Lords Sitting of 22 November 1973

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester

NORTHERN IRELAND CHILDREN'S OPINION POLL
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: 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 approved the questions in the children's opinion poll conducted last July by the Community Relations Committee of Northern Ireland.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (LORD BELSTEAD): No, my Lords. The Northern Ireland Community Relations Commission is an independent statutory body. It did not consult the Ministry of Community Relations about the opinion poll.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that this particular opinion poll is inducive to stirring up trouble between the races, of which there is enough already? Secondly, while I concede that the Northern Ireland Community Relations Board have done much to contribute to good feelings in that country, will he make sure that questions of a similar sort are not asked again?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the questions which are understandably troubling my noble friend were some of a whole series, and I am sure he would accept that to take only the questions which are troubling him, in isolation, is perhaps not to give the whole picture of the undertaking, which was to try to find out from the point of view of the Community Relations Commission how these holidays away from Northern Ireland affected young people. On my noble friend's second question, I should like to
1190
say that his concern in this matter has already been drawn to the attention of the Community Relations Committee. I propose also in due course to reiterate this by drawing the attention of the Commission to the OFFICIAL REPORT Of these proceedings.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, while I again thank my noble friend for that helpful reply, can he possibly arrange for some form of publication of the other questions to redress the balance that he says has been put out by my concern on this matter?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I should like to make it clear that an undertaking was given that the answers would be treated in complete confidence. The questionnaire included a long list of questions of a general nature; and the leaders of the holidays received a form of pretty general questionnaire about how they saw the holidays unfolding. I will certainly undertake to write to my noble friend to try to amplify this information somewhat, but I do not think I can undertake that the questions will actually be published.

BOXING IN SCHOOLS
3.8 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: 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 how they propose to follow up the pamphlet issued by the Ministry of Education urging schools to ban boxing owing to the danger of brain damage following blows to the head.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, the pamphlet does not urge schools to ban boxing. It was published only a month ago and my right honourable friend and I do not intend to issue further formal advice on boxing at present.
BARONESS SUM MER SKILL: My Lords, may I say that I am surprised at the Minister's Answer. I have the pamphlet here. Is it not a fact that the

1191
pamphlet says that schools should not allow boys to participate in boxing, but if a boy desires to do so the approval of the parents must be sought; and in seeking that approval the parents must be told of the brain damage which the Royal College of Physicians say may follow blows to the head?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the pamphlet certainly gives guidance on the conditions under which boxing should be conducted in schools; namely, not unless the boys want to take part; not without the parents' approval; not without warning of the risks; only under competent supervision; and only if the competitors are carefully matched.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as that is very comprehensive guidance, how can the noble Lord say that the pamphlet does not say that boxing should take place in schools as usual? It specifically says here that boys should not participate in boxing. It mentions the chronic brain damage which the Royal College of Physicians have pointed out, and it says that no boy should take part without the approval of the parents. How can the noble Lord treat this matter so lightly? Was he a boxer himself?
LORD SANDFORD: Not since my prep. school days, my Lords. But the conditions are as I have stated, and my right honourable friend and I think that that is going far enough at the present time.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that before he came to this House—and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will remember this clearly—I tried to ban boxing by introducing a Bill? The House was very sympathetic, but the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack suggested that the Royal College of Physicians should examine the whole matter. The Royal College of Physicians have sat for three years, and they have come down clearly on my side. They having come down on my side, the Government are digging their toes in and, like little boys, are saying: "Over my dead body"
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I am not quite sure why this subject always gives rise to so much humour, because there
1192
is no doubt whatever from the report of the Royal College of Physicians, and from what we knew before, that very serious brain damage can occur. I beg your Lordships' pardon: I should have put that in the form of a question.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, it is true that the Royal College of Physicians published in 1969 a report which clearly shows that there is some risk in boxing, though they were chiefly concerned with professional boxing. It is because of this risk that, even in regard to boxing between schoolboys, this advice has been given.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, has the noble Lord read this report by the Royal College of Physicians? Is he aware that the doctors have said that there will be chronic brain damage as a result of repeated blows to the head? Therefore is he not prepared to take the advice given in the pamphlet by the Government; namely, that boys should no longer be allowed to participate in boxing in schools unless the parents approve, and before giving their approval they must be told what the Royal College of Physicians have said about chronic brain damage? Would the noble Lord give me a more specific answer and assure me that the Government are taking this matter seriously, as my noble colleague suggested they should?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think I have assured the noble Baroness already that the Government have taken note of this report, and this advice is based upon it.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government look upon boxing as a harmless pastime, in the same sort of way as rugby football is regarded? After all, anyone may take part in that sport. Would my noble friend not agree that, just as 100 or 150 years ago we abolished duelling, because we then decided that it was a harmful pastime, though at one time it had been regarded as harmless, the time has now come when we should realise (though we have not realised it in the past) that boxing is not a harmless pastime and that perhaps something should be done?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I do not think so. As I have said, it is recognised that there is an element of risk, and that is why guidance has been given setting out very clear terms and conditions under which boxing should take place, if it takes place at all. But I agree with my noble friend that there are a whole lot of other activities—for example, mountaineering, canoeing, sailing and so on—which are very much in favour at the moment, while boxing is waning somewhat in favour.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, without imposing an actual ban, could not the Government issue a directive that would seek to discourage boxing in schools?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords. My right honourable friend has no powers of direction in this field. She can give, and has given, guidance.
LORD SOMERS: But, my Lords, is it not possible also to suffer brain damage from being kicked on the head in rugger, or through having a cricket ball strike one on the head? Would not the noble Lord think that his right honourable friend might consider the banning of all sports, with the possible exception of tiddly-winks?
LORD HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord telling this House that his right honourable friend has no powers whatever to issue directives as to the nature of sporting activities in schools, or as to the conditions under which they are played, or concerning the amount of protection that is provided, or whether a gymnasium should be constructed in such a way as not to give rise to risk of serious accidents? While I agree with every word said by the noble Baroness, would the Government look into boxing, taking into consideration that all the recent exhibitions of adult boxing have involved no danger to the combatants but only a serious danger of thrombosis to the spectators?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, would not my noble friend think it would be a good idea to apply the blows to young boys' bottoms, where there are no brains?
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it is far better to have controlled boxing? Since young boys often fight at school, would it not be better to have them boxing in controlled conditions, wearing heavy gloves?
LORD SANDFORD: That may be so, my Lords, provided that a boxing competition does not automatically stop other forms of activity.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government accept that there is a very big difference between a sport carrying risk and danger with it, such as sailing, and canoeing and Rugby football, and a sport the object of which is to do damage to somebody's head?
LORD SANDFORD: No. my Lords, I would not agree with that.

INSURANCE OF FOREIGN LORRIES
3.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: 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 what the insurance arrangements are in this country for foreign lorries which are too big or too heavy by English law.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, foreign lorries entering the United Kingdom are required to comply with our law on size and weight. Similarly, our law on compulsory motor insurance applies to all motor vehicles including lorries, whatever their country of origin, their size or weight.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but I should like to ask whether he is aware that I must have been wrongly informed, since I was informed that certain heavy vehicles entering this country were not covered for third party insurance. I must have been misinformed.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, says that the laws of this country

1195
apply to foreign lorries exactly as they do to vehicles of the United Kingdom, does he mean also that restrictions on fuel are being applied to foreign lorries? May I further ask what advice has been given to the oil companies about supplying them?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will put that down as a Question, I will answer it another time.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, are the Government aware that under present arrangements there is an effective bar on the entry into this country of foreign lorries of a weight in excess of that permitted in this country in size and weight? I read some time ago that the arrangements at the ports were adequate for dealing with them, and I believe we passed special legislation for dealing with the matter. Is the position reasonably satisfactory now?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the Question is really concerned with insurance, but I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that we are recruiting extra staff at the ports. One or two overweight lorries have been slipping in, but we are stopping that, so far as we are able, and we are now getting very much better results than we have done in the past.

EGG STANDARDS AND POULTRY FEEDS
3.20 p.m.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: 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 Government what action they intend to take over the widespread sale of sub-standard eggs and the malnutrition of poultry which is the cause of these eggs being produced.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, there is no evidence that sub-standard eggs are on widespread sale in this country, nor that poultry here are suffering from malnutrition.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend
1196
for what I must say was an extraordinarily surprising reply—it leaves me almost speechless—may I ask whether he would agree that if he were shut up in a cage and carried into your Lordships' House on particular occasions to give Answers to Parliamentary Questions his customary excellent standard at the Despatch Box would be slightly less good than it is now? Would my noble friend extend some sympathy to the unfortunate hens who are in the same position as he would be if we treated him in that way?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, my noble friend has a vivid imagination. I have never thought of myself as being a hen, and I do not see that has very much bearing on a Question regarding substandard eggs.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that though he is very unlike a hen the fact is that if a hen is properly treated and fed, which is not happening on many farms, the hen will produce a good egg? My noble friend is properly treated and fed so he produces good Answers.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point, which is that he is concerned that the hens are not properly looked after; but I would remind him that there are codes of practice to which farmers are obliged to adhere. A survey by veterinary staff of some 1,400 poultry units in 1970 showed that welfare conditions were generally satisfactory and there was no evidence of unnecessary pain or distress among the hens in the units that were visited.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, has the noble Earl ever tasted a battery egg? If he has not, will he give the House an assurance that he will do so at the earliest opportunity?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I have tasted a battery egg and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that one of the advantages of this type of production is that it produces eggs for people to buy in sufficiently large quantities, and if it were not for this rate of production there would be far fewer eggs than there are now.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am asking a serious question and I have myself produced eggs?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, having said that, is my noble friend aware that hens need grit, and that the feed merchants are at present producing meal in which they say there is grit? They are advising poultry producers not to give the hens extra grit because they say that there is grit in the meal. Is my noble friend aware that, in spite of all this, there is not enough grit in this meal and that in consequence, in my experience, 50 per cent. of eggs break when they are being boiled?
LORD SHEPHERD: Question!
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: I am sorry, my Lords. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who does not like my going on about this. But is it not time that a higher standard is insisted upon for the production of eggs, because people who live in towns cannot buy decent eggs nowadays?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the quality of poultry feed has never been better than it is at the moment. There is no evidence of which I am aware that the point which my noble friend made is correct or substantiated. If he has any evidence which he cares to bring to my attention I will certainly look at it.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to tell us for the guidance of the House, what exactly is a "sub-standard" egg?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, my noble friend has asked a very pertinent question, because eggs are graded by weight and then they are graded by quality; and there is no such egg as one called a sub-standard egg.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, is an egg which cracks when it boils—which applies to the greater part of eggs one uses—a sub-standard egg or is it not a sub-standard egg?
EARL FERRERS: It depends upon the quality and grade of the egg.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Ferrers will be making a Statement at a convenient moment after 3.30 on the recent meeting of the Council of Agricultural Ministers. This will be followed by a Statement by my noble friend Lord Belstead on Northern Ireland.

LEGAL AID BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to legal aid and legal advice and assistance. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª, —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read lª, and to be printed.

ARMY, AIR FORCE AND NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACTS (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1973
3.25 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON) rose to move, That the Draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1973, laid before the House on October 30, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the custom in your Lordships' House on these occasions is to debate Service personnel matters, and perhaps I may start off by saying a few brief words on those cornerstones of service man-management—discipline and morale. I should then like to touch briefly on the related problems of recruiting, retention and pay.
Your Lordships will, I am sure, be pleased to know that discipline throughout Her Majesty's Forces continues to be very good indeed and morale is as high as ever. It is perhaps worth emphasising that nowhere is this more evident than in Northern Ireland, as I saw on Monday and Tuesday of this week. In maintaining morale in Northern Ireland we are particularly conscious of the effects of turbulence and separation caused by the

1199
movement of units to, and the provision of individual reinforcements for, the Province. We are doing all we can to alleviate the problems that have arisen, both by providing good conditions of service and welfare facilities in Northern Ireland and by looking after the well-being of the families separated from the Servicemen. To the many improvements made since the emergency started we have recently introduced an additional four days leave with free travel to Great Britain or to B.A.O.R. to allow those on emergency tours to take a period of rest and recuperation during their mid-tour breaks.
My Lords, I should like now to turn to the question of recruiting. I forecast in the spring that the Services would face problems of recruitment in 1973, and indeed for the next few years; and our experience so far has certainly borne this out. We knew that raising the school leaving age to 16, and the resulting shrinkage of the recruiting pool, would cause particular difficulties this year. For example, the ending of the Junior "U" entry to the Royal Navy has simply chopped off a supply of about 2,000 boys a year, and the Army loss of juniors from this cause alone has also been very severe. However, there have been other factors, too, which have combined to depress re-cruiting. Your Lordships will have noticed, from the figures we published last week, that the number of Servicemen entered for all three Services in the twelve months up to the end of September this year was a little over 28,000, compared with nearly 44,000 in the twelve month before that. The number of officers entered is also down. Clearly, we cannot afford to allow such a situation to continue for very long.
What then are the causes, in addition to the raising of the school leaving age, and what can we do to cure them? First, I should explain that we must distinguish to some extent between the position of officers and of Servicemen, and between the three Services. All are affected to some degree, but the problem is most severe in the case of soldier recruitment. The problems of officer recruiting are on a relatively smaller scale, though they give us some awkward moments. The Royal Navy are not yet suffering as steep a drop in entries as the Army, but experience suggests that they follow the
1200
same course after a time-lag, while the R.A.F. are getting fewer recruits than they need even though there are now no restrictions on R.A.F. recruiting.
Thy Army's difficulties can be put most bluntly if I say that compared to a "steady state" requirement of about 26,000 soldier entries a year—that is the number we need to maintain trained strengths at about the present level—our current forecast of entries for 1973–74 is about 13,000. If, as we suspect, the loss of juniors as a result of the raising of the school-leaving age accounts for about one-half of that shortfall, the rest of the loss must be attributed to various other factors. It is not possible to list all the many factors which affect recruiting in a precise order of importance, but there are clearly several which head the list. The economy has continued to grow, and there are many opportunities for young people, to compete with the attractions of Service life—and I am not going to grumble about that.
Another cause of our problems is, without doubt, that Armed Forces' pay has fallen away from the standards of comparability with civilian earnings which were established in 1970 and confirmed by us in 1971 and 1972. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body in 1973 recommended increases of the maximum amount consistent with Stage 2 of the incomes policy, and we accepted their recommendations. The Review Body are currently considering what ought to be done at the regular, biennial review which is due next April, against the background of Stage 3 of the policy. May I say that it has been a great help to the Services (I know that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, would agree with this) to have the benefit of the expert, and indeed the sympathetic, advice of the Review Body during the past two years, and we look forward to their next recommendations.
I have already spoken about the good work of the Army in Northern Ireland, but from the point of view of recruitment there is some evidence to suggest that the emergency, which was at first a mild stimulus to recruiting, is now no longer so, and that it may also be causing more soldiers to leave the Army. If this is so, I can only regret it, and endorse what my right honourable friend

