Lords Sitting of 17 July 1974

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

LORD GORDON-WALKER
The Right Honourable Patrick Chrestien Gordon Walker, C.H., having been created Baron Gordon-Walker, of Leyton in Greater London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Earl of Longford and the Lord Shackleton.
LORD KALDOR
Nicholas Kaldor, Esquire, having been created Baron Kaldor, of Newnham in the City of Cambridge, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Annan and the Lord Roberthall, and made the solemn Affirmation.

HOVERCRAFT INDUSTRY
2.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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 is the current financial support programme for the further development and progress of the hovercraft industry and how does this compare with research and development programmes in the U.S.A., Japan and France.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, in March, 1972, it was announced that further contracts worth £1·5 million would be placed with the industry over the following two years for the development and improvement of existing craft and that an additional £500,000 would be spent intramurally. It
1118
was made clear that at the end of the period it was expected that the industry should be entirely self-supporting. These contracts are now coming to an end. I understand that there is no similar programme of assistance for civil hovercraft in the U.S.A. I do not have information about Japan and France.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that minimal but somewhat familiar Government reply, may I ask him whether indeed there is still a hovercraft directorate within the Ministry with which the industry can consult? May I ask further whether the N.R.D.C. are the official Government body for technical advice as to whether or not the project should be supported?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there is not a directorate as such, but there are officials who are interested in this with whom I should be happy to arrange a meeting if it would be useful. So far as the N.R.D.C. are concerned, any proposals made to them for development aid would be considered if those proposals were properly presented. In addition, it is possible that my Department may be able to help under the Industry Act. But so far as I have been able to make out, no proposals have been put forward.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a great deal of concern that the British technological lead in this British invention is now rapidly becoming eroded, first by the fact that research and development teams at home are being disbanded; secondly, by the fact that there is development abroad of a sizeable nature; and thirdly, by the fact that the natural life of the patents which have so far protected this invention are shortly to come to an end? Would the Government reconsider whether a fresh programme of support could perhaps be based on a joint company project or, indeed, an international project?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is not feasible to agree or disagree with any proposal over the Floor of the House; but if a proposal is being put to my Department, it would be considered. If research and development assistance was required, then there is the Shipping and

1119
Marine Technology Requirements Board which is there for the purpose of considering applications of this kind. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, might like to consider that.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does the Answer which my noble friend has given mean that the hovercraft industry in this country has virtually packed up? It seems an astonishing thing if this is so. My noble friend and the House will be aware that I never had much enthusiasm about hovercraft, but surely it is important to know—and my noble friend perhaps can tell us—whether it is the fact the hovercraft industry now really has died in this country.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am at a loss to understand how the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, can construe my original Answer as being an indication that the industry had packed up. I said that money which had been given by the previous Administration to this industry has now come to an end, because it is believed that the industry might now go ahead on its own. Far from packing up, I understand that of those vessels which are operating, SRN6 is going very well and SRN4 is gaining popularity over the Channel. I think it would be wrong for anyone on either side of the House to talk down this industry.
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the figures he gave do not include work which is being done on the linear motor, which is such an intimate part of hovertrain development?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the project in which my noble friend has taken such a keen interest is separate from what I am talking about here.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether there is any military requirement for hovercraft, and whether there is any likelihood of a military contract for such a vehicle?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there have been contracts, but my understanding is that the military application for hovercraft, in Europe for example, is very limited, and that that requirement is not now seen.
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, would the Minister agree that hovertrain developments are an essential part of the hovercraft industry, and that the enthusiasm for this kind of transport is far greater on the Continent than here? Furthermore, is he aware that in France there is an 18 kilometre track on which hover vehicles travel at 264 m.p.h., while in this country, with a superior system, we have one mile of track which is in danger of being dismantled?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not sure that I shall not get into some difficulty with the noble Lord over terminology. What he is referring to, the linear motor, could certainly be called a hover vehicle; but I have in mind a hover vehicle such as I understood the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull had in mind.

