has ceased to be a Lord Chancellor responsibility and the Secretary of State has not reached a final decision on the matter. Therefore I am not in a position to answer the noble and learned Lord's query to-day, but I undertake to draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble and learned Lord said, and I will seek to give him an answer as soon as one is available. As I say, it is not now my responsibility as a Departmental Minister; but, speaking for the Government, I can give that undertaking.
Then there is the question of the activation of Part II. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, perhaps took too gloomy a view about the prospects of activating that Part. The idea has got about that it will be three years or so before Part II is introduced. Personally, I hope that that will not be the case. We want to see how Part I operates in order to know where Part II can be most useful and exactly what form it should take. The Advisory Committee will be considering this matter in the very near future, and I hope that Part II will be in operation much earlier than has been suggested. I of course am primarily responsible for the legal assistance and legal aid side of the Bill, but I have more than a sneaking sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, said about the Citizens Advice Bureaux chain being essential to any service of this kind. Curiously enough, the lawyer, barrister or solicitor—I have immense respect for both professions, having served in one for 40 years—tends to be a specialist in some ways. One often finds that the real first need of the bewildered individual when he finds himself caught in the network of our immensely complex society, is a sort of legal first aid. This can be provided by the Citizens Advice Bureaux extremely well, whereas if the same person stopped the Lord Chancellor in the street and said, "I have been charged with an offence under the regulations applying to the parking of cars; what should I do?". Or, "I want to do something with the local authority; can you advise me?", the Lord Chancellor would probably scratch his head and reply, "Write to me about it", and then find out. The Lord Chancellor may have a knowledge of the law—indeed, he is supposed to have such a

529
knowledge—but the law is much more complex than the expert and rather specialist lawyers, barristers and solicitors in the profession always know about.
Therefore, the form which these Part II centres and the relationship which they bear to the Citizens Advice Bureaux will have to be gone into most carefully. There are a number of experimental centres, to which the noble Baroness referred, and they are proving valuable as experiments. They cannot be married directly into the scheme because some of them have no means test or contribution, whereas the scheme essentially does have those things. But they will gain considerably from the scheme, both before and after Part II is introduced, because just as now the lawyers in these centres can act under the legal aid scheme as it exists, so they will be able to act under the legal advice scheme as it will be under Part I. In other words, they will stand to gain automatically from the additional facilities which the Bill will provide.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, then referred to the Report of the Advisory Committee. I am informed that it was submitted on May 1 and published on June 14. It certainly did recommend alterations in both the capital and income Regulations which, of course, are in my power to amend. A Government decision has not yet been arrived at, but I promise the noble and learned Lord that I will try to get on with it as quickly as possible. When the principal Scheme is amended the limits under this scheme, when it is law, will follow suit because we are keeping them in balance with one another.
The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, raised some points on behalf of the Scottish Law Society. I am very fond of this Society, which entertained me right royally at Aviemore last year and even gave me a wonderful crummock as a momento of my stay and my trip through the Lairig Ghru. What will comfort them most—this is why the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, were, with respect, not particularly good—and what I hope will be conveyed to the Scottish Law Society, is the fact that there is plenty of time for them, and plenty of scope within the measure, even unamen-
530
ded, for them to have conversations with the Lord Advocate which will satisfy them—and preferably with the Lord Advocate rather than with me, because the Lord Advocate is the appropriate Minister.
The commencement date is within the power of the Government under the Bill as it stands. The Secretary of State for Scotland can bring in separate commencement dates for Scotland and can postpone the commencement date for Section 5 if he so wishes. There is, therefore, plenty of scope for discussion, even if I am wrong in what I am about to say. I hope that this will be an undertaking which will give the maximum comfort to the Scottish Law Society.
The answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, is, broadly speaking, that it is true that for some reason which I do not wholly understand, Section 5 has been used a great deal more in Scotland than in England. But the fact remains that the Bill as drafted, both for Scotland and England, will do better than Section 5; it will not take away anything which Section 5 gives but will simply give a service which will be more comprehensive than Section 5. In other words, it will add to Section 5, so that that section will be, both in Scotland and in England, a fifth wheel to the coach—it will not actually do any work and it is therefore being repealed under the Bill. The only difference, so far as I know, that the Scots solicitor will notice under Section 5 is that he will find that he must recover contributions from his client instead of from the Law Society recovering them on his behalf.
I do not think that there is any particular reason to differentiate between England and Scotland in that rather esoteric respect. The policy of the Government is that the solicitor should recover the contribution himself and so save about £40,000 a year. Of course he runs some risk of bad debts which, with the "cautious Scot", is probably underlying what they talk about as "administrative problems". I think that is probably what they really mean. At any rate, under the Bill they will get a collective income of between £1½ million and £2½ million a year more as a result of the legal work that they will be able to do. Therefore I hope that, on balance,

531
the "swings" will more than compensate them for the "roundabouts". At all events, if I have not dealt with the subject fully or fairly, as I say, there will be plenty of time for them to discuss it; the commencement date ought to be able to take care of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, raised, with others, the problem of tribunals, and I hope that he feels that I have dealt with that aspect in my speech. I am grateful for what he said. I thank again the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, for the various points which she raised and which I have tried to take up in the course of what I have been saying. I thank the House very much and hope that we may now proceed to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL OF RIGHTS [H.L.]
12.52 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. My first word must be one of congratulation to the Minister for Northern Ireland, Mr. Whitelaw, and, I am sure, for his co-operation, to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on the new situation in Northern Ireland. What they have done during the last seven weeks has been described in Northern Ireland as a miracle. I would not say that, but I think that what they have achieved is to appeal to the desire of the ordinary man and woman in Northern Ireland, whether Protestant or Catholic, for an end to the violence which has been occurring. In that they have had the most extraordinary success. I want to pay my tribute specially, because I was sceptical when they first began their administration. May I add that I wish the same kind of approach, in spirit and in application, could apply in international affairs. When the time comes for the replacement of our present Foreign Secretary, I should love to see Mr. Whitelaw take his place; and I would appreciate it if the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, were able to co-
532
operate with him in bringing peace in that sphere to the degree that they have done in such a wonderful way in Northern Ireland.
My Lords, I think one also would have to express appreciation of the part played by Mr. Hume and Mr. Devlin on behalf of the Social Democratic and Labour Party and to the women of Belfast and of the Creggan and the Bogside in Derry who, most courageously, have so much changed the atmosphere in Northern Ireland.
I am not moving this Bill in a partisan spirit. I am not a Catholic; I am not a Protestant; and perhaps, as a Humanist, I am outside that particular conflict—I will not say above it, but beyond it. If, in what I say to-day, I speak about Catholic disabilities is it because for over 50 years the Catholics in Northern Ireland have been treated as second-class citizens. I should speak just as strongly had they been Protestant disabilities. Perhaps I ought to add in honesty that I appreciate that the religious conflict is a reflection in the communities of a political conflict between Unionism and Republicanism. On that I am committed, but in the long distance, and I would not want that issue to be settled without reason and consent. The tragedy of Northern Ireland is that Protestant and Catholic workers are now divided. I pay tribute to the Northern Ireland Trades Union Congress and the Northern Ireland Labour Party for the efforts they have made to overcome those differences. But many of us hope that the conflict about present issues will be solved, so that the workers, whether Protestant or Catholic, can unite in their struggle against low wages, unemployment and the appalling housing conditions in Northern Ireland.
My Lords, I believe that the value of this Bill is that it would contribute immediately to the maintenance of the cease-fire for which we are now hoping; and also lay down the basis of the new democratic society in Northern Ireland to which we hope discussions will lead. I am tremendously encouraged by the degree and the character of the support I have received for this Bill from Northern Ireland; from the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association, the Social Democratic and Labour Party, the women in Belfast and in Derry; the Northern Ireland