1201
the Prime Minister said recently: that everyone in the Army can justly feel proud about what has been done to keep the peace in the most trying circumstances a soldier can encounter. The long history of voluntary recruiting has been one of ups and downs, and when one is on the downward slope it is a little nerve-wracking to wait for signs of the next improvement. I take a little comfort from the fact that the decline in Army adult and young soldier enlistments, at least, was less severe in July to September than in the previous quarter, even though intakes were still at about two-thirds of last year's level; it is also reasonable to expect some improvement in junior recruiting for all three Services, once the pattern of school leaving returns to normal next year. In the meantime, I intend to see to it that whatever good management suggests, is done. We shall be increasing the amount of money to be spent this year on our recruiting advertising, and the man management of the Services, which in my view compares pretty well with anything found in civilian life, will continue to make the best use of this rare and expensive commodity.
In this context, it is clearly important to encourage the men we want to stay in the Armed Forces. Your Lordships will be glad to hear that prolongation rates among senior men continue to be very satisfactory. Indeed, for the Army and the Royal Navy they were generally even better during the twelve months up to June, 1973, than in the previous twelve months. In the RAF, we have to place limits on the numbers we let prolong their service even from the 9-year point. However, I am concerned that nearly half of soldier recruits enter on 3-year engagements, and of these only about half reengage, which would mean that about a quarter of the total strength will consist of 3-year men. Another doubtful factor is that we shall not be able to start to assess until early next year the effect of the introduction, in May. 1972, of the "notice engagement" Over the next couple of years, these two points will be almost as critical for Army manpower as the trend in new recruitment.
The third critical factor, besides recruitment and prolongation, is wastage: that is, failure to complete the engagement to which the Serviceman has com
1202
mitted himself. Wastage at the recruit stage continues to run at about 25 per cent. This sounds high—though it is broadly in line with current experience in civilian occupations; for instance, the Merchant Navy—but then this is the stage of a young man's career when he has to decide whether lie likes the Services, and the Services have to decide whether they like him. I am sure it is right that there should be ample opportunity for both parties to decide that a mistake may have been made; and though one is always sorry to lose recruits so soon after joining, there is much less waste of training and other resources than if the parting were longer delayed. Nevertheless, we are examining very urgently the underlying causes of this wastage to see whether it can be reduced. After six months, the rate of wastage drops to around 5 per cent. This is manageable, and there are plenty of employers who would be delighted to have the same figure, but of course I should like to reduce it still further, and we are looking for means to achieve this.
My Lords, if I may sum up on the manpower situation, the difficulties we foresaw have certainly come upon us, and they are likely to be with us for some time before they can be put right.
But I should not like to leave your Lordships with the impression of grave deficiencies in strength. Remember that we recruited very well indeed, better than planned, for a couple of years before the lean period started; perhaps one might say we even overfished the pool and now we are paying for it. But the trained strengths of the Services are not depleted and I do not intend that there should be any serious deficit. We are seeking ways to make even more effective use of the men we have. My Lords, let us remember that the Armed Forces of Britain have been manned by volunteers for a very long time. We have always managed to look after ourselves in the past, and I am quite sure that we shall be able to continue to do so. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1973, laid before the House on October 30, be approved.(Lord Corrington.)
3.38 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, we are today indulging in a pleasant convention by which we are keeping the Armed Forces in being for one more year. I am certain that this is something for which our fellow countrymen should be grateful. While we are touching on pleasant conventions, may I ask the Secretary of State—and he need not answer this important question in the House—why the Navy has been degraded to the last position in the Motion, instead of taking its traditional order of precedence? I think this brief discussion is always pleasant and useful. We had the recruiting figures presented to us about a week ago and this discussion enables us to have an autumn review of the state of play within the Armed Forces. The Secretary of State is quite correct: we knew that we were, or might be, coming on lean times in recruitment. It is good news to know that the actual effective strength is not affected, but of course we have to think further ahead than one year.
May I make one or two points in relation to recruiting? Perhaps the Secretary of State and the House will forgive me if I ride two favourite hobby horses of mine in a few minutes. May I first turn to the problem of pay which the Secretary of State mentioned. It is perfectly true that the principle of comparability was established between the Armed Forces and life in the outside world, but we must not forget that there is an x factor. I have never been able to define the x factor except as an intelligent guess as to what an individual might accept as recompense for loss of his civil liberties. It has always been my view that the x factor was anything you like to make it. If you were not getting the recruits you wanted you "upped" the x factor—the unknown quantity. I do not know what Phase 3 does about the x factor if pay is unsatisfactory, but if the x factor is as important as I believe it to be then perhaps—what is the phrase?—unsocial operations—
A NOBLE LORD: Hours.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, unsocial hours might also apply to the x factor. If this is any help to the Secretary of State I, for one, would certainly support it.
1204
Then there is the question of service in Northern Ireland. I do not think the difficulty arises from the troops concerned; I think it is from their wives. The wives stay at home and it is not a happy position. May I ask the Secretary of State to tell us, when he winds up, something about a subject which I raised last year, which was about a form of insurance equivalent to the insurance which backs the police forces in this country and covers the individual policeman who may suffer injury or death in the course of his duty. What are the details of the insurance scheme that, in a fleeting moment, reading the papers, I saw had been introduced? I suggested that some such scheme should be introduced, and in the course of my journey I saw that something had been done. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would tell us what has been done. I think this matter is of prime importance. I know that young Air Force officers often cripple themselves with insurance to cover themselves against death in the course of their duties, and there are special policies available. I feel that if the wives felt more secure, perhaps their nerves might be somewhat steadier. A young soldier killed in Northern Ireland often leaves his wife in a very difficult situation. I should like to know what has been done to counter this.
May I for a moment ride my two hobby horses? The first is the problem of the recruitment of juniors—again, I think I raised this last year when the Secretary of State mentioned the subject. I suggested then that an additional year of education for young soldiers, airmen and sailors should take place within one of the Army training schools. We all know of the excellence of these schools. At that time, the Secretary of State said that this was administratively difficult, but I feel that because of these figures it is worth a second inspection. The second point is my favourite one of the role of women in the Armed Forces. I made a speech last week on the Equal Opportunties Bill and the Commission, but I wish that people would organise their military affairs to suit my convenience in debate and not their own because reading my Times I see that within the lase week a conference has been held in Brussels of the Women's Armed Forces within NATO, where a very distinguished

1205
body of women got together to talk about the role of women in the Armed Forces in the defence of the West. What really pleased me was the resolution that was passed at the end of the conference which said:
"Representatives from the women's military services and nursing services agree that women should share fully the obligations to defend their countries."
I suggested in my speech on the Equal Opportuntities Commission that the opportunity to suffer the discomforts and dangers of a military career might not be considered as an opportunity, but I argued that most women—in fact all women—were as concerned about the defence of this country as were their men-folk and I am very glad to see that the women serving officers at the Armed Forces of NATO meeting in Brussels have said this in very clear terms.
The only other point I want to make now—and I think this is something that is coming anyway—is that equality of treatment should be applied to the Women's Services immediately. The Americans have reached the point of equal pay and two-star rank for women and I believe that we should at least match them. I believe that in that way a suitable number of women could be recruited who could in part replace men. I do not think it is a total panacea, but if one remembers that there are seventeen individuals behind one man at the sharp end, then there is obviously a good opportunity for the role of women in the support functions.
My Lords, that is all I have to say to-day. This debate is usually short and to the point, but I should like to feel, as I know the Secretary of State feels, that the Armed Forces of this country are serving their fellow countrymen as well now as ever they have done, and if the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is going to announce some good news later to-day it is very much due to the steadiness of the Armed Forces in that part of the United Kingdom.
3.46 p.m.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: My Lords, may I ask the Secretary of State three questions of which I have not given him notice but about which he knows? First, why do not the Forces in Northern Ireland get overseas pay as they do when serving in Germany? They
1206
are in much greater danger in Northern Ireland than they are in Germany and yet they do not get (I do not know what it is called) danger pay or overseas pay. My second question concerns the wives of troops who are moved from, say, Germany to, say, Northern Ireland and the difficulties they suffer in getting their allowances. The Secretary of State knows about this because I put a question to him in June and again later in October. They have the greatest difficulty in getting their allowances. They have to fill up forms and it takes a long time. Thirdly, what is the position of the recruitment for the Women's Services at the moment? I should like to know whether it is going up or is steady.
3.47 p.m.
LORD BRAYLEY: My Lords, I am told that your Lordships regard with indulgence the first occasion on which a newcomer to your Lordships' House makes his maiden speech. This is a tradition for which I am particularly grateful, because the path of life which led me to become a Member of your Lordships' House started more than 40 years ago when, a lad of 17, I joined the ranks of the Regular Army. I had the honour and good fortune to join the Royal Regiment of Artillery, and being something of an athlete I reached non- commissioned rank as an Army physical training instructor. My Service experience in the ranks instilled in me the respect for discipline and comradeship which are such ennobling features of service in all ranks of the Regular Army. My interest in the Army has continued to the present day, and I have been honoured by being appointed an honorary Colonel Commandant of the Royal Regiment of Artillery. I dare say that I can claim, with modesty, that I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who has become art honorary Colonel Commandant having risen from the ranks. I hark back to my service life because it leads me to the subject to which I venture to refer in this my maiden speech.
I recollect, in a defence and foreign affairs debate at the beginning of this Session, speeches calling for the need for a European defence policy. I listened to many speeches referring to the essential need for such a policy, but no speaker whom I can recall went into the details

1207
of how a policy could be brought into being and how it could be sustained. This reminded me of the hoary wartime story which I have no doubt everyone in your Lordships' House has heard, when Generalissimo Stalin was being talked to about the influence of His Holiness the Pope, and his remark was, "Well, how many divisions has he got?" Surely to-day those who talk about European defence should ask themselves the question, "How many divisions can Europe put in the field? How many in six months? In a year's time? In three years' time? And what kind of divisions would they be?" I am sure that the planners in the Pentagon, as indeed the planners in the Kremlin, will ask themselves, "How many divisions can Europe put in the field and what will be the quality of these divisions?"
So far as Britain is concerned, her capacity to make a contribution to the manpower needs of Europe was decided more than a decade ago when, for political reasons, all three Parties in the State decided to rely upon voluntary recruitment. The figures for recruitment are published every month, and they demonstrate very clearly that Britain, at least so far as the Army is concerned, lacks the necessary manpower to meet her current commitments, and to talk of our making a contribution in terms of conventional strength to stand up to the Warsaw Pact countries is not a very convincing exercise. However, this is only part of the story. If we have not the manpower, neither have our Allies. The point I seek to make is that it is no good our talking about a European defence system, nor can we expect the Americans to listen to us, unless we are prepared not only to put our hands in our pockets to provide the finance necessary for an effective defence system but also, somehow or other, to find the manpower. Or do we expect our NATO allies to impose conscription upon their young men while, we comfortably jog along, hoping that our awkward recruiting figures will change for the better?
To turn to the question of equipment, we have recently witnessed a conflict in the Middle East which was basically a battle of electronics. Sam 2, Sam 3 and Sam 4, supplied by the Russians to the Arab countries, were neutralised by the
1208
Americans during the Vietnam conflict. Sam 6 was a surprise and it inflicted losses on the Israelis, for there was no current answer to it. I have no doubt, now that the Americans have obtained a complete set of Sam 6 equipment, that the answer will be found. But we have to take note that the Russians produced Sam 6, and if this particular box of tricks could inflict unacceptable losses on the Israelis it calls into question the possible efficacy of the counter-measures possessed by ourselves and our NATO allies.
We also need to remind ourselves that if Sam 6 was a surprise it is more than likely that the Russians anticipated that sooner or later the Americans would find an answer. But we should remember—and well—that the Russians still have Sam 9 and Sam 10 coming along; and I believe there may well be other surprises in store. The Middle East War, like the Spanish Civil War, was a testbed for military technology. In the Spanish Civil War Hitler tested weapons for his blitzkrieg. In the Middle East the Kremlin and the Pentagon tried out their most modern weapons, and they are still evaluating the results. But there is one conclusion that it is not too early to draw: a new demonstration, a new dimension, the power of the missile. We in Britain, if our defence policy is to be meaningful, must learn this lesson.
My Lords, I have one urgent proposal to put to the Secretary of State for Defence, which I hope he will study. I believe that the Government should seriously consider the establishment of a Missile Command. The Russians have organised their defence on this basis, and their resources are infinitely greater than ours. We and our NATO allies need to study the recent conflict and try to learn from it. We certainly cannot afford to spread our scientific resources, or indeed our financial resources, in such a way that we produce separate missile systems for each of the Services, on the basis that each must have something. We cannot afford three missile policies in Britain, any more than we can afford several missile policies inside NATO. I believe that our need is urgent. We certainly cannot go on spending £3,500 million a year on defence which, at the end of the day, does not contribute to our overall defence needs. So my plea is that if we are going

1209
to have defence it must be adequate; it must be looked at in the light of British needs in relation to our financial and scientific capacity and to our capacity to provide the manpower. This needs to be done, of course, in the light of our NATO commitments, although our shortage of troops is a great embarrassment.
Before resuming my seat, I should like to pay a tribute to our troops in Northern Ireland, who are fighting a war for which no Army was ever trained: to fight the unseen urban guerrilla where any bullet can kill anyone, anywhere, any time—even a child. Yesterday, questions were asked about Britain's contributing to a peace-keeping force in the Middle East. From where would these troops come? From Ireland? From our NATO forces? Or by withdrawal from some of our other commitments? This is a very serious problem. My Lords, I have wearied you with thoughts which I have been turning over in my mind for a long time, but I have done no more than underline one or two rather obvious facts. I hope your Lordships will not feel that in so doing I have trespassed on your indulgence. If I have, I shall be only too ready to apologise.
3.57 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, it falls to me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brayley, on a quite admirable maiden speech. I have heard several in this House but I have not heard a more constructive or better informed speech, and I think we should all like to congratulate him and hope that he will add to our debates from time to time. I rushed to Who's Who when I learned from the "batting order" that I was to follow a maiden speaker and I notice that with becoming modesty, in spite of everything he has told us, he never mentioned the fact that he won a most gallant M.C. during his service in the Regular Army. We know that he has a deep knowledge of industry, and that knowledge also will be most valuable to this House. His recreations I found most entertaining. I doubt whether anyone has previously put down ten recreations in Who's Who. I could not find anyone; he is right in a field of his own. He starts with politics—well, it's great that he is here. He goes on with books, letters, charities, flying—and he is a qualified pilot; yachting, shooting, fishing, horse racing—that will please
1210
the next noble Lord who is going to speak —and last of all, though it will not be universally acclaimed on the Benches opposite I am afraid, boxing. It was appropriate that on this very day we should have had a Question about that sport because he was an international boxing champion in his early twenties. It is quite clear that he certainly has not suffered any softening of the brain, as the noble Baroness suggested is a possibility.
I merely want to add two small points. I am very much in tune with what the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said; he and I made similar speeches last year. I ask my noble friend, in view of the really alarming recruitment figures for the Army, in view of the extension of the school-leaving age and the result this has had with regard to young recruits, to examine whether some of these boys would not be more usefully employed and would not in the end become better citizens if they were allowed to spend their extra year of education in a Service establishment—of course with the agreement of their parents.
When I was coming to work I listened to the car radio, as many of us do in traffic jams, and heard a schoolmaster complaining that he had gone into a classroom and found thirteen-year-old and fifteen-year-old boys now compelled to stay on at school, playing cards. This is not a very constructive occupation in the extra year of education, and proves the point that there are much better things to do for boys who are restless and who would like to accept the challenge of a Services career. It would be wholly admirable both for them and for the nation if they were allowed to do it. I cannot believe it is right to compel young people to stay on at school for an extra year when they could well benefit from doing other things.
I have another plea in accord with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, on the increasingly valuable part that women can play in our Armed Forces. I spent the whole of my war career in radar. In this country more than 90 per cent. of our radar stations were operated by dedicated women who were so conscientious and efficient that they not only startled the men-folk, but all our allies as well when they saw the

1211
extent of the perfection of the job the women were undertaking. To-day, there are many sophisticated jobs women could do, and do rather better than some men. I refer to intelligence work, photographic reconnaissance interpretation, in which they were outstanding, and as the noble Lord, Lord Brayley mentioned, electronic warfare. They could well apply their basic expertise and dedication to these activities, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will look most seriously at these points. There are many willing people who would gain immeasurably from that extra year being spent in the Armed Forces, and not necessarily at school.

E.E.C.: AGRICULTURE MINISTERS MEETING
4.2 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if I may intervene in the debate, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. The Statement is as follows:
"The Council of Agriculture Ministers at their meeting on November 19/20 held a first exchange of views on the Commission's proposals for the improvement of the Common Agricultural Policy. There were naturally differences of emphasis and approach between Ministers, but substantial support for the general aims of the review —to contain expenditure and consumer prices; to improve the balance of supply and demand and reduce surpluses; and to simplify the support system and improve financial control. The Commission's proposals will now be the subject of detailed study in the Special Agricultural Committee followed by fuller consideration in the Council of Ministers.
"The Council also agreed on the framework of a Directive on aids for farming in mountain, and other less favoured areas. The main lines of this Directive follow broadly the forms of support covered by our own arrangements for help in the hill farming areas. As the House knows, these mainly take the form of subsidies for beef cattle and sheep production in the hills and there are also special rates of capital grant for hill land improvement. These will
1212
be covered under the criteria of the new draft Directive.
"The Directive also provides that dairy cattle in the true mountain areas, such as those in steep alpine land, shall receive aid on the same terms as beef cattle. In the lower hill and less favoured regions payments for dairy cows will be restricted to 10 cows in each herd and at a rate of not more than 80 per cent. of that given for beef cattle. All these aids will be applicable at the discretion of each Member State. The specific areas in which it is proposed to apply them will be designated by the Member State and will be subject to approval by the European Commission and the Council of Ministers.
"These payments will be subject to a contribution from Community funds, the actual rate of which will be determined only after a clear indication of the total cost can be established once the areas have been defined. The intention, however, is that these contributions should not be less than 25 per cent. and not more than 50 per cent. for the hill livestock subsidies and should be 25 per cent of the cost of aid for improvements under development plans. The remaining cost will be borne by each individual Member State. Final confirmation of the Directive will only take place once the areas have been defined.
The general effect of these decisions is that they confirm the ability of the United Kingdom Government to continue paying grants and subsidies on the broad lines at present in force for hill areas and when the Directive has come into force the cost of these will be reimbursed in part from FEOGA funds. This is an important reassurance to our hill farmers and a confirmation of the undertaking which the Government have always given that we would seek freedom to continue within the Community to give a comparable degree of support to our hill farmers to that which has previously been provided.
The Council Meeting — which was a lengthy one—also discussed a range of other matters ranging from olive oil to alcohol."
4.6 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl

1213
for repeating the Statement which, on the face of it, appears to be satisfactory. Since, clearly, the amount that will be due to farmers will be available only when the Directive has been confirmed—and presumably there can be no confirmation until all the nine countries have dealt with their areas designated and have the approval by the Commission—can the noble Earl give any indication of when we may expect the amount to be made available to Parliament for distribution to the farmers? I think that is the main crux of the Statement—how much, and when?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I also congratulate the Government on the successful efforts made on behalf of our hill farmers? May I say that in our opinion what has happened has dispelled a great many of the fears expressed by the opponents to our entry into the European Economic Community during the long debate we had last year.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and the Lord Gladwyn, for the welcome they have given to the Statement I have made. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that all this is bound to take some time because, of course, the individual countries have to put forward their submissions to the Community as to where the line should be drawn for the less favoured areas, and then the Community will have the right to agree or otherwise to their suggestion. With regard to the cost, at present our hill cow, hill sheep and beef cattle subsidies are running at the rate of £30 million a year which we have always paid as subsidy. Once this comes into operation, the grant from the Community from FEOGA funds will vary from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the sum which at the moment we pay to hill farmers.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, does that mean that our present subsidy will continue in the meantime?
EARL FERRERS: Our present subsidy will continue in the meantime.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, we have a very frank Minister in Mr. Godber at the European Economic Community. He never puts a gloss on the results of his negotiations. When I heard him, I was not very clear as to how well
1214
we have come out of these particular negotiations on agriculture in the high hill areas. Have we really come out very well?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I would endeavour to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, that we have in fact come out extremely well, because there was always an element of doubt that the subsidies we pay to hill farmers might be a contravention of the Community Regulations. Because this has now been agreed, we are able to continue the support to hill farmers which previously we had been able to give them.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for the Statement and out of fairness congratulating the Minister on the almighty effort made in a difficult matter, without putting a gloss on it may I ask a simple question? What is a "hill farming area" under the Community Regulations? My information is that they will subsidise up to 2,000 feet. Does that apply in Britain so far as concerns the Welsh and the Scottish hills? Secondly, the dairy subsidy will apply only to ten cows. That will be at 80 per cent. of the rate for beef cattle. Before we can have that in Britain it will have to be confirmed by the Community. How long will these transitional decisions take before a hill farmer (in the market place when he is buying cattle, or when he is rearing cattle) will know when he is going to get the subsidy? Lastly—and this is of paramount importance to the good old British brewing industry—what is the Community policy with regard to hops? Are we going to have to brew beer which suits European man rather than continuing with British brewing, which is the finest in the world?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the last point in the question of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. The future brewing of beer, whether for English or European consumption, does not arise out of the Statement, and therefore I think it would be inapproprate to comment on that at this juncture.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I raised the question because I thought it was relevant in so far as one talked of olive oil and alcohol, and I thought brewing was alcoholic.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly correct. These were the kind of things which were also discussed at the meeting, but the conclusions which were arrived at at the meeting were the ones which the Statement adumbrated.
With regard to the noble Lord's first point, about mountainous areas, I think I am correct in saying that they are above a line of 600 metres, some 1,800 feet, which in fact would not apply in this country because animals are not kept at that height here. Even if they were—and this is the answer to the noble Lord's second point—the matter would be subject to this country bringing in its own regulations to determine that these people should have the benefits which the Community say they may have.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, coming from Scotland, where we have been very anxious about these particular negotiations, I should like to congratulate the Minister on the result of these talks. This result will bring great comfort to hill farmers, of which I am one. So long as there is no break during the changeover from the subsidies coming from the Ministry of Agriculture and those that will come from the E.E.C. we shall be happy, but we shall be very distressed if we are told that we are to get £x but that it will be six months before it is made up from somewhere else. The total figure should remain the same whether it comes from Europe or from our own Ministry of Agriculture. May I say again how grateful I am, on behalf of all those who are hill farmers, for the fact that this matter has now come to such an extremely satisfactory conclusion.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for that observation, because I know she has been concerned, as have others, as to the position of hill farmers under Community regulations. The fact that my right honourable friend was able to discuss this particular problem with his colleagues in Europe and achieve this solution is something about which we can be pleased. I would only say to her that I think it would be a pity to look too much into the future. The principle is there; we can continue these subsidies.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, further to the alcohol point, could my noble friend give me some idea what was under discussion, even though no decisions were reached? In other words, what is brewing?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think my noble friend would do better to wait to see what emanates from this rather than what is actually brewing.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether any consideration was given to the question of island farming? We have in Britain many islands which are at a similar disadvantage to the high ground farming on the Continent, the mountainous farming on the Continent. The question has been asked before by the industry, whether island farming could be equated with mountain farming.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the Statement refers to the mountainous areas. I will ceratiniy look into the point my noble friend has made and, if I may, I will write to him about it.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I certainly have no objection to what the noble Earl has said and I think he and the Government deserve thanks for it. But would he not agree that this is essentially a social rather than an economic payment, in that it is done to preserve the wellbeing of people rather than to encourage a certain form of production which is needed; and in that case, would it not be more reasonable and less misleading if this payment were made from some social or regional fund of the Community, rather than from FEOGA?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I do not think that would be so, because we have always regarded hill farming as desirable, for one reason or another, and I take the noble Lord's point as to which reason he would have. We have always supported this farming under agricultural subsidies. It might well have been that we would have contravened the regulations if these had continued. Now that authority has been agreed within the Community, I think that we should be pleased that we have this ability to continue these subsidies. Of course we will now be subsidised ourselves for continuing these subsidies, from FEOGA

1217
funds. I think that is a point about which many noble Lords who have criticised FEOGA and our payments will be glad.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, will the noble Earl bear in mind that beer brewed in Munich is very much better than beer brewed in this country, and perhaps he could arrange for some kind of transference between the two?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it would certainly be very indelicate of me to arrange any form of transference on that scale, but no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will have his own methods of obtaining what he likes.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, hill farming and hill farming regulations have nothing at all to do with altitude; they are really to do with marginal land. My noble friend asked about islands. Of course, islands come under hill farming regulations because they are marginal land. Hill farming has got nothing to do with altitude in this country.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I dare say that is so, but where, at the moment, farmers are farming land on which they can claim hill farm subsidies they will be able to continue to do so.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, I ask this question for illumination, because I have been hill farming myself over the last two years. As the price of beef and mutton and meat of all sorts has at least doubled, in all humility I ask my noble friend, is it still necessary to have subsidies for this production at all? I think it may be, but I think many people would like to know.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think that is the very kind of point which will be argued during the forthcoming Annual Review of farm prices.

NORTHERN IRELAND: EXECUTIVE DESIGNATE
4.17 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I will, with permission, make a Statement. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has over the last seven weeks had a series of discussions in Northern Ireland with the
1218
Alliance Party, the Social Democratic and Labour Party and the Ulster Unionist Party in order to determine whether the basis existed for the formation of an Executive as provided for in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. These Parties had signified to him their willingness to try to form an Executive; the other Parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly had made it known to my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that they were not prepared to participate in an Executive.
Before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can ask Parliament to devolve powers to a Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, he must be satisfied on two issues. First, the Northern Ireland Assembly must have made satisfactory provision by its Standing Orders in accordance with Section 25 of that Act, which lays down certain essentials about procedure. Those Standing Orders have been passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly and, while some were not unanimously agreed, my right honourable friend is satisfied that they meet the statutory criteria.
Secondly, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland must be satisfied that a,
"Northern Ireland Executive can he formed which, having regard to the support it commands in the Assembly and to the electorate on which that support is based, is likely to be widely accepted throughout the community."
Agreement has been reached on the composition and nature of such an Executive. It is proposed that both now and for the future there should be an Executive of 11 persons and that the Administration should consist of 15 persons. For this to be done an amendment will be required to Section 8 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, and legislation will in due course be brought before Parliament. Subject to the approval of that legislation, it is proposed that the Executive should comprise 6 members of the Ulster Unionist Party, 4 members of the Social Democratic and Labour Party and I member of the Alliance Party.
Mr. Brian Faulkner is the chief executive designate and Mr. Fitt is the deputy chief executive member designate. Mr. Oliver Napier will be the legal member

1219
and in charge of the Office of Law Reform.
The further allocation is as follows:
Head of Department of Finance—Unionist Party;
Head of Department Commerce—S.D.L.P.;
Head of Department of Health and Social Services—S.D.L.P.
Head of Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning—S.D.L.P.;
Head of Department of Environment—Unionist Party;
Head of Department of Education—Unionist Party;
Head of Department of Agriculture—Unionist Party;
Department of Information Services—Unionist Party;
Chief Whip—Unionist Party;
Office of Manpower Services—Alliance Party;
Office of Community Relations—S.D.L.P.;
Office of the Executive Planning and Co-ordination—S.D.L.P.
The leaders of the Parties will nominate those whom they propose will be appointed to these posts. There will in addition he a Deputy Chief Whip outside the Administration who will be an Assembly member of the Alliance Party.
My right honourable friend's discussions covered a number of other matters, including the question of a Council of Ireland. In the White Paper on Northern Ireland Constitutional Proposals published in March this year, Her Majesty's Government said that they favoured and were prepared to facilitate the formation of such a body. My right honourable friend has now thought it helpful to say that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to agree to the following propositions about a Council of Ireland which will have to be discussed with the Government of the Republic. A Council of Ireland can be confined to representatives of the North and South of Ireland with proper safeguards for Her Majesty's Government's financial and other interests; it should consist not only of representatives of the Government of the Republic and of the Northern Ireland
1220
Executive but also, on a separate advisory and consultative level, of representatives from the Parties in the Dail and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Council should have a secretariat of its own. In order that decisions of the Council should carry the greatest possible degree of support, they should be taken at governmental level on a basis of unanimity. Her Majesty's Government are prepared to discuss what role a Council might play in relation to certain subjects reserved for the time being to the United Kingdom Government. This would include consideration of the imaginative and important concept of a common law enforcement area, the question of extradition processes and what role the Council might play in the law and order field.
My right honourable friend also indicated that Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to invite representatives of the Government of the Republic and those persons who will be members of the Northern Ireland Executive to a conference to discuss a Council of Ireland. This conference will be held as soon as possible. Thereafter, the Executive would be formally appointed. There would then need to be a tripartite conference between Her Majesty's Government, the Government of the Republic, and the Northern Ireland Executive.
The view of Her Majesty's Government on the question of detention was also indicated to the parties. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland reaffirmed Her Majesty's Government's firm commitment that they will bring detention for all sections of the communnity to an end as soon as the security situation permits and as part of their wish to bring about a lasting peace. The procedure for review provided by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 has already led to some releases. These reviews will continue. In addition, my right honourable friend hopes to be able to bring into use his statutory powers of selective release. If the security situation permits, he intends to do so in time for a number of detainees to be released before Christmas. Those releases may be required to give a suitable undertaking about their future conduct.
It must again be emphasised that executive decisions on release must depend upon the security situation. Continued

1221
progress will obviously depend on further improvements in the situation generally. Everythings possible will continue to be done to bring persons suspected of terrorist offences before the Courts rather than to detain them under the Emergency Provisions Act. My right honourable friend has also undertaken to consider compassionate cases on a wider basis than hitherto and other preparatory measures are in hand, including the recruitment of more social workers to help with the administration of all these arrangements and the introduction of various training schemes. I hope that the House will feel that a good start has been made in implementing the Northern Ireland Constitution Act. I am sure that we all wish to offer our support to those who are prepared to turn from the past to the work of the future.
4.26 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I would first of all thank both the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for arranging for this Statement to be made in this House. As noble Lords know there is no statement as such being made in another place, and I take it that what the noble Lord has told us forms part of the speech of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I assure the noble Lord the Leader of the House that this is something that your Lordships appreciate.
Secondly, I would say that I offer my congratulations to the Government, and especially to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and those Ministers such as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and now the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and others who have been coping with such extraordinary patience with this very difficult situation. It is not that I wish to make my remarks only in a congratulatory form, for I think that this appears to be, against very severe odds, as the noble Lord indicated, a promising beginning. There is, of course, a great deal more that has to be done. I suppose their achievement must be shared with that of the Leaders of the Northern Ireland Parties, and I particularly have in mind both Mr. Faulkner and Mr. Fitt. It must have been immensely difficult for them, with the entrenched positions, to have made the undoubted concessions which all Parties
1222
have made. Practically every sentence, and certainly every paragraph, represents a concession by someone in Northern Ireland. This is a measure of the realisation by people of responsibility that this is perhaps the last hope for a peaceful solution.
From what I understand of a complicated Statement, I must say that the solution with regard to the Executive strikes me as an ingenious one. As I understand it, it is a sort of two-tier system. it reminds me of the ill-fated attempts to reform your Lordships' House. If I understand it, the Executive consists of 11 Members, on a basis of 6:4:1, and the addition of four others who I presume are Ministers or junior Ministers. I take it that they are Ministers of Cabinet rank not in the Cabinet, which was an expression that was once used. As I understand it, this proposal will give the Ulster Unionists seven, the S.D.L.P. six and the Alliance Party two. I am not sure whether the Alliance Party Deputy Chief Whip is included or not. I shall not go any further than say that this flexibility has obviously contributed to the solution that we have so far in front of us. If I understand the noble Lord correctly, we are likely to see some legislation. I would be inclined to ask him, though I will not press him to-day, how soon that will be. Clearly, as in all matters in regard to Northern Ireland, the House would wish to be co-operative and to expedite the new legislation.
It seems that there are some particularly interesting proposals. For instance, I am glad that, in relation to the Council of Ireland, there is the suggestion which had been made in your Lordships' House that there should be representatives from the Parties and not just from the Governments involved in this. I do not wish to read too much into this, but I notice that the Government said that certain subjects reserved for the time being could he considered, including the question of law enforcement throughout the whole of Ireland. I do not think any of us would ourselves wish to anticipate too much what may emerge, but there is the progress towards a Council of Ireland, which I understand (and perhaps the noble Lord can confirm this) will follow, first of all, a conference in the United Kingdom that it is only after the meeting

1223
of that conference that the Executive-Designate will be fully established, and that although it will participate it is still designate.
My Lords, I would only say that if this course meets the wishes of the majority of people of Northern Ireland then we must welcome it wholeheartedly; and, implicit in this Statement is an acceptance, if I understand it aright, by all the Parties in the Executive. There can be no question of, so to speak, hijacking the unwilling Protestant majority into Union with the South until such moment as the passage of time may lead to a united Ireland. And whereas we have always said that no one should give up hope of this, it is a fact that it is now very much up to the Protestants, and the Protestant ultras, to ensure that this works, because this is their best protection in the short run.
As is customary in your Lordships' House, we are particularly careful, in dealing with Northern Ireland, not to say anything that might inflame feelings or lead to further difficulties, bearing in mind that, if our speeches are not reported in the British Press, at least they usually are reported, if they are on Northern Irish matters, in the Northern Irish Press. In this connection it would be helpful if either the noble Lord the Leader of the House or the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, could give some indication as to the possibility of our holding a debate on this subject. I am not pressing, for it today, but at some stage there is no doubt—and I am looking sternly at the Government Chief Whip—we shall insist on it.
4.33 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, there are simply two points I should like to make on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches. We wish to express our warmest congratulations to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, and others associated with him, and indeed to Mr. Faulkner and Mr. Fitt, for what I believe to be an astonishingly hopeful solution to the problem of Northern Ireland, for the time being anyhow. We know it is only a beginning, but there is now, at any rate, considerable light at the end of the tunnel. I have only one question to ask, and that is with regard
1224
to the Council of Ireland, which seems to me to be one of the most constructive and hopeful elements in the whole situation. As I understand it, the Council of Ireland is going to consist of representatives of the Executive, once it is formed, and of the Dublin Government, and it is going to take its decisions by unanimity. That means, I take it, that all members of the Council of Ireland from Northern Ireland and all members of the Council from Southern Ireland must agree on anything before it is decided. I should just like to ask whether that is the case. The others present—the representatives of the Parties—are, as I understand it, in a purely advisory capacity and are to have no say in the vote. I should just like to be assured that that is the case.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, along with everyone else I should like to congratulate the Government. It was in March of last year, I think, on the introduction of direct rule, that I had the honour to congratulate the Government on their choice of Secretary of State, Mr. Whitelaw, and also of his then deputy, the present Leader of this House. I suggested to the House that this choice was a brilliant choice, and so it has turned out to be. How human were the words of the Secretary of State to the Press on the steps of Stormont Castle last night, when he said:
"We should not be human if we were not pleased with this result".
I also think that great wisdom has been shown in setting up an Executive Designate. Anybody who knows anything about Ireland knows that there is more than one slip between the cup and the lip. It occurs to me that if difficulties arise about the formation of the Council of Ireland after the conference has been held, then the Government can say, "Well, we are not in a position to continue with this Executive". I am not suggesting that that will happen, but am just pointing out the wisdom of not setting up an Executive but rather setting up an Executive Designate.
May I add to the tributes which have been paid to the leaders in Northern Ireland for coming to this agreement a tribute to the Alliance Party, because Mr. Oliver Napier was obviously hoping for two seats on the Executive, and the fact that that number has been reduced to one (I am talking about the first-class