HOUSE OF LORDS: GOVERNMENT MINISTERS
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the variety of legislative subjects which members of the Government in the House of Lords have to deal with, it is the intention to increase the number of Ministers with Departmental responsibility.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, it is not the intention at this moment.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that it is somewhat invidious and unsatisfactory that those generally described as on the Government Front Bench have no Departmental responsibility whatever? Some of them have to undertake operations on behalf of several Departments. Is that not a highly unsatisfactory position? If my noble friend's Answer means that nothing is to be done at present, could we make some temporary arrangements so that those sitting on the Front Bench—I make no criticism of them whatever—should have some Departmental responsibility?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, naturally I am sympathetic to any pressure or

1121
suggestion from my noble friend that we should have more Ministers in your Lordships' House, and I will certainly convey these views to my right honourable friend, particularly regarding the fact that on a previous Question my noble friend volunteered to give advice free of charge. In regard to Lords in Waiting, whom I suspect my noble friend has in mind, I think it was the previous Administration which rectified this position; Lords in Waiting now have offices in particular Departments and are provided with secretarial support. This clearly means that those Lords in Waiting who speak for Departments have an everyday contact with that Department, although they may not have Ministerial responsibility as such.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, since some of us do not have an Order Paper or any printed paper with the Questions on it, due to the state of affairs with which we now live, may we ask the Minister to read out the Question so that we may know what it is about?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord is probably the only noble Lord in this House who is not aware of what my noble friend is asking.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I do not want to bring pressure to bear on him or on Her Majesty's Government, and that there is nothing personal in this; I am not seeking an appointment myself. I say that to correct any possibility of misunderstanding. Is he also aware, on the matter of offering free advice to Her Majesty's Government, which I occasionally do, the only difficulty I experience is that they seldom take my advice, but if they did they would be much better off?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am rather relieved that my noble friend is not seeking a position on the Front Bench. I will, however, carefully consider what he has sought, which I had hoped to regard as pressure upon me to convey a certain message to my right honourable friend.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said about the position of Lords in Waiting is quite true; under the previous Administration it was possible to arrange Departmental liaison.
1122
May I ask the noble Lord, following what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said, whether it is not the case that the recent Ministers of the Crown Act increased by seven the total number of Ministers who can be appointed and paid? Will he do his utmost to see that at least one or two of those could represent the Government in this House?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Act to which the noble Lord refers was particularly needed in regard to Northern Ireland. May I say to the noble Lord that in the light of my Answer I think he will appreciate, certainly from reading the newspapers, that there may be an event in the autumn when no doubt this matter can be dealt with.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that, whether or not the Lords in Waiting have Ministerial responsibility in Whitehall many of us on these Back-Benches are full of admiration for the way they have discharged their duties?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am glad my noble friend has said that. I have listened to a number of Bills going through your Lordships' House conducted by Lords in Waiting, and I think it has been the general view of all those who participated in those stages that the Lords in Waiting have rendered notable service to this House and this Parliament.

NATIONALISATION POLICY
3.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAN WORTH: 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 they consider the nationalisation of major industrial companies will contribute at this time of national crisis to the economic welfare of this country; and whether, in view of the lack of support from the electorate for such action at the present time, they will reconsider their policy in this respect and restore public confidence to the industries so threatened.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Government will decide and Parliament will

1123
be invited to approve proposals for public ownership on their merits in the light of the national interest. I do not accept the assumptions on which the noble Viscount based the second part of his Question.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask him whether he realises that at this time many people believe the most important thing is national unity, and that this transcends even the problem of inflation? Does he really believe that putting forward a measure of this nature, which is, after all, thought by many to be extremist and ideological, helps the present situation?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not quite sure to which measure the noble Viscount is referring. To the best of my knowledge, the only measure of nationalisation which has been brought forward this year was in connection with Court Line, and it was a measure which was asked for by the company concerned. The only measure of nationalisation in previous years was in connection with Rolls-Royce and that was brought forward by the previous Administration because it was absolutely inevitable.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord by what criterion the Government will judge which industries should come under public ownership?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, certainly the noble Lord can ask, but I am not sure that he would expect me, in question and answer, to answer him. I hope that this will be one of the matters which we shall discuss in the debate which I understand we are to have in the week after next.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, the noble Lord said that Court Line is the only case. Can we take that as an assurance that no further industries are to be nationalised in the lifetime of this Government?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what the noble Lord can take is that the Answer I gave to the noble Viscount was answering his Question, and was purporting to do nothing else.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, should not those people who have such a phobia about nationalisation consider that what is good for Rolls-Royce might be good for one or two other companies?
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, has the noble Lord forgotten that last week it was annouced that North Sea oil is to be taken into public ownership and nationalised? Is that not also an instance? At this stage, when there is so much uncertainty in British industry and when it is having to cope with all the difficulties of increased prices, overheads, taxation and increased risk, is it not rather insensible for a minority Government to drive ahead with this divisive policy?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, an individual, a company, a group of companies, or indeed a country, can talk themselves into a state of uncertainty, and I should have thought that that was one course of action which all of us together should try to avoid.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, does the Minister consider, when private enterprise has to come with the begging bowl to get public money for private use without the nation's having a voice about it, and when we get published figures of what private enterprise has received in the past five years, that that justifies the nation's taking them over?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what I believe is that there is a situation to-day, which has developed over recent years, in which it would be quite wrong to speak of this matter in terms of old-time dogma. We are living in a new situation, and it would be right to speak of it in terms appropriate to the present situation.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that so much talk about nationalisation of this, that and the other industries without being very specific, makes it almost impossible to get investment for any industry, which is so much desired by the T.U.C., by industry, by the Government and by every section of the community?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in this uncertain state there is one thing about which we can be absolutely certain; that is, that the difficulties of British industry in getting investment capital have not been created by any talk in the lifetime of the present Administration.