533
Trades Union Congress, including both Protestants and Catholics, the Belfast Trades Council, again including both Catholics and Protestants, and indeed from the official I.R.A. I think it now possible that the leadership of the Provisional I.R.A. would also give this support.
I think I may now say, definitely and confidently, that if this Bill were adopted, it would mean not only the end of violence in Northern Ireland but also of civil disobedience in the strikes and the withholding of rents and rates by so many people. I appreciate very clearly the danger of violence still continuing, my Lords, as illustrated, unhappily, in the breakaway of the more militant sections of the Provisional I.R.A. I want also to express appreciation of the fact that the Protestants have shown considerable restraint and that it has only been more recently, because of the "No-go" areas, that they have indicated militancy. I believe that this Bill would contribute to the ending of the "No-go" area problem. If violence does cease and if, as indicated yesterday by Mr. Whitelaw, the British forces reciprocate in a cease-fire, the necessity for sending the soldiers into "No-go" areas would cease.
My Lords, I am also encouraged by the fact that on the Unionist side there are now expressions of opinion in favour of what is in this Bill. I listened last night to Mr. Faulkner during a television interview. It is a little difficult to repeat definitely what he said because of the confusion of the interview; but I think I am right in saying that Mr. Faulkner declared both for the ending of the Special Powers Act and for the recognition of civil rights; certainly on that second issue he has said it before. One finds it extremely difficult to imagine that the Unionists in Northern Ireland, under the banner of the Union Jack, will demonstrate in favour of a denial of rights when those rights are recognised in the rest of the United Kingdom. There may still be extremists on both sides, but this Bill would isolate them.
I also want to say that this Bill has the support of the Trades Union Congress in this country, which carried by vote a declaration in its favour. The repeal of the Special Powers Act and the recognition of special rights has also
534
been endorsed by Mr. Merlyn Rees, the official spokesman of the Labour Party in the House of Commons, though I understand that he has some doubt about the timing of the change.
I turn now to the provisions of the Bill. I introduced a similar Bill a year ago. The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, made devastating criticism of the inconsistencies of that draft, and in the Bill as now presented those inconsistencies are corrected. The Bill then included proportional representation. Her Majesty's Government a year later have temporarily accepted proportional representation for the local elections. We this year divided civil rights from proportional representation, but my noble friend Lord Archibald has withdrawn his Bill, in view of the fact that the Government are to apply it for the immediate elections.
The main purpose of my Bill is to repeal the Special Powers Act and to replace it by civil rights. I have made some study of civil rights in many parts of the world. I would say, and I think, truthfully, that the Special Powers Act in Northern Ireland is the most Draconian single Act denying personal liberties in any part of the world. By that I do not mean to say that Northern Ireland is the most totalitarian State. We are all shocked by the denial of liberties in the Soviet Union and in Communist countries; we are all shocked by their denial in South Africa and in other African territories. But the Special Powers Act is more the embodiment of George Orwell's picture of 1984 than any Act that I have known.
I gave the terms and the regulations when I introduced a similar Bill a year ago: they appear in column 543 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of June 15, and I will not repeat them in detail now. But, among other things, they authorise arrest without warrant; imprisonment without charge or trial; no recourse to habeus corpus; the search of homes without warrant at any hour of the day or night; the arrest of persons desired as witnesses, and compulsion of them to answer questions under penalities for refusal. The regulations deny trial by jury; they prevent any access of legal representatives or relatives to a person imprisoned without trial; they prohibit an inquest after a prisoner's death. And after all that, a

535
final provision authorises the arrest of a person who does anything
"calculated to be prejudicial to the preservation of peace or the maintenance of order in Northern Ireland and not specifically provided for in the regulations".
No wonder Mr. Vorster has said in South Africa that if he had a provision such as appears in the Special Powers Act of Northern Ireland he could dispense with all the regulations of apartheid.
I emphasise that the Special Powers Act is not an Act merely for the state of emergency; it is current and continuous law. It is 52 years1920—since it was first introduced; it was reaffirmed in the years 1922 and 1923 and has existed ever since. I agree that in certain circumstances some provisions of the Act may be necessary. They would be necessary under a declaration of a national emergency. But the Special Powers Act does not require any special emergency to be declared; it is common law all the time.
The Bill which I am presenting would repeal the Special Powers Act and other Acts which limit civil rights, such as the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) Act and the Public Order (Amendment) Act, in their parts which deny civil rights; and it would involve the ending of internment. The ending of internment has now become a practical policy. If the cease fire for which we are now hoping comes into effect on Monday night there is a real possibility of the early ending of internment without charge and without trial.
My Bill has two other provisions. The first is to extend our Race Relations Act to Northern Ireland, and to make it apply to discrimination on grounds of religious belief. I appreciate of course that one cannot by law end this practice in a day. It has been inseparable for hundreds of years with the life of Northern Ireland, and indeed of Ireland as a whole, economically, politically and socially. I give certain facts which show the discrimination which exists; and I repeat that I should be as deeply concerned about them if they applied to Protestants as they have in historical circumstances applied to Catholics.
I ask the noble Lord just to look at the first rather carefully, because it is immediate. Factories are now being pro-
536
vided for employment, built at public expense, and industries are being invited to occupy them. In the Eastern counties of Northern Ireland, where the Protestants mostly live, 59 such factories have been built. In the Western parts of Northern Ireland, predominantly Catholic, only 15 have been built. I do not want to be unreasonable about this, because I recognise that in the Eastern parts there are neighbouring docks and communications; but I should like to urge that in looking at this problem we should deal with the West of Northern Ireland as we are beginning to deal with the depressed areas of unemployment in this country.
I turn now to unemployment. I take the Catholic towns in Northern Ireland. Unemployment there ranges from 19·8 per cent. in Derry to 26·7 per cent. in Kilkeel. The average unemployment figure for the whole of Ireland is 11·1. I take the Civil Service: the higher grades at Stormont were represented by 177 Protestants and 11 Catholics. I take the Administrative Service: there were 268 Protestants and only 19 Catholics. Turn to the National Health Service: on the hospital management committees, of 456 members only 72 are Catholics. Turn to the public boards: of the 327 members, only 49 are Catholics. This illustrates the overall discrimination against the one-third Catholic population of Northern Ireland. Worst of all has been the discrimination in housing practised by local authorities against the Roman Catholic population. It may be true that local authorities which have had Catholic majorities have also discriminated against their minorities, but the Cameron Commission in 1969 concluded that complaints that housing was weighted against non-Unionists were—and I quote, "abundantly justified". I appreciate that something has been done in this respect. There has been the Londonderry Housing Commission. I recognise that religious discrimination is now outlawed, theoretically at least, in public employment; I recognise that an Ombudsman, a Commissioner for Complaints, has been appointed to deal with complaints. But discrimination is still extensive, even in the public sphere, and is very marked indeed in private employment. I take the Belfast shipyards, where there are 8,000 workers, and among them only 500 Catholics.