1225
seats; I am not talking about the ones to which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition referred) shows that the Alliance Party, which, after all, is the only Party which really straddles both sections of the community, have had to make sacrifices as well as the Unionist Party and the S.D.L.P.
This is a happy day for all of us, and we must all hope that it will turn out well. But, as I said on the telephone this morning to a Dublin paper that rang me up, to follow Mr. Faulkner's horsey expression of having "won by half a neck" at a meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council the other day, there are still many hurdles which lie in front of the Government. Therefore, while we must all be delighted with the out-turn of events, we should not be too euphoric; we should realise that many difficulties lie ahead. But, despite that fact, we can do nothing but pay tribute, and once more may I say what I said in March of last year: the selection of Mr. Whitelaw to undertake this job was quite brilliant. If ever a personality was required for a particular job, in my view Mr. Whitelaw and his excellent deputy at that time—and I am paying tribute to the noble Lord. Lord Belstead, as well—had that quality, and that has produced the result.
4.38 p.m.
Loan BELSTEAD: My Lords, I wonder whether it would be your Lordships' wish that I should try to reply to some of the points which have been made. I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Gladwyn, from the two Front Benches for the way in which they have received the Statement. The Statement forms part of my right honourable friend's speech. It is not in exactly the same words, and the Statement was in fact designed for your Lordships' House. I would also agree, if I may, with the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, that the Parties in Northern Ireland are to be most warmly congratulated, not only for the position achieved so far, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, has so rightly said, but also for the way in which the talks were conducted, which allowed those talks to keep going on a reasonable basis of confidentiality and not to be broken into while they were under way.
I can confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is correct: the Execu
1226
tive is on a 6:4:1 basis, with four more appointments outside the Executive. As to the legislative timetable, although the timetable in this House is of course entirely in the hands of your Lordships, it appears to me that if we are amending the Constitution Act and taking a devolution Order under Section 2 of that Act, the probability is that it will be agreed between the Parties and through all the usual channels that those pieces of legislation will come from the Commons to your Lordships. Therefore we are to some extent dependent on the House of Commons' timetable and at this moment I am not aware what that is.
Despite the questions asked by both the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, whom I believe I can satisfy in a moment, I do not think that the House will expect me to prejudge matters on the Council of Ireland before the Conference referred to in the Statement. It is the fact that as a result of the Statement the British Government are making the suggestion and therefore in that sense are to be the hosts; but I am afraid that at this stage I cannot tell the House either where or when the preliminary conference would be held. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked me the direct question: would unanimity mean, in fact, what it says? The answer to that is, Yes. This is given in the Statement as the view of Her Majesty's Government; and we do, of course, still stick by the three objectives which are to be found in Paragraph 112 of the White Paper.
May I thank the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, for being here to-day, for supporting the Executive Designate and for giving us his reasons for doing so. I think it is fair to say that this is a "package" and for that reason it is wise (and here I would agree with my noble friend) that the Executive is designate; and that it depends on Westminster approval of the devolution order. To that extent it is important that it is an Executive Designate. The Alliance Party have only one seat on the Executive proper, but they also have the most important position of the Office of Manpower Services, which is an appointment outside the Executive, as well as the Deputy Chief Whip appointment. I agree with my noble friend that there are still difficulties ahead. I think that

1227
all of your Lordships with your experience will know better than I that one of those difficulties is going to he how the security situation unfolds. All we can do on that matter is to hope and to keep our eyes firmly fixed on this important point.
4.42 p.m.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, as one who has known Mr. Whitelaw intimately and who had the privilege of speaking off the Record some years ago to the old Stormont, may I first utter my sincere congratulations to Mr. Whitelaw and his colleagues on their patience during the critical days of negotions. May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that everybody in this country admires the way in which the Catholic community and the Protestant community have reached a compromise on the structure of the new Stormont and that they would appeal to the extreme Catholics and the extreme Protestants to come into this great venture of creating a new and real Stormont for Northern Ireland, a Stormont which will reach out its hands to friendly co-operation with the Government of Eire? I congratulate Mr. Whitelaw and his colleagues on what they have done.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My. Lords, may I record my own conviction, bearing in mind the warning against euphoria from the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, that this is the best bit of news to come out of Northern Ireland in my lifetime and, I think, in the lifetime of the oldest here. I simply add to the heartfelt thanks in which I join all the other speakers, a tribute to all those who had anything to do with this whether in Ireland, North or South, or in this country. In particular, we cannot sufficiently express our admiration for the Secretary of State, Mr. Whitelaw, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and, now, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to Her Majesty's Government for this Statement and say how particularly pleased I am about the proposals for a Council of Ireland. I have always spoken up for such a Council. I hope that these proposals will be put into practice. It is extremely pleasing to hear that
1228
the suggestion has been made that Members will be drawn from all Parties of both Governments. I should like also to take up the point made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that this Council, if it comes to power, should not be used, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, to "press gang" the majority of Protestant opinion in Northern Ireland to Union if they do not so wish it. I hope myself that through this Council, both sides will get to know each other and like each other, and that over the passage of the years, it may be 20, or 30 or 50 years, this will come to pass.
I should like to mention something about the Executive, this 6-4-1 structure, because I consider that Mr. Faulkner is the man to lead this. He certainly has great talents and he will need them all. It is so evenly balanced that one is rather inclined to think there may be a danger that one may not get government at all, but stalemate. I hope that with Mr. Faulkner's leadership and tact this will be overcome and that the Council will be a great success.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, speaking from the Opposition Benches in this matter and having just returned from Northern Ireland, may I echo what has been said by other noble Lords. In particular, may I echo what was said so pertinently by the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, about the human approach to this problem. So much of past tragedy has been a case of reasonable Englishmen trying, without success, to cope with the sensitivities of Irishmen who feel and think in a somewhat different way. For that reason, this country and Ireland have the greatest reason to be eternally grateful to the Secretary of State and to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. If I may, I will make one other observation. In my recent visit to Ireland, it was touching to hear from people of all types the admiration and gratitude they felt, particularly to the Leader of your Lordships' House, for the sensitive understanding of what they were all trying to say and do.
VISCOUNT BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to those already expressed, not only to the Secretary of State but to the whole of his team. I hope they will be conveyed to him. I should like to add my word of

1229
caution because this is very much a beginning and there is still much to be done. Will the Government make clear that what they are asking the politicians of Northern Ireland to do—and I am proud to be one of them—is to mix oil and water?—because within the Parties and especially within the S.D.L.P. there is not only a range of opinion from extreme nationalist and extreme unionist but also, above all that, a very Left-wing element and a very Right-wing nationalist element. We are not only dealing with the problems of Left and Right but of nationalists and unionists. This is asking for an enormous amount of give and take.
Will the Government also make clear that political activity is no solution to the security problem that will be pursued with maximum intensity. Speaking as one living right on the Border, it is my opinion, from the feelings of the people there, that we are bound to be in for a period of very great activity of a very nasty kind; because it is in the interests of both factions that this Executive should not take effect. Would the noble Lord agree that the Secretary of State has, within the terms of the Act, got the only possible solution in the formation and balance of this Executive and that this has been supported by the Border poll results? I should like to ask the noble Lord this vital question on collective responsibility. Once the Cabinet or the Executive has made a decision—not only in the Council of Ireland (and this is vital) but outside—the Executive must go forward with executive responsibility in the same way as they would have done had they been a Cabinet, because without that this Government simply could not take place, in my opinion.
I should like to ask the noble Lord to convey to the Secretary of State the satisfaction about the unanimity over the Council of Ireland being necessary before any further development. Noble Lords may not be aware how much the Unionist people of the country fear a Council of Ireland with representatives as opposed to Members of Government because automatically, since part of the representation from the North of Ireland will be wishing a united Ireland. the Unionist opinion will be in the minority, and therefore this is of vital importance. In order to help those of us who have considerable doubts (I support to the maximum what is being done) about the effectiveness of
1230
the eventual outcome, could the noble Lord consider the announcement of extra Members of Parliament in another place, because once that is done, under the recommendation of Lord Kilbrandon, people like myself would be fully and absolutely determined at all costs to see that this matter is done. If we had fair representation, there is no ground whatsoever for doing anything but going full blast for this solution.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I be permitted to say a word, and perhaps repair an omission, and express on behalf of all of us our thanks to the British Army for having held the ring for so many weary and long years. I think that probably it is as much due to the Army as anybody that we have arrived, temporarily perhaps, at a successful solution to this problem.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, as I listened to the Statement being made I was impressed by its modesty. It was almost entirely an explanation of facts. I regard what has happened as an achievement and Her Majesty's Government would have been justified in claiming success. They did not do so, and I think that is an expression of the recognition by all of us that, although these-great changes have been made, the situation in Ireland is still of a critical, evolving character. Nevertheless, my Lords, having said that, one must say that this is quite an historic decision. In Northern Ireland, after 50 years, there is to be, for the first time, an association of the two communities in an Executive, and that is a tremendous fact in the history of Ireland.
Secondly, after 300 years of conflict in Ireland there is now, for the first time, to be a Council of the whole of Ireland. Though some of us hope that ultimately there will be a united Ireland, none of us wants that to take place without the consent of peoples of Northern and Southern Ireland. The establishment of this Council, beginning on rather restricted issues but inevitably developing, seems to me to be a course by which ultimate co-operation and union can be obtained.
I want to say frankly, my Lords, that, generally speaking, I am against coalitions because they cause a compromise of principle, and disillusionment. In this case I think the coalition is

1231
absolutely justified because it brings the two communities together. May I make a suggestion to the Minister that I hope will be considered? I hope that the coalition will not be too rigid. I hope that it will not be so rigid that members of the National Assembly and the Parties will be unable to reflect views which are different from the decisions of the Executive. What is happening now in Northern Ireland is deeper than some of us recognise. The ultra-Protestant sections, which are largely working-class, having overthrown a landlord leadership, are now in protest against a capitalist leadership. There are working-class demands from the shop floor about wages and working conditions, unemployment and housing, which are exactly the same as those of the Catholic workers on the other side, though they are divided over the Border issue. In this National Assembly, if the Border issue could be postponed for a time, I want to see a coming together of those on the Protestant and on the Catholic side who are concerned about social and economic issues. If the coalition is not made too rigid; if Members of the Parties have liberty to reflect and vote on those social and economic issues, the National Assembly could create a real hope for the development of democracy in Northern Ireland.
4.54 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, at the end of a fairly considerable discussion on this Statement, for which I know my right honourable friend will be grateful to your Lordships, I do not think you will expect me to say very much more, except to thank the noble Lords, Lord Maybray-King and Lord Longford, and my noble friends Lord Massereene and Ferrard and Lord Gore-Booth, for what they have said. If I may, I will quickly take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and my noble friend Lord Brookeborough who, of course, has been a valuable and loyal supporter of the Chief Executive Designate, Mr. Brian Faulkner. The noble Lord opposite and my noble friend have enunciated two rather different principles about collective responsibility, and I cannot comment on that at all, except to say that Schedule 4 of the Constitution Act, which allows for the oath for those who are to form the
1232
Executive, remains. My noble friend made the point that the coalition is mixing oil and water. That may be, my Lords, but the Parties have agreed a statement of economic and social aims which will no doubt be revealed by the Parties to the Executive Designate when they see fit. The Executive Designate has been formed, which is a considerable step forward. I agree with my noble friend that it is the fact that political activity is no solution to the security problem, and we are grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, paid tribute to the work of the Army.
My Lords, I think my right honourable friend would wish me to say that you cannot blur the distinction between those who seek by lawful means to oppose what the Constitution Act has been trying to do and those who have been seeking by unlawful means to oppose what the Constitution Act has been trying to do. The former have every right to do what they have been doing; the latter are leading us only to more and more violence. May I conclude by saying that I know that during the past twenty months the Administration of Northern Ireland has been enormously supported from both sides of your Lordships' House who have given advice during the debate. I think that whatever the future might hold, and certainly a lot remains to be done, and however the new Executive faces its task—and in that we wish them well—this Statement could certainly never have been made to-day without the twenty months work of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

ARMY, AIR FORCE AND NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACTS (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1973.
4.58 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, may I crave the indulgence of the Leader of the House for a moment? He knows in what regard I hold him, but I wonder whether, between now and the Christmas Recess, he could find five minutes to explain to me the Rules of Order of the House as they have been working in the last hour or so, bearing in mind the rebuke which he handed out to me on a previous occasion when I was advancing unpopular views and when, being conditioned by

1233
the years I spent in the other place, I did not on every occasion pose my problem in an interrogatory form. I am completely mystified.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and to other noble Lords who have been taking part in the debate on the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order. I know only too well what an inconvenience it is when a debate is interrupted, and particularly when the discussion following a Statement takes as long as has been the case with the Northern Ireland Statement. It is quite exceptional that the interruption is as long, but I should like to apologise to the noble Lord and to other noble Lords who have been taking part in the debate on the Order.
LoRD WIGG: The noble Lord humiliates me. I am not seeking an apology; I am seeking to understand. I have a simple rule: I will abide by the rules if everybody else abides by the rules; but I am not having a set of rules made for Wigg, and another set of rules made for everybody else. This is what has been happening. On a previous occasion, which your Lordships will remember, I sought the advice of the Clerks of the House as to where I had gone wrong, and I tried to learn. But the Rules in this House are applied to some, but not to others. It is a fact here that speeches are read by Ministers, every single word of them. This is a place of debate, but we have had speech after speech, and no attempt whatsoever to put them in interrogatory form. But I am not complaining. All I really want to do is to learn, so that what the others have I can have, too. I do not mean to be rebuked and interrupted at every sentence I try to utter while everyone else here has free reign, including the reactionary Lord at the back of the House who is trying to do his best to sabotage the Government.
Having tried to strike an uncontroversial note in my opening paragraph, may I say how glad I am to have the opportunity in this debate to speak after my noble friend Lord Brayley? He and I are old friends. We shared a common experience. It was many years ago when I met him. Indeed, we were both in the ranks of the Regular Army when he was
1234
fighting as a very good heavyweight boxer —rather above my weight, if I may say so, and certainly above my abilities in that particular field. But to-day he made a contribution which I think added to our deliberations by the weight of thought behind it. I hope very much that he will continue to speak as he thinks, and to express himself with the same forceful clarity as he did to-day. I certainly congratulate him.
My Lords, when this debate came on the Order Paper I regretted greately that it coincided with the death of a servant of your Lordships' House and a Member of your Lordships' House, Lord Spens, a public servant of great wisdom, who guided us over a period of some three years in framing the measures which your Lordships are considering today. I undertook the discipline of reading what was said on the Continuation Order a year ago, both in this place and another place, because I was abroad a year ago and could not take part. I went back to the first Contivation Order in 1957, and then back to the Select Committee Report, the Select Committee of which I was a member and laboured for three years—many time working through the Recess in order to produce the Report. What strikes me is that a year ago in another place they got in a terrible tangle as to what was or what was not in order. It had been laid down in the 1957 debate by the then Speaker that, broadly speaking the debate—a novel experience—the annual debate on the Affirmative Order, followed for a period of four years, and then followed by a Select Committee, would be related to what were regarded as A. and Q. problems, questions which were norm ally regarded as operational foreign policy for practical purposes. But in another place the complaint was that Members of your Lordships House went far wider than Members of the other place were allowed to go.
That situation arose in part because the Government—for reasons which I think we all understand; at least I try to understand—have the debate on the Continuation Order in this House before it takes place in the House of Commons. I think that is unfortunate, although I understand the reasons. That is not a criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I should think it is probably because the Secretary of State happens

1235
to be here that the debate is held here first. But I notice that when he was speaking a year ago he said that it was a tradition of this House to speak on personal questions, and in the other place (this is what we are really arguing about) that they should be speaking on personal questions as well.
I want to remind your Lordships—and I think it is particularly appropriate that we should remind ourselves at this titne—of this debate in its historical setting. I wrote a memorandum for the Select Committee, memorandum No. 38, which was considered by the Select Committee on the 4th May, 1954. I opened it by using these words:
"The Bill of Rights lays down that the raising or keeping of a standing Army within the Kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against the law."
And so it was over the years. The Army Act itself was fantastically Out of date because all the Government of the day was concerned with was that by April 30 it had a Motion of the House of Commons limiting the number of men that might be borne on the strength of the Army. The reasons for that were tied up with our liberties. A King lost his head because in fact he spent money voted for rations. on pay. He kept a bigger Army than Parliament wanted him to, and that led to the conflict between Parliament and Charles. A century or more later, another King lost his Throne. That is how the Bill of Rights came into being. That number must not be exceeded. And the debates which take place on the Continuation Order in this form (I am not reading the rest of my memorandum) were worked out in order that Parliament should keep control over this vital question of numbers: and must get the Affirmative Order before April 30 each year to maintain. in some form. Parliamentary control over the Armed Forces.
For three centuries that has never been a question in this country: but in many other countries it is a question. Country after country is falling under the dominance of the armed forces, or is influenced by forces that exist inside the forces of particular countries. With, I think, not wholly beneficial results. That situation has not arisen in this country. From time to time serving soldiers have
1236
made statements, have written books, have been questioned and so on and so forth; but basically the tradition has been to keep politics and the Army wide apart. That is absolutely right. It is in order to maintain civilian control that Parliament—both Houses—should maintain control over the Executive. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Brayley, was underlining this afternoon.
We see the results of a very great and expensive bill. I have not checked it, but the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, in a debate a few weeks ago, gave a figure of £40,000 million. I suppose he reached that figure by adding up all the Estimates —which is not the same thing as the amount that was spent. But, taken as a rough. figure, £40,000 million has been spent on Defence, and the public see the result every year. Trooping the Colour —they saw it last Wednesday; and the Military Tattoo in Edinburgh. But what beyond that? Our influence in the world can he measured by the treatment we recently received at the hands of the Americans. We can see just how much we count in the negotiations which are going on currently about the reduction of the Armed Forces in NATO in relation to the Warsaw Pact. Here I must be critical of my own Party. I listened last night to a Party political broadcast by Mr. Callaghan. Mr. Callaghan advocated cutting the Defence bill by £500 million. This is the equivalent, to my mind, of my doctor—or the man who tries to look after me—telling me that I must reduce my weight and, "The best thing you can do is to cut your fingers off, or cut your toes off." It is just about as sensible.
The £3,500 million which is being misspent at the present time stems, of course, from the 1957 White Paper. Over the years I have blamed Mr. Sandvs for that White Paper. Having read the last of Mr. Macmillan's hooks, I have reached the conclusion that that is wrong. The person who will take his place in history alongside Mr. Stanley Baldwin, as having put his Party before his country, his class before his duty, is Mr. Macmillan. This can be traced out through his speeches. The 1957 White Paper, the dependence upon an atomic nuclear defence policy; the decision to get rid of conscription—and accompanied, I may say, at that time by the abolition of the three-year engagement because of the difficulties