BRUSSELS SEMINAR ON POVERTY
3.13 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions were revealed at the Brussels Seminar of European nations on a programme to defeat poverty and what proposals were made by the United Kingdom representatives.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the seminar, held at Brussels from June 24 to 27, discussed outline proposals for pilot studies and projects as part of a programme to combat poverty. In the light of this discussion the Government are considering what projects the United Kingdom might submit to form a part of this programme, which is to be considered further at a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community later this year.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming that Answer may I ask, in view of the general feeling that lower paid workers and those receiving social services and in greatest need should have priority, whether the Government will consider consultations with the T.U.C., the C.B.T., and wages councils, with a view to adopting a minimum living wage below which neither the receivers of social benefit nor workers in industry should fall?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I will take note of what my noble friend has said and pass it on to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. But I must point out that the Commission responsible for setting up this Working Party have to some extent tied our hands very considerably. The exercise to be undertaken is in the field of social service support, and it is on that basis that we have been asked—and the Government are proposing to do so—to suggest projects within that framework. We are required to keep within the framework rather than to consider cash benefit support. But I will report to my right honourable friend what my noble friend has said.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, can the noble Lord perhaps lighten the darkness
1126
of some of us sitting in this House this afternoon, and tell us what is the locus standi of this so-called seminar?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I will endeavour to do so. The European Economic Community Social Action Programme arises from a decision taken at the Summit Conference in Paris in October, 1972. Its main aims, as approved by a resolution of the Council of Ministers on January 21, 1974, are, first, the attainment of full and better employment in the Community; secondly, the improvement of living and working conditions so as to make possible their harmonisation while the improvement is being maintained; and, thirdly, the increase in involvement of management and labour in economic and social decisions of the Community and of workers in the life of undertakings. I do not think that I can go beyond that.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether any plans are being considered, or formulated, for disposing of the enormous surplus of beef which the Community has accumulated, by selling it at reduced prices to families below the poverty line or to old age pensioners?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I understand that there is to be a Statement later this afternoon on this very matter. Perhaps the noble Earl will understand if I do not attempt to reply to him now.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am sorry. I had not seen it.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply to my supplementary question, which gave important additional information. May I ask whether he is aware that I appreciate the attitude of the United Kingdom's representatives who wanted to extend the consideration? May I also ask him whether a living standard for those who are on subsistence benefits, including the disabled and old age pensioners, will also have the effect on wages in industry of raising their level above the poverty line?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I would not disagree with my noble friend. But, as I have already tried to point out to your Lordships, we are limited to examining the matter within the framework of the support social services.

1127
The Government have to submit their proposals in time for a meeting in September and if there is any possibility, I shall certainly see that this point is considered.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
3.17 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts will be making a Statement on Cyprus at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. This will be followed by two further Statements, one by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich on artificial feeding in prisons, and one by my noble friend Lord Beswick on the Council of Agricultural Ministers' meeting yesterday. It is unusual for us to have three Statements in one day in this House, but it was thought that the subjects were of such importance, and of sufficient interest to the House, that we should have all three.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.18 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 17 [Declaration of housing action areas for demolition and improvement]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1, which is a drafting Amendment to correct a grammatical error.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 21, leave out ("shall") and insert ("will".)—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Obligations of local authorities in relation to rehousing in housing action areas]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2, which is again a
1128
drafting Amendment to correct an error in this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 9, leave out ("provision") and insert ("provisions").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Power of local authority to arrange for the execution of works of improvement by agreement with and at the expense of owner]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 34, line 32, after ("house") insert ("at his expense execute, or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3, and to speak also to Amendment No. 4. Both of these Amendments are intended to ensure that local authorities can themselves carry out works of improvement to a house at the owner's expense, as well as being able to arrange for the execution of these works by some other person. Local authorities in England and Wales were empowered by Section 75 of the Housing Act 1969 to carry out works as the agent of an owner, and the object of this Amendment is to give Scottish local authorities a similar power. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 32, leave out ("at his expense").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 34, line 33, leave out from ("which") to ("Parts") in line 36.
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 5 I wish to associate Amendment No. 6. This will fulfil two objectives: first, they place the agency power of local authorities in relation to environmental improvements in Section 58 of the 1969 Act, which is a more logical place for this power than in Clause 44(1) of the Bill. Secondly they enable local authorities to carry out or to arrange for the carrying out of environmental improvements on any land not owned by themselves with the agreement of the owner of that land and to meet the full