537
The second additional provision in my Bill relates to the imposition of oaths and to the legalisation of the expression of Republican views. Traditionally in Northern Ireland the expression of Republican views has been regarded almost as traitorous. We may now be moving to a new situation where there may be a plebiscite on the subject of the Union of Ireland, and in those circumstances public expression of Republican views would be legal. But the psychological situation is such that it is very desirable that that should actually be stated in law.
More important is the question of the oath. This oath is applied to all members of governmental and public services in Northern Ireland, even in the hospital service. I will read its terms.
"I … of …. in the county of …. swear by Almighty God that I will render true and faithful allegiance and service to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law, and to her Government of Northern Ireland."
Allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen is something which is accepted in this country, even by those who prefer a Republican society, and it could reasonably be accepted in Northern Ireland. But to say that they must give an oath of allegiance to "her Government of Northern Ireland" when that Government has for 50 years been operating against the minority Catholic community is to demand too much. I have just heard of a case where a bricklayer at Armagh, working for a local hospital, was asked to take that oath. When he declined to declare allegiance to Stormont, or whatever succeeds it, he was refused the job. My Lords, that oath is an intolerable thing to the consciences of thousands of Irish people, and something ought to be done to remove it.
I ask the House to forgive me if I read my concluding words. I indicated to the Minister generally what I was going to say and I have passed on to him what I am now going to read. I appreciate that hope in Northern Ireland is balanced on a pinpoint. I do not want to do anything which would unbalance it. I recognise that all I ask in this Bill cannot be applied tomorrow in the midst of the present overriding issues, but I appeal to the Minister to say that in principle the Government accept, and
538
will seek to implement in early practice, the desirability that the civil rights which we enjoy in Britain shall be accepted in Northern Ireland. This should be followed by the repeal, in continuing legislation, of provisions which deny those rights and, in conjunction with the ending of organised violence, by the termination of internment without trial, by the repudiation of discrimination on grounds of religious belief (I admit that goes beyond our British practice but it is appropriate to Irish circumstances); and by the ending of the imposition of oaths which are unacceptable to the consciences of many citizens in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will be able to give these assurances. Meanwhile, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read
2a.—(Lord Brockway.)
1.19 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, the fact that I am not going to detain your Lordships for very long to-day is no sign that this is not a subject of importance. The reason why I intend to be brief is partly because we have, over a period of time and quite rightly, discussed these problems in depth and there is no point therefore in going over the same ground all over again. Also, as I hope to be able to say a little later, I am not certain that this is the right time to say very much on Northern Ireland though I think it is the right time to say something. What we should be talking about at the moment is less what should immediately be effected than the kind of Northern Ireland—Ireland even—which we want to see emerge at the end of the horrors which have occurred over the past four years; a kind of Northern Ireland and a state of affairs in Northern Ireland which should have existed before those four years started. Here I should like to say what the members of my Party, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and a number of other people were saying for a long time before the real disturbances occurred, that the Special Powers Act should never have been passed. I do not entirely go along with the description of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who said it was the worst Act of its kind. I think that Mr. Vorster was possibly putting a debating point in the quotation

539
of his remarks that was referred to. I would prefer to live under the Special Powers Act than under the legislation which exists in South Africa or Sri Lanka.
The Special Powers Act was a very bad Act and an appalling one to have at a time when there were not occurring the present troubles, the present violence that we have, and the present campaigns and terrorism that we have. As soon as it is humanly possible I want to see the Special Powers Act repealed. I should like there to be a pledge that the Special Powers Act will be repealed as soon as possible. That is something we ought to be able to ask of this Government: a pledge for the future that the Special Powers Act will be seen hereafter as a temporary and not a permanent measure. I am not certain that the particular form of this Bill is one that I would have chosen. I am not certain that it goes far enough; and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, may have feelings about this himself. To give equal civil liberties to those that exist in this country is probably at this time not sufficient. There are considerable doubts and arguments as to whether in a country like this a Bill of Rights is the right basis for civil liberties. I think that it is, but I recognise the power of the arguments of those who say that it is not. I believe that in a country like Northern Ireland, with a strong minority which feel that they have been deprived of civil liberties over a long period of time, there is a psychological necessity for citizens to say, "These are our rights", and not to say, "In this society we trust the rule of law and justice to remedy our wrongs. There is a concensus which is working for the good of all people". One of the troubles in Northern Ireland over a long period of time and, to a certain extent, rightly, has been the feeling that this concensus did not exist for the protection of all the citizens and that there was a clear differentiation between first and second class citizens.
I should like to see a situation where what comes out of this difficult period when we come to build up the new Northern Ireland and the future Ireland is a Bill of Rights stating in detail and unarguably, quite definite civil rights upon which the members of all communities and all religions and opinions can rely.
540
I will not take up your Lordships' time with some of the remarks that I was going to make about the details of the Bill. If this Bill were to go forward from a Second Reading to the Committee stage there would be some interesting matters to debate and some Amendments which we might possibly have to insist upon. There are obviously many things that this Bill does which we want to see effected now. There are some provisions in the Special Powers Act and some regulations which are in force in Northern Ireland which seem to be entirely indefensible. The banning of political movements which are not committed to violence and which repudiate violence seems wrong. Such questions as inquiries with regard to people who are in custody ought to be dealt with immediately.
For one of the first times in my life—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and his supporters will appreciate have to say that this is not the time to pass this Bill, or to give it a Second Reading. I am not the kind of person who often says about reforms, "This is not the time", because I know that it is the chief weapon in any conservative reaction to reform to say, "This is not the time". One usually finds then that it never is the time and there never does become a time. There was a time for the passing of this Bill: before the present troubles started or when they had just started. There will be a time for the passing of this Bill, or something similar to it, when the present troubles are over, which we hope and pray may be in the not too distant future. However, we must not be too optimistic; we must always remember the unfortunate fact that as a general rule it takes as long to get out of trouble as it takes to get in trouble. It will not be easy to restore Northern Ireland to the situation that we should like to see.
Everyone in this House must echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in paying a real tribute to what Mr. Whitelaw and his colleagues have managed to achieve over the past few months. We know that at this time we are probably in the most difficult and delicate moments that Northern Ireland has had to face. It is absolutely right that we should have been reminded to-day—and I am grateful to the noble Lord,