1237
about recruiting—all that has led us into our present position.
I saw with some amusement yesterday that the understudy of the Secretary of State for Defence in the other place said that our missiles were comparable in quality with the missiles possessed by the Soviet Union. How does he know that? None of them has been fired in anger. But if anybody seriously thinks that we have any weapon capable of doing what the Sam 6 has done, then he is living in Cloud Cuckoo-land. Indeed, the point was made yesterday, and has been made again to-day by Lord Brayley, that if we were asked to put in the field a balanced force—not a force such as that in Northern Ireland, carrying out not a soldier's job but a policeman's job—we should be hard pat to do it.
Since that time, of course, the Government have returned to the three-year engagement. The three-year engagement, when Mr. Healey introduced it, was attractive in the short run. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, thought that this was a good step. He overlooks the fact of the simple multiplication sum that it took years to teach the House of Commons: that if your recruiting figure is 100 and you have a three-year engagement, you will get an Army of 300; if it is seven years, you will get 700; and if you have a high wastage, as you now have, and your re-engagement figure, based upon the net figure, is 50 per cent., it is not very satisfactory never mind what the Secretary of State says. Then there is some thing else. If you have a short-service engagement, where in the long run do you get your warrant officers and your senior N.C.O.s? They are the hones and the anatomy of the Army, and are what it is built around.
The search for the long-service N.C.O. and warrant officer killed democracy in Kaiser's Germany. It produced a capitulant class. It meant that in order to get them they had to give a guarantee that every man who undertook a long-service engagement would be given a job. Noble Lords who remember seeing All Quiet on the Western Front will remember Himmelkop, the easy-going postman, who was a top rebel when he got a uniform on. He was a product of the capitulant class. One of the reasons why Israel at the moment is in the throes in terms of the civilian administration, on
1238
the one hand, and its soldiers, on the other, is that they have gone two steps beyond the Germans. Their officers, their N.C.O.s and warrant officers are given jobs which are as economically satisfactory in civilian life as they were in military life, which leads insidiously, almost without your knowing it, into a military approach.
My ways, like Lord Brayley's ways, have been cast along different paths from those of many of the Members of the Labour Party. I joined the Labour Party before I joined the Regular Army: I joined before I was 18, and I joined the Regular Army when I was 18. One of the reasons why I never found any culty (and I still find no difficulty) in staying in the Labour Party was because basically its instincts take it into the ways of peace, co-operation and conciliation, rather than into the paths of aggression and division. I am sure that, in the kind of world in which we live, that approach is fundamentally correct. I am not suggesting for one moment that noble Lords opposite are very far away from that position themselves, although historically the Conservative Party have tended from time to time to "wave the flag".
What I say to the Government is that they are spending £3,500 million on Defence. They are forced, as a result of their own policy, to spend an ever-increasing ratio on pay, allowances and non-effective services: they cannot help it. There is a ceiling of £3,500 million, even allowing for the deterioration in the value of money. That figure cannot rise very much. The Secretary of State has said that he has been conscious of the problem of recruiting for a long time, and he is looking to the pay review next year in the hope that pay increases inside Phase 3 will help him to redress that balance. What does it mean? It means that the ratio of pay and allowances will rise, because the country is in no mood for an increase in the total. That, in turn, means that there will be less money to spend on equipment. That situation faces us. It also faces the ever-rich United States. They have switched, because of the weakness of the Nixon Administration, to a voluntary system. Of course they are helped because of the different standards of life in the South of America and in the North, and they can draw on the recruiting grounds in the

1239
South, particularly among the black population, for fruitful recruitment. But they, too, are finding that the ever-rising costs of pay, rations, accommodation, and the need to look after wives and children, is reaching a point when they are having to limit what they can spend on equipment.
In my view, the noble Lord, Lord Brayley, is right. If you are going to have defence, then have adequate defence. But at least be under no illusions about it yourself: because the one thing you can be certain about is that your potential enemy will have no illusions, and when war comes, as it has come in the Middle East, or the threat of war comes, as it has now, the deficiencies in your Defence policy are revealed for all to see, and in a flash £40,000 million spent on Defence in this country, and amounts not so far off that sum spent by our NATO Allies, reveal when the chips were down that, so far as the United States are concerned, that we did not count "tuppence".
What is the political result? I am sure that with an attenuated attendance, the majority of noble Lords present to-day were in favour of a Common Market, a united Europe and a Common European Defence Policy. What does our military weakness reveal but the bulkanisation of Europe? At the present moment, neither singly nor collectively, does Europe amount to "tuppence". We have four nuclear submarines armed with A3. All they are is a provocation, and no more. Their military significance, except posthumously, is nil. If we were called upon to put, say, a division into the Middle East and to keep it there, it would be beyond our capacity. Yet there is the bill. We should be far safer not to do what Mr. Callaghan suggested. That is a fatal policy. To chop £500 million off the bill and think that you have effective Defence is really "conning" yourself. That is not the way to do it. Either have adequate defence, and be prepared to make the sacrifices for an adequate defence, or, better still, have no defence at all. Do as the Swiss do. Although they spend a little bit, I may say that they spend it on a high degree of citizenship. Far better to open all the frontiers and have nothing at all,
1240
because at least we should not be as we are to-night: while having half a sting with four Polaris submarines, we could well be the target for to-night. So my reasons for wearying your Lordships are, first of all, the great pleasure that I have in following the noble Lord, Lord Brayley, and to some extent underlining what he has said, and, secondly, pleading for this.
That Select Committee in 1952 was born of a bitter Party squabble. It put the Conservative Government of the day the spot. I well remember the conversations between the then Mr. Eden and Mr. Attlee which led to the setting up of the Committee, but the memorable thing about it was the wise and firm leadership of Lord Spens. From the time the doors were closed on that Committee, which was composed of bitter antagonists from both Parties. for a period of the next three years, the battle was forgotten and what we fought for was just to do the best we could for the Army as a whole. I think that to some extent we succeeded. The evidence is there for any noble Lord to see. The divisions that took place—and there were divisions—were never on a Party basis; they were not vertical but horizontal. All through my political life I have pleaded—and I make the plea again to-day although I do not think anyone will take any notice—that this country of ours, after two devastating World Wars and even though speaking from a weakening world position, still has something to give to the world. But if it is to give it, it must spend the little that it has to give wisely and well, and basically on a non-Party political basis. Of course, there will be political differences. So long as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and I live we shall disagree on almost every question, because our outlooks are quite different; and there is the same difference between myself and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. Nevertheless, so far as this question is concerned, what is needed above all is honesty, and if we can achieve that we shall succeed. It will be a long and hard road to get back to that kind of basis, and I have tried to-night not to make a Party political speech, because I am perhaps nearer to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. than I am to Mr. Callaghan on the provision of an adequate Defence.
5.23 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Brayley, on his maiden speech. I do so with some trepidation since I, too, was a Regular soldier but after some years had only reached the rank of acting, temporary, unpaid, local major, while he is a Colonel-Commandant. Nevertheless, I congratulate him most sincerely on his speech, and particularly since I believe this is the first maiden speech made in your Lordships' House for a great many years on the subject of Defence. One of the things that bothers me as much as it bothers the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is the lack of interest in Parliament, as indeed outside it, on defence matters. Consequently, to have someone who joins your Lordships' House and feels strongly enough about the defence of this country to make his maiden speech on that subject is something that I greatly welcome. The noble Lord will certainly add good sense and lustre to our debates on Defence in this House, and we look forward to hearing him on a great many occasions.
I thought I would confine myself, in the few remarks that I want to make in winding-up, to answering the questions that have been put to me. I did not know the reason why we were debating the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts, and so I inquired—because when it was pointed out to me by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, it did seem rather odd. It is in fact because there are three separate Acts: the Army Act in 1955; the Air Force Act in 1955; and the Navy Act in 1957. The Parliamentary draftsman had obviously thought that order to be more important than the traditional order of the three Services—I expect he knows better by now! The noble Lord asked me about the X= factor and about Phase 3. I would tell him that it certainly is my intention to use whatever possibilties are available under Phase 3 to get as much money as possible for the Services, whether it be on the basis of unsocial hours or the X = factor. However, I do not think I can go into the details of that at the present time.
If the noble Lord was responsible (he may very well have been) for the idea of an insurance scheme, we are very grateful to him. I should like to say just a little about this subject, because I think there
1242
is a misunderstanding about what is available now to the families of Servicemen killed in Northern Ireland. We have recently introduced some very important improvements into the occupational pensions scheme as regards provisions for invaliding and for the widows and dependants of officers and Servicemen. Thus. the widow of a soldier killed in Northern Ireland, or dying anywhere for reasons attributed to service, now stands to receive the following: her husband's pay for three months; then an attributable Forces family pension at the rate of 90 per cent. of the full career pension appropriate to her husband's rank; a lump sum payment of three times the annual rate of her husband's invaliding pension (or twice his full career pension, whichever is the greater); an additional widow's gratuity worth 50 per cent. of the husband's full career pension for a year; and 20 per cent. of the full career pension for each dependent child up to a maximum of four. In addition to those benefits from the Ministry of Defence, the widow stands to get the appropriate pension and attributable allowances from the war pensions scheme administered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security.
All in all, I think the Regular provisions for widows and dependent children are now pretty good, but for those in the Army who would like to make some extra private provision we have recently introduced the scheme to which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, referred—a life assurance scheme, arranged by a firm of brokers, under which a weekly contribution of 30p buys a pension of £10 a week upon death from any cause up to the time the soldier would have reached the age of 55. This is payable either to the widow or to nominated beneficiaries; for example, the parents. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough—I do not see him in the Chamber at the moment—asked me whether this scheme would apply to the U.D.R. in Ireland. As of now, it does not apply to them, but my Ministry is making inquiries of the trustees of the scheme to see whether or not they will be able to extend the provisions to members of the U.D.R.
Both my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing and the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, talked about the results of raising the school-leaving age and the education of

1243
young men, suggesting that it might be possible for the Services to educate them rather than that they should do their last year at school. I am sure it will come as no surprise to both noble Lords to hear that this is not a scheme I view with great displeasure; but I think one must be careful about it. One does not want to underestimate the cost difficulties involved in a scheme of this kind. Generally speaking, the Services have never recruited boys below the minimum school age. To integrate the final year of schooling with initial training for a military career and also to integrate the education which the boy has already received would, I am sure, impose quite new demands on the Service; I do not think we should consider starting a scheme of that kind unless first, we were satisfied that it would make a significant contribution to solving the problem, and secondly, that the 15-year-olds who were recruited could really expect to be educated to the same standard as they would be at school. In any event, I do not think that at the moment we ought to draw conclusions until we have seen the results of the first year; but certainly my mind is not closed on the subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, my noble friend behind me and my noble friend Lady Ruthven of Freeland, raised the question of women in the Services. Incidentally, I am looking at what the noble Lord said the other day in a debate, and I hope to be able to write to him. We place a high value on the use of women in the Armed Forces. At present there are about 15,000 in the Services, which puts us, as a matter of interest, second in the NATO league after the United States. There is a problem which the noble Lord knows: they unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, get married very quickly. To maintain a strength of 15,000, we have to enter 6,000 every year. This is not much of a problem so far as recruiting goes—there is not much difficulty in getting the 6,000–but it means that as we expect only a short service from them we cannot afford to give expensive training. That makes the suggestion of my noble friend behind me a little more difficult to deal with. We are examining this and I hope we shall be able to do something about it.
1244
My noble friend Lady Ruthven asked about local overseas allowance and why it is not paid in Northern Ireland. I think she misunderstands the object of local overseas allowance. It is intended to compensate for the difference in living costs between an overseas station and the United Kingdom. Since Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom it would not be appropriate for local overseas allowance to be paid to Servicemen there. The noble Lady and I have been having a correspondence about allowances generally, and I have just written her another letter on the subject of family allowances when soldiers move from one station to another. If my noble friend is not satisfied with that letter I hope she will write again and I will see what I can do.
Those were the questions that were asked. I will not go into Lord Wigg's speech, though one could have a good debate on it. Though he and I have the same approach, we come to different conclusions at the end. But whatever one may say about the noble Lord, Lord Wigg—and I have said some awful things in my time about him—there is one thing one can say and that is that he really is interested in defence, and for that I am grateful. I am also grateful that he attends the House and makes speeches of the kind he has made this evening. Equally I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and who have made constructive suggestions. I will examine them and, as usual, I hope profit and learn from what they have said. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1973, laid before the House on October 30, be approved.—(Lord Carrington.)
On question, Motion agreed to.

RABIES BILL [H.L.]
5.33 p.m.
EARL. FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time. The main objective of the Bill is to provide the powers necessary for the effective handling of rabies outbreaks outside quarantine. Rabies is a disease to which most mammals ore sus-

1245
ceptible. It is caused by a virus affecting the central nervous system and is most commonly transmitted by a bite. Once the disease has developed in humans it has almost without exception proved fatal. Humans who have been bitten by infected animals can be vaccinated after the incident. This may prevent the development of the disease, but involves a highly unpleasant series of injections which, even if rabies does not develop, can have serious side-effects. The incubation period of the disease can be a long one—even up to 12 months. So that any person exposed to infection faces at the very least a long period of extreme worry.
Apart from two cases in dogs in 1969 and 1970, Great Britain has been free of the disease outside quarantine since 1922. Following these two cases, and in the light of the spread of rabies across the Continent of Europe, a Committee of Inquiry on Rabies, with Mr. Ronald Waterhouse, Q.C., as Chairman, was appointed in April, 1970, by the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Secretary of State for Scotland. The Committee's terms of reference were:
"To review the policy and precautions against rabies in Great Britain and to make recommendations."
The Committee's excellent Final Report was submitted to Ministers in May, 1971.
In their introduction to the Report the Committee drew attention to the rabies situation on the Continent and to the apparent inevitability that the disease would reach the Channel coast. The official French forecasts then indicated that wildlife rabies spread by foxes could be close to the Channel coast by 1980. The Committee pointed to the fact that, whereas there had always been grave risk of introduction of the disease through dogs and cats imported from countries with urban rabies, the risk had become increasingly serious from dogs and cats imported from Europe. They also drew attention to the risk of introducing the disease through other imported species of mammal, many of which were not at that time subject to quarantine control. In short, the Report opened with a clear message that the risk that any dog, cat, or other mammal entering this country might be infected with rabies was steadily increasing.
1246
Since the Committee reported, the situation in France has deteriorated. The spread of the disease has continued. Total recorded cases of rabies in France in 1970 were 512, of which 297 were cases of rabies in foxes. In 1971 the figure rose to 883 cases, of which 533 were in foxes. In 1972 the figure rose to 1,008, of which 722 were foxes. In the first eight months of 1973 the figures were 1,440, of which 1,226 were in foxes, indicating that the incidence of the disease in 1973 is running at about twice the level it was in 1972. The French authorities estimate that the number of actual deaths from rabies in wild animals has probably exceeded the number of deaths recorded by at least five times— the majority simply dying unobserved in the wild.
The Waterhouse Committee's consideration of the problem and their recommendations fell into two parts. First, they looked at the adequacy, in the face of the increasing risk, of our existing safeguards against entry of the disease. Secondly, accepting the unpalatable fact that, no matter what measures they recommended as desirable to strengthen existing safeguards, the risk of entry could not be eliminated, they considered the measures needed to deal with rabies outbreaks if they occurred, and particularly if they occurred in the wildlife.
Since the Committee reported, quarantine controls have been applied to a much wider range of mammals; new conditions have been introduced for authorised quarantine premises, and controls over the carrying of quarantine animals have been tightened. I think that reviewing and revising our quarantine regulations and import controls will inevitably be a continuing process to take account of increased knowledge and changing conditions and that we shall never reach the stage of being wholly satisfied with the degree of protection we have achieved. But with few exceptions the Waterhouse recommendations concerning the strengthening of existing safeguards have been implemented, and this Bill is intended to pave the way for implementation of the second group of recommendations for dealing with outbreaks outside quarantine.
As can be seen from the figures I have already given, the animal mainly responsible for the spread of the disease on the