1129
cost of the works themselves. This power is given in Clause 43 of the Housing Bill to English local authorities in housing action areas, and it is expected to be useful to local authorities such as Glasgow Corporation who want to improve the appearance of tenement back courts. It is difficult to organise contributions to such work from all the owners of the surrounding tenements and work will proceed much more quickly if the local authority can offer to meet the full cost themselves. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 37, at end add—
("(2) After paragraph (a) of section 58(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969 (powers of local authority to improve amenities of residential areas) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(aa) with the agreement of the owner of any land, carry out or arrange for the carrying out of works on that land at his expense or at the expense of the local authority or in part at the expense of both; ".")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Consequences of breach of conditions under s. 9]:
3.23 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7, which is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 9, after ("date of"), first occurring, insert ("payment of").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8 which again is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 28, after ("settlement") insert ("of the balance").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, may I have clarification? I cannot find the word "settlement" in line 28.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give me a minute I will look for it. The noble Lord is right; I cannot find it either. Would it be permissible were I to withdraw the Amendment at the moment and return to
1130
it later, in the hope that my friends along the way can find assistance for me? I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment at the moment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD ELWYN-JONES): The Question is, That leave be given to withdraw the Amendment at the moment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, with Amendment No. 9 I wish to associate Amendment No. 10. These Amendments to Section 59 of the 1969 Act are consequential on the new subsection being added to Section 58. That subsection enables local authorities to carry out works of environmental improvement as an owner's agent or to arrange for the carrying out of such works. In so moving I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, will not be difficult on this one. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 47, line 4, after ("(1)") insert ("after" works "first occurring there shall be inserted", whether in pursurance of arrangements made or otherwise; and" ").
Page 47, line 12, at end insert—
("(bb) in subsection (2)(a), after "words", where that word secondly occurs, there shall be inserted "whether in pursuance of arrangements made or otherwise; ".")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, with permission I will now return to Amendment No. 8. The assistance I have had provides the answer. It alters the Amendment made at Committee stage and which has only been added to the Bill in typescript and may not be in the print which the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has. It was certainly not in the print which I have before me. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended, pursuant to Resolution:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, may I ask for the comments of the Leader of the House here? I think we are slightly out of order. I believe that we should have gone back to this Amendment on the next stage, the Third Reading.
Lord HUGHES: No. The advice which I had was that we had to do it at Report stage because it is not permissible to have a manuscript Amendment on Third Reading. The House had given permission to go back to it so obviously we were perfectly in order.
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL
3.28 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have had it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty having been informed of the purport of the Northern Ireland Bill has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. Last week the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland issued a White Paper. Consequent upon it a Northern Ireland Bill has now passed through all stages in another place. The Motion I put down for discussion in your Lordships' House referred to the White Paper because it was not certain that the Bill would have reached us by to-day. In fact the Bill is before us and so the debate to-day is properly a Second Reading debate, but if noble Lords so wish, it will be appropriate to range a little beyond the Bill itself to include what is in the White Paper.
I am encouraged by the fact that so few noble Lords have put down their names to speak on this important Bill. I take that as a general endorsement by the House of the Government's policy as supported by the Opposition and as laid down in the White Paper and now activated in the Bill before us. I think we all want the parties in Northern Ireland
1132
to talk and to go on talking until they can solve their problems in some way other than by violence. But that is no reason for talking too much here so I appreciate and commend the forebearance of noble Lords this afternoon.
The White Paper gives a very clear history of events leading up to the collapse of the Executive. In simple terms, the consensus which the previous Government had hoped for, and without which no democratic government is possible, was shown, in fact, not to exist. This created a new situation with which the Bill before us is intended to deal. My right honourable friend found that he could not form an Executive which fulfilled the terms of the 1973 Constitution Act. He thought new elections to an Assembly would leave him in no better position. He, therefore, had to do something different, and the Bill before us contains his solution. It is proposed that a Convention should be elected on the same electoral basis as the Assembly, and that it should be given the task of making proposals to the Parliament at Westminster as to the best method of governing Northern Ireland. My right honourable friend feels, and I think most of us feel, that the British have not been too successful in finding out what is acceptable to people in Northern Ireland, and he thought it right to let them have a go themselves.
The White Paper indicates three realities which any recommendation must recognise. First, there must be some form of power sharing and partnership in Northern Ireland. A political system which does not command widespread acceptance throughout the community simply will not work. In the second place, proposals must be acceptable to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole, and this means that the rights of minorities must be properly protected. Thirdly, whatever people may think of it, there is what the previous Government describe as an Irish Dimension. This must be recognised, but it in no way alters the fact, which has been asserted again and again, that no change can be made to link the North and the South without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
After our debate to-day I shall be moving the approval of an Order to renew the Emergency Provisions Act 1973, and I will leave until then any