541
Lord Brockway, for it—of the real, underlying realities of civil rights and the lack of them in Northern Ireland. I do not think that we should take any step, however small, which might have the effect of exacerbating the situation which exists at the moment.
The work that the Government have been doing—and I must pay immense tribute not just to Mr. Whitelaw and his colleagues, but to the whole Government on this, for they are responsible—over the past three or four months has been of inestimable value. We wish them the very best of success and good fortune in the immediate and medium term future. It may well be that if what we all fear might happen should unfortunately happen and things become worse—and that could happen so easily—there could well come a time when it would be right for people from these Benches, of from any part of the House, to get up and say, "There is a completely different line that you should now take". But all we can do at this particular moment is to say to the Government that they have our best wishes and prayers, and to suspend our judgment on other matters till we see the outcome of the present initiatives.
1.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY:
My Lords, slightly perhaps in the spirit of the poet, Austin Dobson, who intended an ode but it turned into a sonnet, I find that I had intended a speech but it has in fact turned, or is about to turn, perhaps not into a sonnet but something rather nearer to the statutory 14 lines than the speech I originally intended to deliver. Part of the reason for this is that some of the things that I had it in mind to say have been said, far better than I could say them, in the last few minutes by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. There is also the fact, which appealed to me very much, that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has presented this Bill with great moderation; and I have a suspicion (though no more than that, and I should not like to say anything stronger) that perhaps in the end he will not proceed with it. He has moved me, on the other hand, to some extent by attributing part of this Bill to me, which has cut a certain amount
542
of ground from under my feet—I am not complaining; I take it has a compliment—by referring to the devastating criticisms that I made a year ago of inconsistencies that I found in the Bill. I cannot entirely accept much in the way of responsibility for this Bill, however, because if I did that I should not be able to oppose it, which I am bound to say that I still do. I think that the inconsistencies have pretty well gone, although I detect one—but I do not wish to be too churlish about that.
My Lords, all I wish to do is to look briefly at one or two of the provisions in the Bill itself. I would begin by saying simply something about religious discrimination. I very much doubt whether one can abolish this by legislation at all. For one thing, religious discrimination in certain circumstances is absolutely necessary. This Bill, as drafted, will end up by prohibiting, say, a church from insisting that teachers in its schools shall be members of its own denomination. That may be put right by a matter of drafting; I do not know. But if it is to be put right by drafting it will mean amending not only Section 1(0 of the Race Relations Act but, I think, Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 as well; and I pointed this out a year ago. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, overwhelmed by my criticisms on another subject, did not notice this one, or whether he simply thought I was wrong. If he thought I was wrong, I should be interested to hear why. But perhaps he need not bother about that, either.
I am a little doubtful about Clause 2, although I take entirely the point which the noble Lord made about the oath and the undesirability of it in the case of bricklayers in Armagh. I am not at all sure that I take it in connection with a test that might be applied by a Parliamentary candidate or even his agent who wished to employ, say, a secretary. Surely it would be reasonable to apply some test to ensure that that secretary was not in fact working for some cause diametrically opposed to that for which the candidate or agent stood.
One matter of inconsistency may indeed be small, but I notice that in the

543
Long Title of the Bill one of the objects of this Bill is to equate the
"civil rights of persons resident in Northern Ireland with those of persons resident in the remainder of the United Kingdom".
Clause 4 says:
"In any cause in Northern Ireland for which a jury is empanelled the rights of the parties in respect of objections to individual jurors shall be equal."
I think the noble Lord will find that those rights are not equal in the United Kingdom now. The prosecution in a criminal cause is compelled to declare his reasons for objecting to a juror, while the defence is not. We come back to what I take as being the main part of the Bill, Clause 3(1) and (2). I am inclined to agree with everything that has been said about the Special Powers Act. Like the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I do not go entirely with all the strictures against it of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, but that is merely a question of degree. It is a deplorable Act and I hope it will come to an end. I do not think it ought to be brought to an end in the middle of a Bill of Rights of this kind. I think it should be done by an act of the Government; and I am pretty certain that it will be done, though whether by a straightforward repeal of this kind or another method I do not know and I have no views I wish to put forward.
However, I would add one footnote on this Act which the noble Lord himself has not mentioned, and that is that when it was passed in 1922 it was passed for one year only. The noble Lord has referred to it as a permanent law. I do not know how it became a permanent law. It was originally passed for one year, and therefore is presumably renewed from year to year in the same way as the Army Act. For all I know, although I think this unlikely, it never did become permanent and therefore it has probably lapsed in the meantime; but this may be rather wishful thinking. But how did it become permanent? At least it should go back to being temporary, as it was when it was first passed.
As for Clause 3(2), this is really coloured by what I have said about the whole Bill. These matters stem from the Special Powers Act. I do not think that as the noble Lord has worded this
544
clause it will altogether have the effect he desires. I think it will stir up a perfect maelstrom of legislation involving other Statutes, because this subsection says that
"all legislation in respect of the following matters shall cease to have effect …".
I have not gone into all this, but I cannot help suspecting that there is legislation of various kinds here and there forbidding some of these things, and that legislation will be repealed along with the rest. So we shall end up with no law whatever saying that these things either shall or shall not be done. I think it would be almost impossible to pass this clause, although in principle I agree with what the noble Lord sets out to achieve. But I do not think, any more than does the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that it would be wise to pass a Bill of this kind at this time, and I hope it will not be given a Second Reading.
My Lords, I have nothing to add except, in the belief that repetition is sometimes salutary and desirable, that we should have intense admiration and gratitude for those Ministers who have worked to the end—well, not to the end but to this stage of peace which we have now reached: Mr. Whitelaw and my noble friend Lord Windlesham, and the soldiers and everybody else concerned. What I feel and suspect that my noble friend Lord Windlesham and his colleagues feel inclined to do now is to hold their breath and play their cards very close to their chest. My Lords, I think they should be allowed to do it in silence, without interference from this Bill or any other means.
1.38 p.m.
LORD MONSON: My Lords, if during the past fifty-one years the relative number of policemen murdered in Northern Ireland had been no greater than the United Kingdom average; if the number of civilians killed in street rioting or blown to pieces while carrying out their normal jobs had been no greater than the United Kingdom average; if the number of assassinations and attempted assassinations of politicians, the amount of arson and sabotage to property and the number of armed incursions from neighbouring countries had been no greater than the United Kingdom average,