1247
Continent has been the fox. It is highly susceptible and has the ability both to spread the disease and to act as a reservoir of it. The Waterhouse Committee expressed the view that, whatever the original source of an outbreak of rabies in Great Britain, the fox would probably become the main reservoir of the disease if it once became established in the wildlife. Events since the Committee reported have added strength to this view. The probability is, therefore, that, to have any hopes of being effective, measures to eradicate the disease from wildlife would have to he based on the reduction of the fox population in and around the area of infection. Any Government would be seriously inhibited if they had to attempt to tackle such a task within the confines of the powers at present available to them under existing diseases of animals legislation. This is the gap we are trying to fill with the Bill.
It may be helpful if I now outline the main provisions in the Bill and explain its relationship with the Diseases of Animals Act 1950. This Act provides extensive powers for the protection of our animal health and many of the measures that would be needed to deal with a rabies outbreak are already covered by it. But it was clearly drafted with farm animals and farm diseases uppermost in mind and, in so far as rabies was concerned, with urban rabies in domestic dogs and cats. Not surprisingly therefore among its main provisions for dealing with outbreaks, there is no provision for the entry on to land to destroy wildlife, nor does it cover fully other necessary actions for dealing with the type of rabies problem we might encounter here if we experienced similar outbreaks to those in France and other parts of the Continent.
Each clause in the new Bill relates to a corresponding section of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 and supplements the general Order-making powers in that section for the purpose of dealing with rabies. The Bill is enabling legislation only and will require Orders to put it into effect. Such Orders would be made under the Diseases of Animals Act as extended by the powers in this Bill.
Clauses 1 and 2 of the Pill contain the main additional provisions needed for handling rabies outbreaks. Clause I enables the destruction of foxes and, if
1248
necessary, other wild mammals not in captivity to be provided for in an Order declaring an infected area; also for an Order to include powers to enter land to carry out such destruction. Foxes are specified in the Bill as the most likely species against which action would be necessary. Although all mammals are believed to be susceptible, overseas experience, particularly in Denmark, where measures along the lines of those to be provided in this Bill have been successfully operated, has been that if the fox population in and around a rabies infected area can be reduced to below a certain threshold, the disease tends to burn itself out altogether. In describing the methods of destruction necessary to deal with the fox population—mainly the gassing of fox-holes and the use of poison baits—the Waterhouse Committee draw attention to the statutory controls over the use of poisons which would need to be overriden for an effective campaign to be mounted. They also referred to the possibility, in exceptional circumstances (for example, in mountainous regions) that the use of gin traps, normally prohibited, might be necessary to deal effectively with foxes, despite the obvious humanitarian objections. This provision is based on the view, not disputed by anyone who commented on the Waterhouse Committee's Report, that such measures would be justifiable for the protection of our wildlife, our domestic animal population and our human population against the threat of rabies.
There should be no need to make a direct target of other species of wild animal in the area, although it has to be recognised that some would inevitably be destroyed along with the foxes. It also has to be borne in mind that powers can be taken under existing legislation to destroy animals infected with rabies, suspected of being infected or which have been in direct contact with infected animals. In different parts of the world, species other than foxes have demonstrated a capacity to hold and spread the disease—for example, bats and skunks—. and the behaviour of the rabies virus and its ability to transfer from one species to another is by no means predictable. The powers available to those dealing with an outbreak, therefore, need to be flexible enough to enable them to deal urgently with both the expected and the unexpected situation.

1249
Clause 1 deals with wild animals not in captivity and is complemented by Clause 2 which provides powers for dealing with domestic animals, either confined or stray, and wild species held in captivity—in zoos and safari parks, for example. It extends the powers at present available for applying controls to the domestic animal population and wild animals in captivity in rabies-infected areas. It would enable Orders to be made to confine, control and require vaccination of such animals. It would also enable stray animals to be dealt with. This clause also enables an Order to be made to provide for infected areas to be divided into zones and for different measures to be applied in different zones. This is necessary because the existing legislation as supplemented by the new powers would provide for a battery of measures to deal with different situations and the controllers of an anti-rabies campaign would obviously need the maximum flexibility to contain any measures taken strictly to the areas where they were considered necessary.
Clause 4 is the other provision in the Bill concerned with the handling of outbreaks and places an obligation on any person who knows or suspects that an animal is affected with rabies to report the fact. Present legislation places the obligation to notify only on the owner or person in charge of such an animal and, as the measures in the Bill are largely concerned with wild animals not owned or in anybody's charge, any person might be the first or only person to see an animal at large showing rabies symptoms. The earliest possible notification of cases would, of course, be a critical factor in the success of a rabies eradication campaign.
I mentioned that the majority of the Waterhouse Committee recommendations concerning preventive measures against entry of the disease had been implemented under existing legislation. The opportunity is, however, being taken in the Bill to deal with two weaknesses in our rabies defences and these are dealt with in Clauses 3 and 5. The main intention of Clause 3 (not a Waterhouse recommendation) is to enable us to control the keeping and importation of rabies virus and to provide for similar quarantine arrangements to be required for native animals used in experimental
1250
work involving rabies virus, as are applied to imported rabies-susceptible animals. The Ministry of Agriculture has had consultations with research institutes handling rabies virus and they are, of course, fully aware of the hazards involved and already take precautions in the handling of the materials. Nevertheless, it is an inconsistency in the context of our overall rabies controls and a potential threat to security that institutes handling the virus are not presently subject to any statutory controls. We are confident that adequate controls can be applied without inhibiting necessary research in any way.
Clause 5 provides for the destruction of animals illegally landed in Great Britain. I think it is generally accepted that the illegal landing of animals, whether deliberately or unknowingly, represents the biggest threat to our rabies security. The Waterhouse Committee recommended that such animals should be confined immediately for possible destruction or re-export, and allowed into quarantine only if owners furnished a satisfactory reason for the non-observance of the regulations. At present, owners or carriers of such animals are offered the alternatives of re-export, destruction, or direction to quarantine premises. But immediate re-export is not generally feasible and if quarantine accommodation is not available, which is frequently the case, destruction of the animal is the only alternative. Existing legislation, however, does not empower the responsible authorities to destroy such animals, other than with the owner's consent.
After the Waterhouse Committee Report was published, all persons and organisations who had given evidence to the Committee were asked to comment. These organisations included virtually all the leading bodies concerned with animal health, welfare, conservation and related matters. The comments received by the Ministry were overwhelmingly in favour of the Report and few qualifications were made about even the most drastic measures that the Committee thought necessary.
My Lords, I would not wish to underestimate the serious nature of certain of the powers which Her Majesty's Government are seeking to take in this Bill. In almost any other context than rabies

1251
control they would be totally unacceptable. But I think that everybody with knowledge of the subject recognises the high priority that should be accorded to preserving the rabies-free status which this country has enjoyed for so long and to providing the powers necessary to stamp out this terrible disease, if it ever occurs, as quickly as possible. Further research and preparation will be necessary to formulate the detailed orders which will be needed to implement the powers in the Bill, and the views of interests concerned or affected will be sought.
There are those who say that because of the Continental situation it is inevitable that the disease will in due course establish itself in this country and that rabies outbreaks will become part of our way of life. The quarantine controls and the other safeguards which we have applied so successfully over the years have restricted the number of outbreaks outside quarantine to two since 1922. These controls have been strengthened in many respects since the Waterhouse Committee reported to counter the increasing risks. While it is only prudent to take the powers set out in this Bill as an insurance against our defences being breached, I certainly hope that our vigilance and the co-operation of the vast majority of our citizens will continue to be rewarded with freedom from the disease. If it should penetrate our first line of defence then, provided that we can act quickly and effectively, we can stamp it out. Denmark has twice managed to do this by methods similar to those which we are proposing. While I would emphasise the need to take the powers proposed in this Bill, I sincerely hope that we shall not have any immediate need to use them. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—(Earl Ferrers.)
5.52 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hoy, who normally speaks for us on this side of the House on agricultural matters, has unfortunately had to leave your Lordships' House and proceed North, but he has asked me to extend a very warm welcome to this Bill. I am not a farmer, nor have I any
1252
medical knowledge, but I perhaps may be the only one in your Lordships' House who has had some close contact with rabies. Many years ago in Bangkok a friend of mine was bitten by a dog, and I took that young man to the hospital and saw the first of the medical inoculations—one of the most unpleasant forms of medical treatment I can imagine. But during that short period at the hospital I saw a person in the last throes, the last hours prior to death, through rabies. That is many years ago, and I can say to your Lordships that I shall never forget the circumstances in which that death occurred.
I have no sympathy with anyone, whatever may be the circumstances, who endangers the health of this country by illegally bringing into this country animals that have not gone through the proper form of quarantine and check. If I were a magistrate I would have no mercy. I would look up the maximum penalty that was provided and would administer it, whatever the circumstances. Perhaps I might ask the noble Lord, since we are dealing with a Bill which has a parent Act, whether the penalties set cut in the Act, since it was passed in 1950, are to-day adequate as a deterrent, taking into account the seriousness of the disease and of the many things that flow from it. One must recognise that if rabies is brought here very considerable expense is incurred. Again, when I was living in Singapore some stupid woman brought in a dog from Malaya. Singapore, like ourselves, had been relatively free from rabies. This person brought the dog over the causeway hidden in the boot of a car. The cost of dealing with the rabies epidemic that flowed from it was very considerable. Apart from the whole system of checks, the medical examinations and the veterinary work, there was also the bringing in of the inoculation serum and the like. Therefore, apart from the disease and its effect on animals and individuals, one has to take into account what could be a heavy cost.
The figures which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has given have clearly shown how free we have been—two cases since 1922. This shows that our present defences are adequate, and we should do all we can to make those defences even

1253
stronger in order to maintain this high degree of immunity. Unfortunately, I have not been able to look at the principal Act, but Clause 4 of the Bill refers to the principal Act, and reads—
"(1A) Any person who knows or suspects that an animal (whether in captivity or not) is affected with rabies shall give notice of that fact to a constable…
I think that is very satisfactory. It then goes on—
"unless—
(a) he believes on reasonable grounds that another person has given notice under this section in respect of that animal…"
I personally have a feeling that in the light of the seriousness of this matter it is the duty of any individual who suspects that there is rabies, either in an animal that is wild or in an animal that is in captivity, to report it before other animals have been infected. The new subsection (1A) goes on:
"and, if the animal is in his possession or under his charge, shall as far as practicable keep the animal separate from other animals."
I have a feeling that this rather weakens the earlier words of the subsection. I may be wrong, but I would ask the noble Earl to look at this. I believe that we should make these rules as tight as possible so that there can be no misunderstanding or loophole in the notification where a person suspects rabies is in existence.
At the end of the Bill, as is customary we read:
"This Act does not extend to Northern Ireland."
I am not quite certain of the regulations and the legislation in terms of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, and I can see difficulties here. But I wonder whether the noble Lord can give any indication of our control of animals moving from Northern Ireland into Britain, and whether the Government intend to see that in Northern Ireland similar legislation will be enacted. My Lords, I may have spoken rather strongly on this matter, but I believe that everything possible should be done to keep this country immune from this terrible disease no matter what the expense or what people may feel about the hardships arising perhaps from the loss of their favourite animal.
5.59 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd,
1254
has spoken in such firm tones and I hope that attention will be paid to his recommendations about intimating to the police. I welcome the Bill and I think the whole veterinary profession welcomes it. There is an increasing danger of infection from the Continent and we must congratulate the Government upon taking time by the forelock.
There is a point in Clause I about which I should like some illumination. Line 10 at the end of the first paragraph reads:
"—such other wild mammals as may be prescribed by the order (not in either case being animals held in captivity)."
I should like a definition of "captivity". I have been unable to find it in the Diseases of Animals Act or in the previous Rabies Order. I think it could arise very acutely in relation to safari parks. In safari parks, the only animal in captivity is the human in his car. The other animals are roaming and there are holes in the fences which small animals can get through. It conjures up in my mind the vision of a rabid lion in a safari park attacking a car. I do not think the captive would live very long—certainly no longer than they did in the old Roman days. Incidentally, certain zoos in which the animals are kept captive can be infected because they have parts which are open to access to the outside world. In the Edinburgh Zoo, for example, foxes pass in and out freely, so I think we should look at this point again at the Committee stage.
Another mammal which could cause considerable trouble in the event of rabies getting into the country is the bat. The bat is able to fly over the fences of the safari parks, and if there was an infection there might be great difficulty in containing it. It might well be advisable to slaughter animals in safari parks if it was not possible to arrange for them to he put into absolute captivity during an outbreak of rabies. There is a particular species of bat which is not bred in this country but which certain people try to import. It rejoices in the name of the vampire bat, and if the vampire bat got into the country there could be a great deal of trouble. At the present moment, according to the Statutory Instrument 1971 vampire bats must go into quarantine. If it is possible, I should like to know whether there have been any attempts to import vampire

1255
bats, and, if so, how many vampire bats there are in quarantine at this present moment.
With regard to authorising the use of any illegal methods of destruction, I am glad that the rigid provision has been put in the Bill, and I hope it will also include permission to shoot the fox. Again, my Lords, I congratulate the Government on their foresight and I should like to apologise to the House because I have an urgent desire to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, to Scotland as quickly as possible, and that may prevent me from attending the end of this debate.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, may I crave your indulgence to make one remark?
EARL FERRERS: No, I am afraid not.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I beg your pardon, my Lords.
6.3 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I want to make only a brief intervention in this debate, but I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for introducing this extremely valuable little Bill, which I am quite sure nobody could object to at all. There is not a great deal I want to say which has not already been said. I admired what the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has said and I agree with the doubts that he has expressed. The vampire bat is a curious carrier of rabies because it bites when it is hungry but not when it is rabid, so what may appear to be a perfectly normal vampire hat can in fact infect you with rabies if it bites you.
Before beginning our debate on the Bill I was hoping to get an assurance from the Government, first, that they would not even think about relaxing quarantine regulations for animals which are being imported into this country. My doubts have been greatly diminished by what the noble Earl has said, so I no longer think that that is a possibility. Second, there has been a great deal of talk about the value of vaccines, particularly with dogs that are imported into this country. One of the dogs which developed rabies when it came into this country, and was taken to Newmarket in 1970, was supposed to have been vaccinated three times in Pakistan before it came here. It was in quarantine
1256
for the proper period of six months but it developed rabies about a fortnight after it came out of quarantine, which shows that although vaccination may be a valuable thing to do it does not afford complete protection. If somebody tried to argue that there was no need for quarantine because the animal which had been imported had been vaccinated, I think that argument would not go down very well.
I have two other points that I should like to raise. One is that a great many more rare and exotic animals are now being imported as pets, and I suppose for experimental work also, but I trust that, if anything, the powers of quarantine will be extended rather than restricted. One reason I have for saying that is that I remember that quite a long time ago there was a disease of parrots called psittacosis. It was made difficult to import a parrot, and parrots which died of this disease had to be sent to a special laboratory for examination because the disease could be caught by human beings and was sometimes fatal: it was a form of pneumonia. These regulations were relaxed some time after the War, but I have seen reports in the Press recently that there have been cases of psittacosis arising among people in this country, and one wonders whether it was a good thing to have made that relaxation in favour of people bringing parrots into this country if it is going to bring back that unpleasant disease. My Lords, I have been greatly comforted by what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said in introducing this Bill and I trust the Government will continue along these lines.
6.7 p.m.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in welcoming this Bill. My only query is as to whether it goes far enough. In Clause 1(2)(a) powers for entering on land are giver but they specifically exclude dwelling houses. I think it is well known that foxes, in particular, if they are being hunted or in any way chased, are quite liable to go into any place where they think they can obtain shelter. Many have been known to go into dwelling houses and into barns and buildings adjoining dwelling houses. Perhaps the Government can tell us why these have been excluded.
Another query I should like to raise is about the provision to use gin traps,

1257
poisons and so on. Could some words be written into the Bill to provide that when these uses are made of such things the utmost publicity should be given in the area, because many people have animals, such as cats, which roam, and it would be most unfortunate if some pet was caught in a gin trap. I know these traps will be used only in extreme cases, and I am not objecting to their use, but I should like to have an assurance that the widest possible publicity will be given to their use in any particular area. In Clause 2(1)(e) again, dwelling houses have been omitted. I think dwelling houses might well be included in this clause. I believe the noble Earl said that in fact the right existed. The other aim was the power to destroy animals which could have been in contact with other rabid animals. This would mainly apply to the domestic dog or cat which might roam; but could the noble Earl give some indication as to where that power is, because I have been unable to see under which part of the Act it applies.
My Lords, I must join with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in inquiring whether the noble Earl considers that the penalties under the main Act, drafted in past years, are really sufficient. This is a terrible disease, and anybody who tries to thwart any purpose of the Act deserves very heavy penalty under the law. May I again welcome this Bill? I think it is a very good thing.
6.11 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, may I apologise for my previous error in trying to intervene? May I say to noble Lords present, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that I came across a young American professor in Leeds who has actually cured a boy of rabies, so I feel there is hope that there will not be a repetition of the circumstances that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, related to us. With regard to Scotland, we hope that rabies has not yet arrived there. With the exception of my noble friend Lord Balerno, we are very short of sufficient unspeakable to chase the uneatable. As the matter seems to rest on fox destruction, we shall obviously need much more encouragement given to fox destruction societies, and, as has been indicated by a noble Lord, we must have a much more efficient kind of trap. We
1258
shall have to invite the Forestry Commission to kill even more foxes in their vast forests.
6.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I welcome this Bill. We cannot have tight enough regulations on the import of animals into this country. I have a slight connection with this Bill. Many of your Lordships think that it is a brand new Bill. I do not want to he pompous, but in 1895, under the new Government of Lord Salisbury, my ancestor, Walter Long, became the President of the Board of Agriculture. It was soon after that that a dog ran amok and bit four children in a playground, and those four children subsequently died. As your Lordships can imagine, there was a furore in the country about it. My grandfather went on a visit to his doctor in Warminster, and the doctor said to him, "Mr. Walter, there is only one way to cure rabies, or hydrophobia". My grandfather asked him, "What may that be?", and the doctor replied, "There should be quarantines for imported dogs, and muzzling of dogs in this country". My grandfather turned to the doctor and, in modern terms, said, "You must be joking. You will lose me my Cabinet seat and everything else." But the doctor said, "That is the way you will cure this disease".
My grandfather came back to the Cabinet and told its members what he was going to do, and he did it. He was extremely unpopular. This was in the Victorian era, when women went around with little dogs, with blue and red ribbons tied to them, under their arms, and those women refused to speak to my grandfather. A large petition was raised, with many thousands of names, and it was sent to him. He felt that the canine breed would be fairly secure from then on. However, after five years of being very unpopular, he did, in fact, put a stop to rabies in this country. I do not want to boast about it, but I felt your Lordships would like to know the background. This Bill is not absolutely new. It comes from the period of one of my ancestors.
My Lords, we have heard that this disease of hydrophobia, or rabies as we know it, is moving slowly from Eastern