1133
discussion of the problem of law and order. The fact is—and I think we all know it—that military victory against determined guerrilla warfare is extremely difficult without abandoning all traditional controls. I think we all know, too, that law and order can never prevail until the people as a whole are in support of the police. The gradual increase in police ability to cover all policing duties will lead to a gradual reduction in the Army's role in their support. Therefore, the Convention has a task of proposing a form of Government which will be sufficiently reassuring to minorities, as well as majorities, for them to regard the forces of law and order as their friends, and not their enemies. I shall say more about the Convention in due course, when I come to comment on the details of the Bill, to which I now turn.
Since the fall of the Executive the Government have had to face the problem of governing Northern Ireland from day to day. There were provisions contained in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 which enable the situation to be dealt with in the short term. But we are not faced merely with an interregnum between Executives. It is necessary for United Kingdom Ministers to take responsibility for the government of Northern Ireland during the coming months. We are therefore proposing that certain temporary arrangements should be made for the orderly government of Northern Ireland. In introducing these temporary arrangements, we are not repealing any part of the Constitution Act 1973. It is important to bear this in mind when one considers how ready some commentators have been to regard the Constitution Act as dead.
The temporary arrangements fall into two parts. First, there is legislation. It will clearly be impossible for this Parliament to find time to take Bills to deal with all the legislation that will be necessary for Northern Ireland. Therefore, we propose that there should be power for Her Majesty to make Orders in Council legislating for Northern Ireland on those matters on which the Northern Ireland Assembly has power to legislate. As during Direct Rule in 1972 and 1973, these Orders will be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure unless they are extremely urgent, in which case they must be approved within 40 sitting days
1134
of being made. The second part of our proposals concerns Executive Government. At present, the Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office who hold office as heads of the various Departments in Northern Ireland are not technically accountable to Parliament. It is proposed, instead, that the Secretary of State should control all Departments in Northern Ireland, and that he and his Ministerial team should then be accountable to Parliament for the discharge of their functions.
My Lords, these interim and temporary arrangements will provide for the better government of Northern Ireland during the coming months. But I must make it plain that they are not, in the view of the Government, a satisfactory long-term solution. For that long-term solution we now turn to Clause 2 of the Bill. The Government recognise, as did the last Government in their White Paper of March, 1973, that for a system of government for Northern Ireland to work effectively all sections of the community must be prepared to let it work. The system of government made law by the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 represented a development which appeared both to the Government and the Opposition of the day to offer a realistic opportunity for Northern Ireland and its people to bring to an end the violence and instability which has afflicted them for so long. However, recent events have demonstrated that it was not an acceptable development, so we must now take stock of the situation again. And we must again face, as the previous Government faced, the need to make sure that any proposals made for Northern Ireland's future system of Government commands the acceptance of the vast majority of the people there.
It is with this in mind that the Government propose, in Clause 2 of the Bill, to establish a Constitutional Convention in Northern Ireland. This will not be a legislative body, but will be created solely for the purpose of considering,
"what provision for the Government of Northern Ireland is likely to command the most wide-spread acceptance throughout the community there".
The Convention will be given an initial life of six months, but it will be dissolved earlier if it presents its Report within that