545
then indeed there would be merit in equating the
"civil rights of persons resident in Northern Ireland with those of persons resident in the remainder of the United Kingdom";
although I am not sure that this Bill is the best method of going about it. But, translated into English terms, the equivalent of over 20,000 people have been killed in the last fifty-one years, 11,000 of these during the past three years. Can anyone suppose that, in such circumstances, there would not be on the Statute Book here stringent, even draconian, emergency legislation to deal with this situation?
For these reasons of security I suggest a great deal of Clause 3 is unacceptable; and much of the rest of Clause 3 superfluous, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who replied to a similar Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, a year ago, pointed out at the time. On a day when the most fulsome, even, I have to say, sickening tributes are being lavished upon the Provisional I.R.A.—indeed, I saw the term "generous" quoted at least half a dozen times in my paper this morning—we should remind ourselves of the fundamental reason for this continuing state of cold war, periodically interspersed as it has been with ferocious outbursts of hot war.
In 1921, those in favour of Home Rule—by no means all of them Republicans as such—formed 74 per cent. of the population of all Ireland, yet under the Settlement they obtained jurisdiction over 83 per cent. of the island's land area. I would estimate that out-and-out Republicans now form no more than 70 per cent. of the population of all Ireland. But from these, a small but fanatical element, anti-British—or anti-Saxon, as they would perhaps put it—and anti-Monarchical, has consistently attempted to deny the right of self-determination to that substantial minority of the population, who include both Protestants and Roman Catholics and who form perhaps 30 per cent. of the island's population, who want to retain their existing nationality and way of life within the small area (17 per cent. of the whole) that remains part of the United Kingdom. It is from this primary intolerance that the counter-intolerance cited by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, stems.
546
There are many parallels between the activities and propaganda of the I.R.A. and their apologists, on the one hand, and those of the militant Sudeten Germans and their apologists in the 1930s, on the other. But even the Nazis—at least up until 1938—demanded only the incorporation into Germany of those Czech districts with a German-speaking majority of 50 per cent. or above, plus certain strategic salients. The I.R.A. do not merely seek the incorporation into an Irish-speaking Republic of such Republican-sympathising areas and towns as the Bogside and Creggan, Strabane, Crossmaglen and Newry, for which a certain case might be made, but they demand also the capitulation of such overwhelmingly loyalist towns as Portadown, Lisburn, Newtonards, Larne, Carrickfergus, Ballymena and Coleraine—most of them Scottish rather than Irish in character—and indeed Belfast itself, with its 72·4 per cent. Protestant majority.
These I.R.A. objectives are of course common knowledge, but what makes them particularly relevant when considering the superficially innocuous-seeming provision in Clause 2, for instance, are the prophetic words of the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, when your Lordships debated a similar Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, on June 15 of last year. Perhaps I may quote what he said:
"Direct rule is something that is ardently desired by one group of persons, the Irish Republican Army, and nobody else on earth. Nobody here wants it. Nobody in Northern Ireland wants it but the hard core of unscrupulous murdering gunmen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT; 51/6/71, col. 559.]
Well, my Lords, the "unscrupulous murdering gunmen" have got their way over direct rule; they now have quasi-political prisoner status for their prisoners, some of whom have been convicted of atrocious crimes; and if we are not careful they look like getting their way over other matters as well. The passing into law of Clause 2(2), whether noble Lords realise it or not, would fulfil another of the I.R.A.s long-term objectives, and I suggest that this would really be the last straw so far as the loyal and law-abiding majority is concerned.
In view of the time, I will not deal with Clause 1, and I will deal only with

547
one aspect of Clause 3: namely, subsection (2)(b), concerning the displaying of flags. There are two points which I should like to make in this connection. First, I doubt whether a country whose 1937 Constitution claimed jurisdiction over part of the United Kingdom against the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants of that territory can truthfully be said to be in friendly relations with Her Majesty. The second point is this: Miss Honor Tracy, an author who knows Ireland well and has no illusions about it, wrote in the Daily Telegraph a few months ago that anyone who dared to display a Union Jack in the South of Ireland must have either masochistic or suicidal tendencies. Be that as it may, my Lords, I will conclude by saying this. I can fully appreciate the sincere intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in introducing this Bill to-day, but I believe it to be entirely misconceived, certainly in present circumstances. I hope that your Lordships will decline to give it a Second Reading.
1.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, there is a good rule (not always observed) in this House that one does not take part in a debate when one arrives in the middle of it, and I shall honour that rule. Therefore I will not attempt to comment on the remarks made by the noble Lord who has just spoken, apart from saying that I feel very sorry for him. He is consumed by bitterness—understandable bitterness, perhaps, but I just hope and pray that as time passes he will feel that the line he is taking to-day is not the one that he will wish to adopt on a later occasion.
I have two objects in rising to speak, both equally sincere. On the one hand I want to pay my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and his colleagues for what they have been doing. I do not think that in my lifetime I have ever been so filled with admiration for any group of Ministers of any Party. They do not happen to belong to my Party—or at any rate I have not belonged to their Party for nearly 40 years. I have never felt so full of admiration for any particular group of Ministers as I do for the group which the noble Lord represents to-day. I pay my tribute to them,
548
and also to many others—most of them in various parts of Ireland, but some of them here—who have been labouring in this same cause. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in saying that we are not in any way out of the wood yet; we are at a crucial moment and we must join in prayer. Therefore in one sense the less we say to-day the better. At the same time, I cannot help giving my full support to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in what he is trying to do. He will be the best judge, after the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has replied, as to whether he wishes to push this Bill forward. For my part I leave myself in his hands. I know that he is not likely to take any step lightly, such as going to a Division, unless he feels that it is entirely justified.
1.47 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I propose to accept the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and to be brief. It is possible to follow that advice more easily because, as the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, said my noble friend advanced his case with a studied and persuasive moderation. I too, however, with my noble friend Lord Longford, should like to join in the tribute which has been paid to the remarkable and, I certainly agree with my noble friend, quite exceptional efforts, in my political experience and knowledge, of Mr. Whitelaw and his colleagues.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Brockway about the importance of the matter with which he deals in this Bill. In my view it is quite inconceivable that there can be anything approaching a stable or contented community in the North of Ireland while the Special Powers Act is in operation. Nor can there be true peace until the sort of discrimination upon which he touched is ended. We must all agree that all citizens of the United Kingdom must have an equal and a common system of civil rights. In my view, also, the denial of these rights, far from achieving a stable society, as Mr. Faulkner and others would seek to argue, has brought us to a point where law and order were ultimately unenforceable. Up to that point I am entirely in agreement with my noble friend, Lord Brockway. I must say however that, evil and bad as the Special Powers Act is, nothing

549
in that Act is quite so evil as the behaviour of some people in Northern Ireland in recent months.
My Lords, it is I believe, even now, necessary to say that it is impossible to overlook the level of obscenity reached by those who have controlled operations of the Republican Movement in recent months. I hope that nothing my noble friends say, nothing that anybody says, will enable a body of mythology to develop in Ireland which can talk about "Bloody Sunday" and overlook the fact that there were those who endeavoured to maintain law and order in parts of that community by sentencing people to have their kneecaps shot off, when one member of the Republican Movement could take someone and shoot him in a corner and allow him to bleed to death. That kind of thing has happened, and although I agree with those who say that we should not do anything to disturb the development of promising events, nevertheless, and in an endeavour to balance the records, I feel that that must he said.
As for the rest, I simply say that the important matters which my noble friend has spoken of and incorporated in his Bill are probably not suitable for dealing with in a Private Member's Bill. That was the view which was expressed in the very favourable speech—favourable to my noble friend—of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I gathered that what the noble Earl himself feels—and what, on balance, perhaps my noble friend Lord Brockway himself would recognise—is that the advances that he wants to make ought to be in legislation advanced by Her Majesty's Government themselves. I hope that it will be possible for the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to give such assurances as will make possible the withdrawal of the Bill by my noble friend, and I believe that he would feel that assurances coming from that quarter, in view of their recent record, would be acceptable.
1.53 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, on two counts. I understand, first, that he readily agreed to a suggestion by my noble friend the acting
550
Leader of the House that his Bill should be debated to-day rather than yesterday. It was originally on the Order Paper for yesterday, but because of the very heavy pressure of public business I understand that the noble Lord agreed to the debate being held to-day, on a Friday. Secondly, I should like to say how much I appreciate the very generous tribute that he paid to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and also to thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and others who have spoken in the same way. So far as I am concerned, I regard myself as exceptionally privileged to be working for Mr. Whitelaw in his inspiring efforts—and I use the word "inspiring" deliberately—to meet and to surmount one of the greatest political challenges of our day.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, explained in his very moderate speech in moving this Bill, the measure before your Lordships represents a desire to guarantee to all citizens in Northern Ireland equal rights and freedom from arbitrary action by the State. There are still a number of reservations on the technical drafting of the Bill, but those of your Lordships who have looked up the debate on a somewhat similar Bill, introduced about 12 months ago by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, may be aware of some of the objections which were then raised by my noble friend the Earl of Cork and Orrery. There is therefore no need for me to rehearse them again.
I should say that, while I have listened with very close attention to what has been said in this excellent debate, I have a feeling that the provisions of the Bill itself, as opposed to the quality of the debate and the speeches that have been made, are still modelled quite closely on previous Private Members' Bills introduced over the last few years by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and do not really take into account the present situation in Northern Ireland. The divisions of society in Northern Ireland and the suspicions and ill feelings which have arisen from them have a long history and have produced much sadness. Previous Governments in Northern Ireland, and we must give them credit for it, have made attempts to deal by Statute with some of the symptoms of