1259
Europe to Western Europe. It is extraordinary how quickly the disease moves. I want to ask my noble friend Lord Ferrers whether we have really broached this subject fairly and squarely to our Common Market partners. Do they know our regulations correctly? Do we know how their veterinary surgeons and their medical world act on this matter in their own countries? Would it not be possible to warn them of our anxieties over this disease?—because we simply and utterly do not want it in this country, having stamped it out from the beginning of the century. That is all I want to say. I am proud that this matter has been brought up, and glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has insinuated that the penalty must be severe for everyone. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has also said the same thing. It is extremely important that there should be penalties for this offence. I am not a veterinary surgeon, nor am I in the medical profession, but I know that the disease is vile, and the cure is equally vile. Through this Bill we are on our guard so that rabies shall not be allowed to come from Europe to this country.
6.18 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed for the welcome that this Bill has received. I think that every noble Lord who has spoken has emphasised the vileness of this disease. I am more than grateful to know that from all sides of the House there is support for the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd described, in I thought a quite graphic fashion, his personal experience of having seen a person with this disease. I quite understood it when he said that he would never forget the sight; indeed, it must have been perfectly horrible. Having seen that disease in a human being, he was concerned, quite rightly, as to whether the disease could be imported into this country by, as he explained, dogs in cars, like the instance in Singapore, and whether the penalties are adequate. The Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, which covers the penalties, provides for a fine of £400 for a first offence. The Waterhouse Committee drew attention to the fact that the average fine imposed at the time they reported had been £30, as compared with the cost of £75 for quarantining a dog. They said that substantially increased
1260
fines would be necessary in future if prosecution was to be an effective deterrent, since the average cost of quarantining a dog had risen to about £150 but the average fine imposed had risen to only about £50. Here we come to the point where Parliament can say what the fines are. It is up to Parliament to say what the level of fines should be, and I hope that magistrates reading reports of this debate may be inclined to impose heavier fines than previously. Some magistrates have recently taken a more serious view of this offence. Two people were fined £200 at Folkestone a short while ago for smuggling in a dog. There was a Scottish case of dog-smuggling which drew a fine of only £20. The general level of fines does remain disappointingly low. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was in favour of the clause which enforces upon people the duty to report the fact that they have seen a rabid animal. Exclusions which are put into this Bill are really twofold. One is that if a number of people see a rabid dog it is incumbent upon only one to report it. To take the example of a rabid dog seen in a village by a number of people who were rushing out of its way, if one reported the fact it would be absurd to suggest that all the others were contravening the law if they too did not report it. We will certainly look at the point again and take note of it before the next stage of the Bill. With regard to Northern Ireland, they have been kept in touch wtih the proposals in this legislation and they are considering whether there should be any additional legislation there.
It is always fascinating to listen to my noble friend Lord Balerno, even when he has not referred back to Scotland. He always produces something not only witty and humorous, but extremely pithy. I am bound to say that it had never occurred to me that the only person in captivity in a safari park would be the visitor in his motor car. It was certainly not the intention that he should be covered by this Bill, and I do not believe that he would be, but we will certainly look again at the point to make certain that there is no slip-up there. Safari park animals would be in captivity for the purposes of this Bill, and they could be subject to such additional controls and

1261
refinements as are considered necessary under Clause 2. Because of the conditions applying in those kinds of park, one would expect a pretty early diagnosis of the disease and the ability to segregate infected animals. We will certainly ensure that the point to which my noble friend referred is covered.
My noble friend also referred to bats. Of course indigenous bats do not pose any particular dangers, as there is no rabies in this country. My noble friend was concerned with vampire bats. I can assure him that no vampire bats have been imported since these restrictions have been in force and strengthened. It is possible that some were imported earlier, but, of course, as he knows very well, these are tropical animals; they cannot be just imported and allowed to fly around, because they would not survive. They would only be imported for places where they were kept in captivity. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, also referred to exotic animals, and I can assure him that as a result of the Waterhouse Committee recommendations the requirements for quarantine have been extended to a very wide range of these animals.
My noble friend Lord de Clifford was worried about dwelling houses not being incorporated in this Bill. I understand his concern, but I can assure him there is no need to put this power in the Bill, because the diseases of animals inspectors already have power under Section 73 of the Diseases of Animals Act to enter any building where they have reasonable grounds for suspecting rabies exist. So the power my noble friend would like to see in the Bill is already in the hands of the inspectors.
I was interested by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Long about his grandfather's first encounter with this subject. Of course, that was a very unpopular measure because people did not like leashing their animals. But in fact it worked, and it was as a result of that measure that we were able to get rid of rabies, which at that time was endemic in this country.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I was most interested in the figures with regard to penalties and as to those that some magistrates have recently imposed. I must say I find them quite startling having regard to the severity and viru
1262
lence of this particular disease and its increasing prevalence in Europe. I wonder whether the noble Earl would have conversations with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to see whether it would not be right and proper in the light of circumstances to have a mandatory sentence, to make it quite clear that there is now a severe deterrent to anyone bringing animals into this country unlawfully.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I shall certainly see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is informed of the noble Lord's views. I am very grateful to those who have spoken and for the welcome that has been given to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and commited to a Committee of the Whole House.

DUMPING AT SEA BILL [H.L.]
6.26 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Dumping at Sea Bill be now read a second time. This Bill represents the culmination of about two years' work and discussion on the subject. If it is approved by Parliament, the Bill will underline the conviction of the United Kingdom that everything possible should be done to preserve and improve the marine environment. It would enable the Government to ratify the Oslo and London Conventions, which are designed to ensure that adequate control is exercised on an international basis over dumping at sea.
Since 1966 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and, on a smaller scale, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, have operated voluntary arrangements, with the cooperation of industry and others, to control dumping of waste at sea. Under this system Departments agree with applicants suitable methods for the disposal of waste materials and the areas of disposal, in the light of criteria which have regard to the characteristics, degree of toxicity and general effect of the wastes upon the sea. The former Minister of Agriculture made it clear when announcing our signature of the Oslo Convention, which is called the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by

1263
Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, that we have kept the operation of the voluntary arrangements under examination in consultation with representatives of industry and others. All the indications are that the arrangements have been successful in protecting both the fisheries and the sea itself around our coasts.
The legislation proposed in this Bill would enable control to be exercised over loading in the United Kingdom and its territorial eaters of any substance or material for dumping at sea, and it would regulate dumping by United Kingdom vessels or aircraft anywhere in the world. Our proposals would, of course, have the greatest effect in the North-East Atlantic, to which United Kingdom dumping is largely confined, and where we also happen to have major fishing interests. The controlled waters for dumping purposes will be regarded as bounded on the landward side by high water mark. Of course only a small proportion of the total wastes find their way into the sea by dumping. Broadly speaking, one can say that wastes which our society produces can be burned, with emission to the atmosphere, or treated in some way, or deposited on land, or discharged to inland or coastal waters, or dumped at sea. Each of these methods may have its advantages or disadvantages for different types of waste; but what is becoming increasingly clear is that we cannot allow waste to be disposed of in any of these ways without proper planning or control of undesirable pollution. As the gracious Speech indicated, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be bringing forward separate legislation for the protection of the environment, which will, among other things, lay on the waste disposal authorities the duty of surveying the wastes which arise in their areas and of preparing comprehensive plans for their disposal.
Where it is appropriate sea disposal may feature in such plans as one of the methods to be employed. This Bill is not designed to cover such matters as oil discharges, the disposal of garbage or the tank washings of bulk carriers, all of which are covered by the new IMCO Convention. Indeed, careful attention has been given to avoiding the possibility of the overlapping of functions and responsi
1264
bilities between different organisations. On the other hand, the Bill covers the operations of vessels which are specifically designed to dispose of waste at sea as part of their normal operations; for example, dredgers and incinerator vessels.
The two dumping Conventions to which I referred set out in some detail the obligations which each country that signs then accepts. Under the Bill there will be a general prohibition on dumping into the sea, except by licence, from British ships. Provision is also made for prohibiting loading in the United Kingdom of any substance or material for dumping at sea without licence into ships or aircraft of other States. The United Kingdom authority would, however, be able to recognise licences issued by the licensing authorities of other Convention States in respect of substances or articles loaded in those States into British ships or aircraft. There will also be a general prohibition, except by licence, upon the dumping into United Kingdom territorial waters of substances or articles wherever they are loaded. The licensing authority, as it refers to the United Kingdom, means the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for waste loaded in England and Wales; the Secretary of State for Scotland for waste loaded in Scotland; the Ministry of Development, Northern Ireland, for waste loaded in Northern Ireland; and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for waste loaded outside the United Kingdom into British vessels.
It is our intention to make the arrangements as flexible as possible. Therefore, the Bill will permit the granting of a licence to an applicant if he is a vessel owner, probably working as a dumping contractor, or if he is a company whose activities lead to the production of waste. As your Lordships will know, it is seldom appropriate for measures applicable to civilian vessels or aircraft to be applied to military aircraft or warships, but it is our intention that the prohibitions on harmful dumping will be applicable to military vessels and aircraft through administrative means as far as that is possible.
I do not think it is necessary to go into great detail on how examinations of substances will be conducted before a licence is granted. I should like to assure your Lordships, however, that, as under

1265
the present voluntary arrangements, before a licence is issued the materials concerned will be examined or considered by scientists and, if necessary, laboratory tests will be carried out to ensure that no harm to fish would arise, or that persistent substances which might find their way into the food chain would not be dumped.
The Bill provides that licences will be given by the licensing authorities having regard to the need to protect the marine environment and the living resources which it supports from any adverse consequences of dumping. Clearly, the principal means by which we shall be enabled to determine the effects of granting a licence for the disposal of any particular cargo or substances into the sea will be through monitoring. This is essentially of two different sorts. First, there is what may be termed background monitoring—that is, regular measurement of pollutant concentrations so that a view can be taken of trends over any given period. Secondly, there is monitoring to ascertain pollutant levels, frequently against a given standard, to judge the effectiveness of a system of control. There are also the short-term studies, which probably should not be regarded as monitoring in the broadest sense, which are designed to identify the effects of a particular disposal or set of disposals.
Both the Oslo and London Conventions provided specifically for work of this nature to be undertaken. There is no need for the Bill to make specific provision for monitoring since it is undertaken under general powers, but I can assure your Lordships that we shall continue, through the appropriate laboratories, to play our full part in both national and regional monitoring programmes as we have done in the past. It will be by these means that we shall obtain the necessary guidelines for our actions in granting licences to dispose of waste.
The working of the voluntary arrangements to which I have referred has satisfied us that there have been very few significant attempts at evasion of the terms of the administrative provisions. On the other hand, now that these arrangements are to become subject to a Statute we must obviously provide for enforcement. The Bill proposes, therefore, that the inspectors who are author
1266
ised by the Ministers will be given power to secure the necessary information about materials and vessels, or premises, so that the terms of any "dumping" licences will be seen to be observed. I should like to explain one point which may have occurred to some of your Lordships, and that is that the Oslo Convention provides that contracting parties will promote, within the appropriate international bodies, measures to protect the sea against oil, other noxious cargoes, and radioactive substances. There is a comparable article in the London Convention which is coupled with a prohibition on the disposal at sea of high level radioactive matter. Disposal of radioactive wastes is covered by the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, under which licences to dump are agreed jointly between the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The United Kingdom also plays a major part in international discussions in the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Agency, which make recommendation on these matters. Nevertheless, a licence would be required under this Bill to ensure that the substance or article was eligible for dumping at sea in accordance with the annexes of the Conventions irrespective of its radioactive content. I hasten to add that we have in fact never disposed of high level radioactive wastes in the sea.
There is another point which I should like to mention, and it refers to the question of confidentiality of information about the dumping of materials. As the Royal: Commission on Environmental Pollution has said, it is important to do everything possible to ensure that the public is in a position to know what is being done on its behalf by those authorities responsible for waste disposal. Under the arrangements envisaged by the Preparatory Committee for the Oslo Commission, regular reports would be made by contracting parties to the Commission on the licences which have been granted for disposal of wastes by dumping. We will make available to the public on request the same information. We shall also work very closely with waste disposal authorities whose main task will be to maintain an oversight of disposals on land. We shall also maintain our existing liaison with local sea fisheries committees where their interests are affected by the issue of

1267
a licence under the arrangements proposed in the Bill.
May I now turn to the Bill itself. Clauses 1 and 2 are extremely important. Clause 1 provides that without a licence no material can be dumped, by any means, in our territorial waters; all dumping from British ships and aircraft into the sea is prohibited except for discharges which are incidental to their normal operation; and no vessel, of any nationality, can load waste in the United Kingdom for its disposal in the sea. The penalties for breach of these conditions are also described in the clause. There is provision for exemption for disposal of ships' cargoes where that is necessary to safeguard the safety of a ship or people's lives. Clause 2 would allow the granting of licences where the substances in effect conform to the provisions set out in the annexes to the two Conventions. The responsibilities for granting of licences are shared between the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Ministry of Development, Northern Ireland. Licences will only be granted subject to such conditions as are adjudged necessary in the light of the best scientific advice to ensure that the resources of the sea are not put at risk. The clause would also empower the authorities to charge a fee for the administrative costs of giving a licence.
Clause 3 enables those who apply for licences to dump, but who are aggrieved either by a proposed refusal or by the conditions which are to be imposed, to be heard by an independent committee. This would also apply if a licence were to be revoked. This committee would give the appropriate Minister its advice, so that he could reach a final decision. Our experience in the operation of the voluntary control arrangements suggests that it is possible for a licensing authority to negotiate arrangements which are acceptable to the would-be dumper and which would not harm the marine environment. But if the situation were to arise where such an agreement could not be achieved, then this clause would ensure that an independent view would be obtained.
Clause 4 provides for the appointment by licensing authorities of enforcement officers, and it describes their powers of inspection to enforce the Act. Clause
1268
is an enabling clause, and it is designed to empower the United Kingdom to participate in any procedures which may be agreed by contracting parties to a convention for joint enforcement and inspection. The reciprocal arrangements which might be negotiated could well follow the lines of those which have been successfully operated in relation, for instance, to fishing vessels by members of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention. Under this, inspecting vessels fly a specific flag which depicts their internationally recognised authority to board and inspect fishing vessels of countries which are parties to the Convention. Under Clause 5 Ministers would set out in Orders to be laid before Parliament details of any procedures which had been negotiated, the country or countries who would be parties to any such arrangement, and the foreign officers who would be empowered to enforce the arrangements on British vessels.
The Government regard this enabling power as important if we are to be able to play our part in any future arrangements which might be agreed with other countries for additional enforcement measures to be taken. Of course, before we negotiated any such procedures we should undertake consultations with United. Kingdom shipping interests and any others who might be affected. I should like to emphasise that the clause is designed to enable the United Kingdom to play its full part in the development of the reciprocal procedures in the Conventions. There is no implication that we consider flag States themselves incapable of enforcing the Conventions—indeed, we have every confidence that this will be the basic method of enforcement—but we see the clause as providing the necessary ability to play our part in any supplementary arrangements which may come about. If these are developed, they would constitute a useful means by which those countries which have agreed the procedures would, as it were, pool their resources for a specific purpose. This seems to us to be a sensible and practicable arrangement, and we believe it is right to make provision for it.
Clause 6 provides for penalties where an inspector is obstructed in attempting to carry out his duties. Clause 9 provides for the application of the enforcement powers to Crown land which is in the possession of third parties. Clause 10 deals with the financial arrangements