1135
period; alternatively, subject to Parliamentary approval, its term can be extended. It will be for Parliament to decide what action should follow the Convention's Report. It may be desirable to embark on a subsequent test of Northern Ireland opinion through a referendum there. The Bill will permit this, but it specifically precludes a referendum on the Border issue.
The Convention will be Northern Ireland's chance to consider its own future. Although the Convention will be a matter for those elected to it, there are certain realities which it must face. It is a fact, my Lords, that more public money is spent on Northern Ireland than the revenue raised there. The United Kingdom Exchequer subsidies Northern Ireland. There is nothing wrong or shameful in this. It is not charity; it is part of the understanding which exists between any small part of the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom as a whole. We have never hesitated to approve additional money for Northern Ireland to ensure that the right standards are maintained there. As my right honourable friend pointed out in the debate on the White Paper in another place last week, the support for Northern Ireland was £376 million in 1973–74. The sacrifices made by the British Army are even greater, for they must be counted in terms of human lives. The Army has had a heavy commitment in Northern Ireland since 1969, and this was entirely right. It is another part of the understanding which exists between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom and the country as a whole.
However, my Lords, there is another side to this penny. If taxpayers in Great Britain are to support the standard of living in Northern Ireland, then it is reasonable for them to ask Northern Ireland to achieve a responsible and workable political solution which will promote justice there. Moreover, if soldiers from Great Britain sacrifice their lives in Northern Ireland, we must insist that it is in a just cause. However, let us never forget the terrible experience of the people of Northern Ireland over the last five years. Perhaps this will influence the Convention more than anything else. By succeeding in its task it can help to relieve the people it represents of the
1136
burden they have had to bear for so long, and I believe that there is no decent person in Northern Ireland who does not long for that day.
Government strategy, then, is to give the people of Northern Ireland a fresh opportunity to examine their own constitutional future. Although it is necessary to make these arrangements now, my right honourable friend does not believe that it would be wise to hold the election to the Convention in the immediate future. I am aware that there has been a call for early elections from various quarters. Following my Statement on the Government's White Paper in this House last Thursday, my noble friend Lord Brock-way suggested that elections should be held as soon as possible. I repeat what I said to my noble friend then, that my right honourable friend is acutely conscious that timing is extremely important and he will give it the fullest possible attention. It would be as unwise to hold the election too late as to hold it too early. It is important, however, to be flexible in our thinking at this stage.
With this Convention, we believe that we are creating an opportunity for all the people of Northern Ireland to discuss the realities of their situation, and for them to come to a view, on the basis of those realities, about the form of the future Government of Northern Ireland. As all who have been concerned will know, it is no easy task which has been placed on the shoulders of the Convention, and the Government will do all they can to assist it in its deliberations. It must be the wish not only of both sides of this House, but of all the people of the United Kingdom, that the Convention will enjoy success. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)

CYPRUS
3.42 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign and

1137
Commonwealth Secretary. The Statement reads as follows:
"I will, with permission Mr. Speaker, make a further statement about the situation in Cyprus.
"Archbishop Makarios arrived in this country this morning having spent the night in Malta. I understand that he is in good health and that it is his intention to go on to New York tomorrow to address the Security Council. My right honourable friend, the Prime Minister, is seeing him at present and I shall be seeing the Archbishop myself later this afternoon.
"In response to a request from the Turkish Government that they should consult with Her Majesty's Government under the terms of Article 4 of the Treaty of Guarantee—a request to which I immediately agreed yesterday—the Turkish Prime Minister and the Turkish Acting Foreign Minister arc arriving in this country later today.
"The Prime Minister and I will be holding consultations with them this evening. In these talks we will be considering questions concerning our rights and obligations under the Treaty of Guarantee. We shall hope to coordinate our views on what action should now be taken to deal with the situation in Cyprus.
"We shall also be seeking the views of the Turkish Prime Minister on the question of consultations with the Greek Government.
"The Greek Government bear a heavy responsibility for the situation in the island. Under the Treaty of Guarantee they are firmly committed to respect the independence of the Republic and to assist in the maintenance of stability in the region. It is the duty of the Greek Government to avoid any threat to the independence of Cyprus. Her Majesty's Government are still awaiting the substantive response of the Greek Government to their advice that the officers of the Greek National Guard in Cyprus should be replaced at the earliest possible moment.
"My information is that the situation in Cyprus is calmer and that fighting has died down. I have not received any reports that British subjects have suffered any loss or injury. As
1138
far as we know the civil airport at Nicosia, though still closed, is serviceable."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will be obliged to the noble Lord for keeping us fully informed of the events which are taking place in Cyprus. I do not know whether the noble Lord has any information about whether there is any hardship to British subjects or tourists in Cyprus. If there is, will he consider the suggestion I made yesterday about the use of Akrotiri airfield if the airport at Nicosia still remains closed? Of course, I acknowledge that there is difficulty about getting to Akrotiri depending on the situation in Cyprus.
I also think that the House will have noted what the noble Lord said about the Greek Government bearing a heavy responsibility. I think the Greek Government should note that it is impossible for us to excuse them from any responsibility for the actions of the officers of the National Guard. Even if they were unaware of the action of these officers at the beginning, they are certainly aware of them now and are aware of what is continuing. I think that they should be reminded of this, as indeed Her Majesty's Government have reminded them. I hope that the Government will press the Greek Government hard on this point.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues I should like to make two points. First, is it possible, or is it likely, that Archbishop Makarios can be associated, before he leaves for New York, with the talks proceeding—I think to-night—between the Turkish and British Governments? Secondly, can we hope or expect, as a result of our consultations with the Turks, that the Greek Government will be informed that whatever the National Guard who have shot their way to power in Cyprus may say or do, union of Cyprus with Greece will not be tolerated by our two countries, or by NATO, or, in all possibility, by the United Nations?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for what he has said. On the question of hardship, we have no evidence of any hardship or