551
social disorder. Two such Acts of Parliament of Northern Ireland were the Commissioner for Complaints Act and the Prevention of Incitement to Hatred Act. And, of course, those two Statutes remain in force.
One of the matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, gave considerable emphasis in his speech and asked me for an assurance on, is the question of oaths. This controversy has recurred in the history of Northern Ireland over the last fifty years and I can understand the object of the provision contained in Clause 2(2) of the Bill. What I can say is that in Northern Ireland legislation which is now coming before this House, noble Lords will find no provisions regarding oaths of allegiance. This applies, for example, to the Education and Libraries Bill which is now available as a draft Order in Council. Nor do released internees any longer have to make any form of declaration. The imposition of oaths can be criticised on two grounds: that they may be repugnant to people's consciences, and that, whether or not this is so, they are ineffective. So there are both moral and political objections. Nevertheless, the problem is a difficult one and while a Private Member's Bill is not the right occasion for legislating in this field, I can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the significance of this issue.
What I think is most relevant at the present time is the whole strategy of the Government, the strategy that has been pursued since the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act was passed by your Lordships and in another place just before Easter. If these policies for the restoration of peace and for the economic and social reconstruction of a Province that has been ravaged by three years of civil strife and conflict are successful, then conditions will be created in which every citizen can enjoy the same rights and accept the same obligations as apply throughout the United Kingdom.
I must acknowledge that our policy has inevitably had to include the continuation of the Special Powers Act. This would be repealed by Clause 3(1) of the Bill before us to-day and this, my Lords, is just not realistic. We need not embrace the
552
Special Powers legislation with open arms, but the existence and operation of the Special Powers Act has been an absolute necessity. If the Special Powers Act still endures it is because the people of Northern Ireland have in recent years been subject to a campaign of violence unequalled for decades. It is regrettable but necessary that in such circumstances exceptional measures have been resorted to by Government in order that the civil life of the community can be preserved. But, having said that, I should add that Her Majesty's Government have already recognised that the Special Powers Act, born as it was out of events half a century ago, is in need of review. The Government have indeed announced such a review which is currently in progress. That being the case, your Lordships may agree that the outright appeal of this Act in a Private Member's Bill is not practicable at the present time. But when the Government have completed their review of the Special Powers Act we shall of course be reporting our conclusions to Parliament and it will then be possible to have a fuller discussion on the matter.
Another main provision in the Bill is Clause 1 which seeks to extend the Race Relations Act 1968 to Northern Ireland and to provide that the Act shall prohibit discrimination not only on grounds of race but also on grounds of religious belief. The close involvement of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in the genesis of the Race Relations Act is well known. I paid tribute to it in the debates we had last year, but that does not prevent me from doing the same again to-day. However, I did not then, and I do not now, agree with the intention to extend the Act to Northern Ireland in the general way the Bill proposes.
Since I have had a responsibility for home affairs in Northern Ireland I have not found that discrimination on grounds of race is a significant problem there, and it therefore seems wrong to me to increase Statute Law unnecessarily by prohibiting something which does not cause concern. However, I of course accept that the noble Lord's main objective in this context is to extend the machinery of the Race Relations Board to deal with allegations of discrimination in Northern Ireland on grounds of religious belief. Certainly there have been and continue to

553
be allegations and counter-allegations of such discrimination in Northern Ireland. It is part and parcel of a deeply divided community which my colleagues and I, as well as many others to whom tribute has rightly been paid in this debate, are doing all we can to bring together. These divisions are social, economic and traditional. The religious distinctions are a label and a description as much as a real cause of separation. Thus, policies which are designed to improve this situation must take into account the fundamental causes of the divide.
While the Government's paramount concern has been to bring violence in Northern Ireland to an end, we have been taking many other measures in an attempt to reach a solution to the problems which have troubled the Province for so long. We have done everything we possibly can, and with all our heart, to make plain that violence cannot contribute to any solution worth the name. While we must not expect too much and while great difficulties lie ahead of us still, we can regard the statement made yesterday by the Republican Movement as a welcome indication that the futility of public disorder is becoming apparent to all.
We are also concerned to encourage the growth of a healthy social and political life in Northern Ireland in which everyone can share, both by increased economic investment in the Province and by such measures concerning political institutions as the recent decision by the Secretary of State that the forthcoming local authority elections in Northern Ireland will be held under a system of proportional representation. In this context I should perhaps acknowledge the consideration of the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, in withdrawing his Proportional Representation Bill, which I understand it is his intention to do. As noble Lords will remember, this was originally a part of the earlier Bill of the noble Lord Lord Brockway, and was also due to be debated with the measure before us.
Most of your Lordships have accepted and recognised in this short debate that real political advances have been achieved in the last three months, and it is with this in mind that my right honourable friend felt able to announce the conversations which he hopes to initiate shortly with a view to arranging a conference of
554
the people of Northern Ireland. The need now is for everyone who takes part to show understanding and tolerance of others, difficult though this may be. The people of Northern Ireland have suffered very greatly in recent months, and the Government much appreciate the restraint shown by those in the Northern Ireland community who have seen the death of their friends and relatives, the injuries that have been caused and damage to their property. We hear too little about these people; but much depends on them if the conference is to be a further step towards an enduring solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. What conclusions such a conference might reach we cannot tell, but I would not exclude the possibility that some form of guarantee of civil rights might form part of a final settlement.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has again given us an opportunity to debate the all-important subject of civil rights. Even in a situation like that in Northern Ireland over the last three years, no one in any position of responsibility, certainly no one in Government, can afford to overlook the basic human rights of each individual. Thus, any occasion like this, even though we may not always be in agreement in every respect, is to be welcomed. Having said that, and in the light of the assurances I have given, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, may feel able to consider withdrawing his Bill. As he rightly said in his opening remarks, hope in Northern Ireland is balanced on a pinpoint. None of us in this House will want to do anything to unbalance it.
2.8 p.m.
Loan BROCKWAY: My Lords, I wish first to express appreciation to those who have taken part in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, agreed with the principles of the Bill but expressed doubt about its timing. I was glad to hear the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, endorse criticisms of the Special Powers Act; and the other points the noble Earl raised could be dealt with in Committee if the Bill should reach that stage. I appreciate how the noble Lord, Lord Monson, feels. He remarked that while the numbers of those who had suffered in Northern Ireland might seem comparatively small, in proportion to the population of the country