1269
in the Bill, and it will enable the United Kingdom to meet the relatively small costs arising from payment of membership fees of international conventions dealing with dumping and the cost of fees for the representations committees and salaries of staff engaged upon work arising from this legislation. Clause 12 provides that the power of Ministers to make Orders under the Bill is to be exercised by Statutory Instrument. Clause 13 makes the important provision to enable the legislation to be applied by Order in Council to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any colony should the authorities there so wish.
My Lords, I trust that this description of the major parts of the Bill will make clear the Government's intentions behind it, and I trust that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 23. —(Earl Ferrers.)
6.45 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I think the noble Earl is having a pretty long innings this afternoon, but at least he is bringing before your Lordships' House matters which are generally welcome in so far as the legislation is concerned. Certainly we on this side of the House warmly welcome this particular Bill. I think perhaps it would be appropriate for me to say how glad we were to see, in the final act in the London Convention, the very proper compliments paid to the Government of the United Kingdom for taking the initiative in calling this large international conference, and perhaps in particular to Dr. Holgate, who was chosen as chairman of the conference and who undoubtedly contributed greatly to its success. It followed, of course, the Oslo Convention, which was on a narrower geographical basis, and from which we would naturally look to benefit; but it is encouraging that, at long last, many other nations in the world are taking seriously this matter of the pollution of the marine environment. As the noble Earl mentioned, there has recently been concluded in London another conference on the prevention of pollution by ships, under the aegis of IMCO and I would suppose that this is to be followed in due course by another Bill; so we shall certainly have ample
1270
opportunities to consider these matters in legislative form.
I was particularly glad that the noble Earl emphasised Clause 5, because what worries one somewhat is that, apart from the reciprocal arrangements which we are able to make with certain of our neighbouring territories, there is no real provision, I think, for international supervision of these matters; and while we can control not only our own territorial waters but British vessels and all other vessels loaded in this country, of course, the moment one gets outside the territorial waters, theoretically, at least, we have far less ability to control it. As I said, geographically we are fortunately placed, but there are other countries in the world for which this may be a quite serious problem, and I would assume that when the time comes to discuss the law of the sea one may come up against some very tricky questions, not only over fisheries but over dumping limits as well.
As the noble Earl rightly said, one cannot read the Bill intelligently without reading the Convention. I am, I must admit, disturbed by the fact that the Convention makes it plain that the term "dumping" does not include the disposal of sea wastes or other matter incidental to the normal operations of ships. That will in fact be dealt with under the new IMCO Convention. However, there is another omission which I think many of us find disturbing, and that is that the Convention does not cover the disposal of waste or other matter related to the exploration, exploitation and associated off-shore processing of sea-bed mineral resources. This may be regarded as looking ahead. I recognise this is not dumping, but if one is concerned for the marine environment it is a problem which has begun to disturb many of us greatly, and I think it is not unfair to refer to the matter on this occasion. I am advised that the impact of seabed exploitation on the question of pollution could be very serious indeed. I do not know whether there is any likelihood of it happening within the vicinity of the United Kingdom—what one hears of it at the moment, of course, is taking place in other parts of the world—but I am advised that very highly toxic chemicals can easily be released in such circumstances. It would be comforting to know

1271
that some action is being taken to deal with this matter, which, as I say, is specifically excluded from the provisions of the London Convention.
I should like to ask the noble Earl one or two questions about the administration which is proposed. In Scotland one has a combined administration and the Secretary of State is the source of authority; but in England and Wales I understand that it will be the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. One can appreciate that historically this is a natural evolution; but I was looking at a transcription of a speech made at Lancaster House a year ago by Mr. Peter Walker, then Minister of the Environment, in which he said:
"We must have a total approach to waste disposal. If we do not put waste in the sea it has to go somewhere else—somewhere on or under land. For this reason a nation needs comprehensive controls and an integrated management policy."
The Department of the Environment provides the opportunity for the latter in Britain; but the provisions of this Bill are not going to be enforced by the Department of the Environment. I was wondering whether adequate thought had been given to this point. One can perfectly understand the historical progression whereby it would remain with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries which has been responsible for the voluntary arrangements which seem to have worked satisfactorily since 1966. Nevertheless, as we are undertaking legislation it will be interesting to know what consideration has been given to this aspect of it.
I should like to know also about the situation in Wales where the Secretary of State for Wales has certain functions even in relation to agriculture. But it is not included in any generic term of "Secretary of State"; it is the Minister who is specifically referred to. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us something of the Government's thinking on this matter. Another point worries me. It is the provision in Clause 3, which is understandable enough as far as it goes, that the licensing authority has the duty to notify an applicant or a holder of a licence who, if he feels aggrieved, has the opportunity to make representations, and there will be advice from an independent committee. That
1272
is fine so far as it goes. I should like to know what would be the position of any authority that might conceivably be concerned.
I was thinking of this when looking at the Report, graphically named Out of Sight, Out of Mind, which is the Report on the disposal of sludge in Liverpool Bay. It was very encouraging to those of us acquainted with the areas bordering on Liverpool Bay to be told that the dangers that some of us apprehended are far less than we thought possible. It seems to me that there are circumstances in which a local authority might feel they had an interest in the dumping of materials which might conceivably, through the action of tide or current, affect the shore, and that the authority ought to be in a position to make some representations if so desired. It is just conceivable that an amenity society might wish to make representations. I am not clear what would be the position of such persons and I should be grateful if the noble Earl could enlighten me. There is probably a simple explanation but I was not too sure about it.
May I return for a moment to the Convention itself. The noble Earl referred in passing to the fact that there are various categories of substances, some of which, those under Annexe 1, I am happy to learn are not in any circumstances to be dumped at sea. These include such materials as mercury, cadmium and, particularly, persistent plastics and other persistent materials as well as the high-level radioactive waste to which the noble Earl referred. This I find extremely reassuring. There is also a prohibition on the dumping of any material produced for biological or chemical warfare. Then there is the next category, the less toxic one, for which nevertheless a special permit is required, and there is a third category where general permission may be given and where the effects are not likely to be seriously deleterious.
I wonder whether there is any substance not included in Annex 1 but referred to in Article IV which, under our arrangements, may addtionally be prohibited. May I remind the noble Earl that Article IV, paragraph 3, reads:
"No provision of this Convention is to be interpreted as preventing a Contracting Party

1273
from prohibiting, insofar as that Party is concerned, the dumping of wastes or other matter not mentioned in Annexe I."
I have to refer to this now although it may seem to be a Committee point, because the convention itself is not part of the Bill. Therefore it seems to me appropriate to ask this question at this stage rather than later. If the noble Earl does not have the information immediately to hand, perhaps he may care to write to me about it.
I have put some questions which come to mind in studying this Bill, but I would repeat that in general terms we warmly welcome it. We feel that this is really an important step in the right direction and that it should help us and the other contracting parties to ensure, in the terms of the Convention itself, that we can effectively control sources of pollution and that we will
"take all practicable steps to prevent the pollution of the sea by the dumping of waste and other matter that is liable to create hazards to human health, to harm living resources and marine life, to damage amenities or to interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea."
I should not wish to delay any longer the successful passage of this legislation.
6.58 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the welcome she has given to this Bill and for all that she said about it. I think it is a positive step forward in an area with which we as a nation are only just begining to become involved. Suddenly we have discovered that there are many toxic substances which must be disposed of. Some of these are manufactured; some of them are deposited naturally in the environment anyway. The quantity of lead and mercury already in the sea is absolutely enormous; it is only in concentrated quantities that they become dangerous and even lethal. This Bill, which is the result of the two Conventions we have been discussing, is really a major step forward in deciding what shall be dumped and where. The noble Baroness rightly asked about the application of the Bill to minerals on the sea bed. This is something of a far wider nature that almost certainly will be discussed at the Law of the Sea Conference. It is possible that matters emanating from that Conference may give rise to legislation. The noble Baroness was also concerned about Clause 5 which is the enabling
1274
clause. The sole purpose of this particular clause is to enable us in consultation with other Convention States to agree upon, for instance, a method by which international ships could be inspected. Ships may be able to fly a specific flag giving them international recognition. This kind of thing does not arise immediately out of the Bill or the Convention, but if in the course of conversations and discussions over the next year it is found that this is desirable, it could be put into effect without having to bring a Bill before Parliament.
The noble Baroness posed the query why the Department of the Environment was not particularly involved. This Bill comes under the auspices of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, because it is the protection of the marine environment and all that that conjures up. There is close liaison with the Department of the Environment which will be involved with more general legislation over the disposal of waste.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? He may not feel able to say more at this stage, but he will appreciate that we shall shortly be coming to a Bill dealing, for example, with estuaries and tidal waters. In the Bill now before us we are going far beyond safeguarding fish and therefore it seemed to me that there was quite a strong case for having what Mr. Peter Walker was himself asking for, which was centralised control.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I accept that entirely, but I feel that the real point is that although there is general concern over the disposal of waste, in this instance it is what is dumped into the sea and what will affect the animals therein which comes under the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I take the point of the noble Baroness that there is, or should be, overall consultation and agreement. I can assure her that there is this full consultation between both Departments. The noble Baroness said that she would have liked a little explanation about Clause 3 in case local authorities might wish to complain about a licence, or make representations. The whole purpose of this clause is that if a dumper, or a proposed dumper, wished to get a licence and the licensing authority determined that he should not have one, or that there should be certain restrictions

1275
on the licence which aggrieve the dumper, he should have the right to go before a committee—consisting, probably, of three people, one of whom will he a scientist —to put his case; the committee may then report to the Minister and guide him on his final decision. That is the purpose of the clause, in order to try to give some kind of protection to any party who may feel aggrieved.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does that mean that the clause, which refers to representations being made, refers only to representations to be made by a person to whom a licence has been refused? Does it mean that there is no possibility of anyone else making a representation? Surely there may be cases where a local authority or some other body would wish to make representations against a licence being granted.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, is absolutely correct. This committee would consider objections only from the proposed dumper. At the moment there is close liaison between the fisheries people, the people who dump into the sea and the Ministry. As I explained earlier, there are voluntary arrangements which have worked well and satisfactorily. If the local authorities have any desire to put forward a point of view to the Ministry and the enforcement officers, they are at liberty to do so. What we are proposing is that the principle which has gone behind the voluntary arrangements should be put into legal form. If someone feels that he has been unfairly refused a licence or unfair restrictions will be put on him, then he may complain. It is not the purpose of Clause 3 to allow a licence to be proposed and then to be subject to complaint or interference from outside parties. My Lords, I will look at the various points which the noble Baroness has made. I am grateful for what she has said and the welcome which she has given to the Bill. I hope that I have answered the majority of the points that she made.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him this? In the Preamble it is stated that the total cost is likely to be less than £10,000 a year. Does that mean that the whole of the Inspectorate is already in existence? Will there be no
1276
additional Inspectorate? Because £10,000 will not go very far for an Inspectorate.
EARL FERRERS: The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, was not in his place when explained that there will be a fee charged for licences and the fees are designed to cover the cost.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION (No. 2) 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.

IRON AND STEEL ACT 1969 (CONTINUANCE OF PROVISIONS) ORDER 1973
7.8 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN)THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN) rose to move, That the Draft Iron and Steel Act 1969 (Continuance of Provisions) Order 1973, laid before the House on November 1, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very short Order and the Explanatory Note is equally brief. As the Note says, the Order will continue in force permanently the provisions of the Iron and Steel Act 1969 relating to public dividend capital, the notional capitalisation of the reserves as public dividend capital and the financial duties of the Corporation. Without this Order those provisions would expire on March 30 next.
May I as briefly as I can explain the reason why the Government have taken the decisions to which the Order would give effect. Public dividend capital, as noble Lords will recall—in particular the noble Lord. Lord Diamond—was introduced into the capital structure of the Corporation in the 1969 Act. As public dividend capital for the British Steel Corporation was something of an experiment, its life was limited to five years but could be extended under Section 6 by Order subject to Affirmative Resolution either for a further period of time or permanently. Section 5 deals with the Corporation's financial duties and could be similarly extended. By next

1277
March, my Lords, we shall be five years older than in 1969 and so will 'the British Steel Corporation and the Act. It is opportune, therefore, that earlier this year the Select Committee on nationalised industries should have published its Report, following a thorough and valuable examination of the reports and accounts of the British Steel Corporation. In its Report the Committee pointed to the difference between public dividend capital and equity capital and stated its view that the inability to pay dividends had stemmed less from the cyclical nature of the industry than from successive Government interference with its profitability and from the Corporation's lack of a reserve. The Committee recommended that the operation of public dividend capital should be reviewed.
My Lords, the Government undertook the review, carefully considered the Committee's Report, and replied to it in the White Paper in August. The review is Command 5399. The review covered public dividend provision. In fact no dividend has so far been paid by British Steel Corporation. Nevertheless, the Government concluded that public dividend capital should not be discarded; that the guiding consideration as regards its use in a nationalised industry should continue to be that the industry concerned is one that is basically profitable but subject to fluctuating returns; and that since the British Steel Corporation fulfils this criterion, and since it now has a financial objective requiring an adequate rate of return on all its capital, public dividend capital should continue for the Corporation.
My Lords, I mentioned the financial objective. Section 5 of the 1969 Act, which is also continued in force by this Order, provides the power to lay down such an objective as a statutory duty. To have a financial objective is particularly important for a nationalised industry with public dividend capital. The objective which the Corporation has been set is to earn over the 4 years, 1973/74 to 1976/77. an average return on net assets of 8 per cent. after charging depreciation but before charging interest, taxation and exceptional costs arising from closures. As the Minister for Industry said when announcing this objective in August, 1972, higher average returns will be expected after this period,
1278
when the Corporation will be getting the full benefit from its investment programme. He also recognised that it was unlikely that the objective could be reached in the first year.
My Lords, in the light of all these considerations the Government agree with the British Steel Corporation that the continuation of public dividend capital for the Corporation is justified. The Government intend that a proportion of future advances to the Corporation will be issued sufficient to maintain a reasonable balance in its capital structure between fixed interest bearing loans on the one hand and public dividend capital and reserves on the other.
Section 4 of the 1969 Act would also be continued in force by the Order. This complements the provision for public dividend capital in Section 2, and enables the Secretary of State after consulting the Corporation and with Treasury approval, to direct that sums from the reserve should be converted into public dividend capital. As yet, of course there has been no occasion under the Iron and Steel Act 1969 to use this power, which is complementary to the power under Section 17(4) to give directions relating to the establishment and use of the reserve. Industries are expected to finance some part of this new investment from profits in addition to normal depreciation. As and when the Corporation becomes fully profitable, there may well be an occasion when it would he appropriate to capitalise part of any retained profits as public dividend capital.
My Lords, I have explained why we have concluded that these various provisions of the 1969 Act should remain in force. Section 6(2) provides for them to be continued in force permanently or for a specified period. To extend them for a limited period would prolong the Corporation's uncertainty about its future capital structure by making its public dividend capital—as well as the powers to determine a financial duty—dependent on fresh legislation at the end of the period. It is the very core of the case for public dividend capital that a long term view should be taken. The division is very much in line with the 10-year strategy for modernisation and expansion of the British Steel Industry announced last December. My Lords, the draft Order

1279
therefore extends these provisions permanently. I commend it to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Iron and Steel Act 1969 (Continuance of Provisions) Order 1973, laid before the House on November I, be approved.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
7.17 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for explaining, if I may say so, very fully, ably and adequately the purpose of this Order. I agree, if I do not embarrass him by saying so, with a good deal of what he has said. I agree in particular that we are both five years older than we were five years ago, and having regard to the amount of work that he has been called upon to do the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, may feel it, but I can assure him that he does not look it.
There will always be two points of view about public dividend capital. There will be those who take the view that this is, as it were, a soft option for management, and might therefore lead to some tendency towards inefficiency. There will be those who take the opposite view that for a nationalised industry to have entirely loan capital puts upon them too harsh a burden in those years when fluctuation of profits means that they are not making profits, and causes, as a result, some diminution in morale. When those concerned with management see the results published, that in turn leads to some falling-off in overall efficiency. Those are the two points of view. But having regard to the fact that the gearing, as I understand it, between loan capital and public dividend capital is going to be very carefully watched and therefore you will have both arguments applying, and having regard to the fact that the targets will, as I understand, be increasingly (what shall I say?) challenging targets—I am referring to the profit targets—I think we can happily accept that the continuation of the provision of public dividend capital is appropriate in the case of the iron and steel industry, which is subject to fluctuating profits.
My Lords, there is one further word I would like to say. Although the hour is
1280
late and although the House is not overcrowded, there are no doubt many who will read Hansard—at least the Editor and the printers will, I take it. I wanted to say that it is interesting to note the other aspect of the Order which is to make these arrangements permanent. As the noble Lord said, he had option in the original Bill to bring in an Order either for extending these provisions for a temporary period or extending them permanently. He has wisely chosen the latter.
What I want, therefore, is to remind your Lordships that the 1964 to 1966 Labour Government had not sufficient power or strength, to nationalise steel. It was in the following Labour Government of 1966 to 1970 that the Labour Government nationalised steel against very severe opposition in the other place with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Barber—either in opening or in winding-up, I forget which—muttering the usual threats that when the Conservative Party returned to power, one of the first things they would do of course would be to free steel. That was only in 1967. It is a little more than six years ago, and we are all six years older and we are all six years wiser. To-day the Government are showing, as was made perfectly clear by the Under-Secretary of State in the other place last night, their determination that this shall be a permanent and successful operation. The Under-Secretary of State said:
"I want the B.S.C. to be one of the most sucessfully operated and producing steel manufacturers in the world, and I hope that this reconstruction will help."
That is precisely our view, and therefore we accept the Order.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank the noble Lord 'or taking the perhaps predictable line on this occasion and supporting the Government on this Order. I would only say to him that what we are doing here is in line with our philosophy; that is, to seek to make a success of everything we do.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.