1139
injury to British subjects or tourists on the island so far—considerable inconvenience, yes, but not hardship. As to the very valuable suggestion which he made yesterday in your Lordships' House, I can assure him that this was immediately looked into, particularly, as he has just reminded us, having regard to the situation that has arisen in the island, especially in the approach zones, Akrotiri and any other base that might prove helpful. The consideration of the suggestion is continuing, as he would wish it to be.
As to Greek responsibility, I most certainly endorse the words the noble Lord has uttered. He has put the position very clearly and appropriately strongly. This is a very dangerous situation and, if I may re-quote from the very strong paragraph which the Secretary of State has already read to the other place:
"The Greek Government bear a heavy responsibility for the situation in the island".
It goes on to remind the Greek Government:
"It is the duty of the Greek Government to avoid any threat to the independence of Cyprus."
This brings me to the second of the two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, if I may deal with that first. Any question of enosis cannot be entertained under the terms of the Treaty of Guarantee of 1960, of which all three parties mentioned in the Statement were signatories, and which, like others, is registered at the United Nations. I think that is a sufficiently reassuring answer to the noble Lord on that point. Independence means that there shall not be enosis, except in the most improbable event of there being the free democratically expressed desires, and the desire of the people of Cyprus as a whole. The Treaty was framed to meet what was then perfectly clear, and what still remains perfectly clear, that the only possible solution to the Cyprus problem is the maintenance of its territorial integrity and independence.
As to the first point which the noble Lord raised, whether Archbishop Makarios, the President of Cyprus, can be associated with tonight's talks, I cannot answer that question. It may well be that judgment as to how these talks should be conducted most helpfully to
1140
the situation and to the Cypriot people and Government, may go one way or the other. I am quite sure that Archbishop Makarios is being dealt with and will continue to be dealt with as the only President and Head of State of the Republic of Cyprus.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform the House whether he has any knowledge of similar statements to the very important Statement that he has just read, having been made by other members of NATO, particularly in regard to Greek responsibility?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, no; I have no present knowledge of any comparable statement emanating from any other country, except to inform your Lordships' House that a number of countries made statements at the meeting of the Security Council, and that indeed one or two—I think two—have sent messages in reply to messages they received from the Secretary-General. These will be published in due course. The time difference has prevented today's Press from reporting those statements, but I have no doubt that some time this evening, and certainly tomorrow morning, our own Press will carry at least the gist of them.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord add information on two other points? Is it the case that the Greek Government have not yet declared their position in regard to these events? Secondly, can he assure us that the Turkish minority are still all quiet?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, in reply to the second question, as I said yesterday the Turkish Government, people and indeed the minority in Cyprus, have behaved with exemplary calm and restraint, exemplary in the sense that I hope everybody will emulate them in this respect. On the first point, I should prefer to answer that at a somewhat later stage if the noble Earl will give me that indulgence for the moment.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, I wonder whether I am right in thinking that the senior member of the Greek Embassy staff in London at the moment is the Chargé d'Affaires. If so, have