555
they were very large indeed. Personally, I did not regard his speech as bitter and I fully understood the intensity and pressure from which he spoke. To the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I express my appreciation, as ever, on these issues.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for the support he gave to the broad principles of the Bill. I hope he will not think that anything I said this afternoon, or have ever said, is in any way an endorsement of the abominable methods adopted by the I.R.A. Certainly I have never intended that. When the noble Lord suggested that a Bill of this character should be introduced by Government rather than by a private Member, I entirely agreed with him, but let me tell noble Lords what my history in politics has taught me. For nine years I tried to get on to the Statute Book a Private Member's Bill on race relations. It was rejected time and again, but as a result of my efforts it was ultimately adopted. Last year I introduced a Bill which included the principle of proportional representation. Within a year it was adopted by the Government. I prophesy that within one year the proposals in this Bill for the repeal of the Special Powers Act, the recognition of civil liberties and the abolition of oaths which are contrary to conscience will be adopted. I therefore could not possibly accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that one should not in a Private Member's Bill pioneer issues which later become law.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, nothing I said suggested that the noble Lord ought not to. What I suggested was that in view of the record of the noble Lords opposite, assurances from them ought to be acceptable.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, the noble Lord said that separately and afterwards.
Now may I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. Quite honestly the assurances which he has given have not gone as far as I had hoped they would, yet I appreciate that they are quite considerable. First, I welcome his statement that the Government recognise that the Special Powers Act is in need of review and that when that review has taken place the decisions will be reported to
556
Parliament. I welcome that statement, even if he feels that certain of its provisions are immediately necessary. I did not doubt that certain provisions are immediately necessary. I agree that when a state of national emergency is declared certain provisions may be necessary. My objection was to the fact that this is a continuing current law, the law of the land in all circumstances. I hope that when Her Majesty's Government do make the review they will bear that in mind.
I appreciate what the noble Lord said about the imposition of the oath. I welcome the fact that Mr. Whitelaw is not now applying it to those released from internment. I welcome the fact that under the new Order in Council it will be extended to education and other spheres, and I also welcome the noble Lord's statement that Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the significance of this issue. I hope, therefore, that he will proceed from that. I was a little disappointed in his disinclination to accept the extension of the Race Relations Act to deal with religious discrimination in Northern Ireland. Of course I accept the view, which was also expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, that it is not possible to end discrimination by law; it must be a matter of education and experience over a long period. But law does help, as has already been shown in connection with the Race Relations Act. I appreciate also what the Minister said, that the discussions, which we hope will soon take place, in Northern Ireland may include a guarantee of civil rights.
My Lords, I want to say, quite frankly, that the assurances that have been given do not go as far as I should have liked. I am tremendously encouraged by the fact that from every side of the House, to-day, in contrast to a year ago, there has been recognition of the wickedness of the Special Powers Act and of the fact that it is an outrage that it should be part of any law of the United Kingdom. I have two thoughts in my mind at this moment. In this critical situation one would not want to do anything which would even give an excuse for saying that one's action was exacerbating the situation. I have this second thought in my mind. We have had certain assurances from the Minister, and even though they have not gone far enough, they will

557
give us an opportunity to raise this matter again if our hopes regarding the Administration are not fulfilled. I stand by the principles of this Bill, and if necessary will return to this matter. But because I do not want to do anything which could be regarded by anyone as making the present crisis in Northern Ireland less easy of solution, and because I am a little satisfied with some of the assurances the noble Lord has given, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Second Reading and the Bill.
Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

NORTHERN IRELAND PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION BILL
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, although the Northern Ireland Proportional Representation Bill is not on the Order Paper to-day, I believe I am entitled to say a word on it: I shall be very brief. After the Statement by Mr. Whitelaw, which was repeated in this House, about the adoption of proportional representation in the forthcoming autumn local government elections, I said that I would consider withdrawing this Bill. I hope that the experiment in the local government elections will be extended to further elections as and when they come in Northern Ireland. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Northern Ireland Proportional Representation Bill.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, I cannot put that Question to the House. The Bill is not on the Order Paper.

STROMNESS (VEHICLE FERRY TERMINAL) PIER ETC. ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

EXPORTED ANIMALS (COMPENSA- TION) NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1972
2.15 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to move, That the Draft Exported Animals (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on June 5 be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first of the two Orders standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Exported Animals (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1952 provides for compensation in respect of losses sustained in exporting animals from Northern Ireland to Great Britain and which, as a result of an outbreak or suspected outbreak of foot and mouth disease, are slaughtered or detained by reason of the requirements of the authorities in Great Britain.
The purpose of the Order is to extend the right to compensation to cases arising from losses at sea and also to limit the compensation payable in respect of any one animal to £200. The existing legislation had no limit as to the amount of compensation payable. The compensation fund is self-supporting and is financed through levies paid by livestock shippers. A Bill to give effect to the provisions now contained in the Order had passed through all its stages in the House of Commons at Stormont when the Northern Ireland Parliament was prorogued.
Apart from the proposal to limit the compensation per animal to a maximum of £200 per head, the other major reason for new provisions on compensation is derived from loss of cattle at sea. In the case of the motor vessel "Hereford Express" which sank on October 29, 1970, 250 cattle were lost. The owners of the cattle, having paid into the compensation fund the levy required by law, and which many no doubt supposed would cover them against exporters' risks, found claims for compensation to be outside the scope of that fund as the powers of the existing Act did not cover such a contingency. The trustees of the compensation fund, having considered this case and having consulted with all the interested parties, favoured the extension of the fund to cover maritime risks, including the retrospective compensation involved in indemnifying the owners of

559
the cattle lost on the "Hereford Express".
The previous Northern Ireland Government thought it right to act upon the judgment of the trustees, particularly as public money was not involved, and we have not dissented from continuing with this measure. It is not, I should point out, unusual for trustees to be asked, and to agree, to recommend the variation of the terms of a trust to meet changing or special conditions. I would emphasise that this Order changes the law governing the operations of a trust, and does not involve any expenditure from public funds. Furthermore, it helps exporters and thereby the agricultural industry in Northern Ireland. This is something which I am sure we would all wish to encourage. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Exported Animals (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on June 5, be approved.—(Lord Windlesham.)
2.21 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the Order. He has already answered one of the questions which I wanted to put to him about the retrospective part of this legislation. I take it that this is the only case which this retrospection will cover. But may I ask a question about the change in paragraph 3 on page 1, where the proposal is to insert after subsection (2)(d) of Section 10 of the Act a new paragraph (e) stating:
" the value of my animal slaughtered after 1st August 1972 shall be taken not to exceed £200".
That seems perfectly explicit, until one turns the page and sees that,
"(3) The Ministry may by order made after consultation with the Trustees substitute for the sum referred to in subsection (2)(e) such sum as may be specified in the order in relation to any animal slaughtered after such date as may be specified in the order."
With due respect to the Minister, I do not think that gives a picture of clarity, to put it no higher, and I should like to know what it means. Does it mean that £200 is being laid down in paragraph (e), with the proviso that it can be altered at a later date with the approval of the Trustees? I realise that
560
no Government expenditure is involved and that this scheme will be paid for by levies on those who participate, but may I have an answer to this point about the value of the animals?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has in fact asked me two questions. The first was whether the "Hereford Express" loss is the only one known. So far as I know, this is the only loss due to what is described in the Order as a maritime peril, and it is that particular loss which has caused this change to be brought forward. As regards the figure of £200, I understand that the figure has been set at that level so as to exclude particularly valuable animals. An animal of considerable value which is being exported for breeding purposes, for example, may be worth very much more than £200, and it is the view of the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland that it is the responsibility of the exporter to insure such animals separately. He should cover this risk by special insurance and not out of this common fund. The figure has been set at £200 pragmatically, and I imagine that the reason why it could be altered in the future is to take account, alas! of any possible further inflation, and to allow the figure to be raised to what would be regarded as an acceptable one.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I take this a little further? I understand that if the value of an animal is in excess of £200, then the owner should take the precaution of insuring it. But that does not cover the words:
"The Ministry may by order made after consultation with the Trustees substitute for the sum referred to in subsection (2)(e) such sum as may be specified in the order in relation to any animal slaughtered after such date as may be specified in the order."
That might mean that they can either increase or decrease the figure. Having laid down the sum of £200, why is this further paragraph (3) required, stating that it can be varied?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am entitled to speak a third time, but perhaps I may have the leave of the House, should I need it, just in order to deal with this final point. So that we remain on solid procedural ground, I am the mover of the Motion and I think I am entitled to

561
speak at the beginning and then to reply to any points raised. I doubt whether I am really entitled to engage in a Committee-style discussion, but perhaps I may make one final comment on what the noble Lord has said. I think that his reading is correct, and the words "substitute for the sum" mean that a higher or lower figure could be substituted; but one would imagine that this would need to be higher if the scheme continued for some time. It was set up in 1952 and this is the first time it has been altered for 20 years. If at some later date most of the normally exported cattle are by then worth in excess of £200, it will be within the powers of this Order for that figure to be raised to £300, or whatever figure is necessary, while still excluding the particularly valuable animal.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY (DEFEC- TIVE EQUIPMENT AND COMPUL- SORY INSURANCE) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER, 1972
2.26 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to move, That the Draft Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment and Compulsory Insurance) (Northern Ireland) Order, 1972, laid before the House on June 5, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the second Order standing in my name on the Order Paper. The purpose of this Order is strictly limited. It is simply to introduce in Northern Ireland the arrangements covering defective equipment and compulsory insurance which exist in Great Britain as a consequence of the passing of two Private Members' Bills at Westminster in 1969. In scope and impact these arrangements will be identical with those already in operation in the rest of Great Britain. That is the principle upon which the Order has been constructed.
The Order follows closely a Bill introduced in the Northern Ireland Senate, which had passed its Committee stage without amendment, before the Northern Ireland Parliament was prorogued. It was well received by the Senate and it has been supported by the representative employer and trade union interests which were consulted while the Bill was in preparation. The Order will provide pro-
562
tection for Northern Ireland workers on the same basis as that available to workers in Great Britain under the Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 and the Employer's Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969—the two Private Members' measures to which I referred a moment ago.
This Order therefore has a dual purpose. First of all, it will make Northern Ireland employers responsible to their employees for injury caused by defective equipment, even though the defect is attributable to the fault of a third party—for example, the manufacturer or supplier. In future, the employer will have to pay the compensation and may then in turn take action to recover from the third party. This is a change from the existing position where the employee's right of recourse in respect of a latent defect has normally lain against the third party. This Order will transfer primary responsibility to the actual employer of the person injured.
The other major change that will be effected under this Order is that employers will be required to maintain insurance against liability for 'injury or disease sustained by employees arising out of and in the course of their employment. When employees make a claim against an employer for damages at Common Law or breach of statutory duty they will thus be assured that their claim can be met and that they will not find themselves proceeding against men of straw and consequently, unable to secure their full legal rights. In practice, most employers, I understand, are already covered for this kind of risk, but the Order will make it compulsory. It will have the effect of ensuring that employers are never found without sufficient means to meet the claims against them. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment and Compulsory Insurance) (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on June 5, be approved.—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for explaining this Order? There was one point that occurred to me, but I think that probably the answer to my question is contained in Article 4, which I intended to query. I

563
wanted to ask whether the third party referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b) of Article 4 could include an individual who was acting out of malice—for instance, one of the individuals in Northern Ireland who sets out to damage equipment or property. If a person was deliberately making a piece of equipment dangerous, would he be a third party in that sense, or are the provisions of paragraph (3) of Article 4 worded in order to exclude that kind of deliberate fault?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, by those mysterious processes about which we know nothing in this House, I am informed that the answer to the noble Lord's question is, "Yes".
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONTROL OF ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
2.31 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I want to make one or two very short comments.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would like to move the Amendment and then make his comments on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass?
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I would be happy to do that, though my advice was to put it the other way round. Anyhow, I shall be happy to do that if it meets with the approval of your Lordships. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Janner.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 13 [Accounts]:
LORD JANNER LORD JANNER moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 39, leave out ("and Corporate").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. It is a very simple Amendment made in order to put right
564
an error in the name of the party concerned. Words were inserted which do not really correspond with the present position. The words "and Corporate" are no longer used by that Society. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass, and perhaps at this stage I might say that I am grateful to the Government for the assistance that they have given so far. I am looking forward with considerable pleasure to having their support at a later stage, either on this Bill or on a subsequent occasion when perhaps there is introduced a Bill in a form which may be drafted to their satisfaction. I should like to say that this is an extremely important matter, and has the support of, I think, nearly all the people presently engaged in the business as well as of the public. The protection of the animals concerned, the personnel who look after the animals and the preservation of certain species of animals by means of the terms which are contained in this Bill are matters of extreme importance. I am sorry that there may not perhaps be time in this Session to get the measure through, in which event I shall seek an early opportunity to bring it forward at another stage. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Janner.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think it is realistic of the noble Lord, Lord Janner, to suppose that there may be problems in getting this Bill on to the Statute Book this Session. I was proposing to write to him and to his noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge and my noble friend Lord Cranbrook asking whether they would be good enough to have some further discussions with us about this at the Home Office. There are perhaps still some things that need to be sorted out even apart from the drafting. I am glad to hear the noble Lord say that the measure has the support of virtually everybody involved in the industry; but, there again. I believe that there is room for exploration and for confirmation of what he says. I am not throwing any doubt upon the veracity of his information, but I think there may still be a few wrinkles

565
to iron out in this particular respect. I am therefore very happy to think that the Bill should pass to-day, but I hope that we may have an opportunity before long to discuss with the noble Lord and others involved in this matter some matters of principle, perhaps, and also some nuts and bolts, to see whether we cannot get the thing really straight so that the noble Lord's ambition to have it on the Statute Book can before long be fulfilled.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, if I may be permitted to speak again—I do not quite know whether that is against the Rules of your Lordships' House—I should like to thank the noble Viscount for the manner in which he has spoken. If there are any differences, I think they can be very easily ironed out. I shall certainly take advantage of the kind offer that he has made, and I am sure the other sponsors of the Bill will be happy to do the same.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.