1141
Her Majesty's Government made clear to him the views of this country in regard to the action that Greece ought to take in Cyprus?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, yes indeed. It is very much in the terms of the Statement I have read. I understand the question to be whether we have made clear to the Greek Government the action we expect of them.
LORD OAKSHOTT: To their Embassy in London.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, through every diplomatic channel, and indeed through our own representation in Athens, what we expect of them in fidelity to the 1960 Treaty to which they, like we and the Turkish Government, were signatories. In giving that answer, perhaps I may refer to the noble Earl's previous question and say in fairness that the Greek Government have said that their intention is to observe the independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus and this forms part of their reply to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. We must all hope that these acceptable words, these messages, will be fully lived up to.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, following what the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said on the question of NATO, may I seek further clarification from the Minister? On the wireless at 2 p.m. there was a very brief statement to the effect that NATO supported Archbishop Makarios. Can the Minister say whether in fact it is the majority of countries of NATO and if Greece specifically has not as yet given any support?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am not aware of that statement. I in no way detract from its viability, but I have not myself seen or heard it. However, I would say that the situation created in Cyprus is of great importance to all members of NATO, because two members of NATO are involved in a very dangerous situation.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, has the Minister any knowledge of the terms on which the Greek officers are employed in the Cyprus National Guard? I ask this question only because it might provide further ammunition for our argument with the Greek Government.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I could not answer that question. I do not know on what terms they are retained as officers of a Greek Cypriot other ranks force. I should like to look into this matter. I appreciate very much what the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, has said and it would be useful to be clear about these terms.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether any steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to protect British residents' property in Cyprus? In asking this question I suppose that I must declare an indirect interest, because a relative of mine has a large property in Cyprus. But I also ask this question on behalf of the 10,000 British property owners in Cyprus.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, considerations both as to safety and property are very much in the forefront of our approach to this problem. I can give the necessary assurance that we shall do our utmost to protect both.
LORD VIVIAN: I thank the noble Lord.

PRISONERS: ARTIFICIAL FEEDING
3.57 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): My Lords, I should like to repeat a statement just made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"On May 23 I said that I would review the position regarding compulsory feeding and the traditional view that a prison medical officer would be neglecting his duty if he were not prepared to feed artificially a prisoner on hunger strike, if necessary against his will, in order to preserve his health and life. Distasteful and objectionable though artificial feeding is, it has been judged preferable to allowing the prisoner to die or his health seriously to deteriorate. I should like to pay tribute to the professional skill and compassion with which members of the prison medical service have discharged their responsibilites in circumstances which I know they have found difficult and distasteful.

1143
"The doctor's obligation is to the ethics of his profession and to his duty at common law; he is not required as a matter of prison practice to feed a prisoner artificially against the prisoner's will. Since there has been misunderstanding on this point, I think it is in the interests of prisoners, the medical profession and the public, that the procedures to be followed in future should leave no room for doubt.
"I am advised that the common law duty placed upon persons in charge of a prisoner is to take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances of each case to preserve the health and the life of the prisoner. In making their decision in respect of any particular case they must have regard not merely to the dangers likely to flow from the prisoner's refusal of food, but also to those likely to flow from the process of forced feeding itself, if it is resorted to, and particularly if it is resisted.
"Accordingly, the future practice should, in my view, be that if a prisoner persists in refusing to accept any form of nourishment, the medical officer should first satisfy himself that the prisoner's capacity for rational judgment is unimpaired by illness, mental or physical. If the medical officer is so satisfied he should seek confirmation of his opinion from an outside consultant. If the consultant confirms the opinion of the prison medical officer, the prisoner should be told that he will continue to receive medical supervision and advice and that food will be made available for him. He should be informed that he will be removed to the prison hospital if and when this is considered appropriate. But it should be made clear to him that there is no rule of prison practice which requires the prison medical officer to resort to artificial feeding (whether by tube or intravenously). Finally, he should be plainly and categorically warned that the consequent and inevitable deterioration in his health may be allowed to continue without medical intervention unless he specifically requests it.
"I have discussed this subject with my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland, who have decided that the
1144
procedures I have outlined will apply also in Scotland and Northern Ireland."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, we are very grateful for that Statement which has been repeated by the noble Lord. I am sure that everybody appreciates that hunger strikers come in different brands. There are those who wish to put up a minor demonstration and who refuse prison food and feed themselves from the prison shop. There are others who, for one reason or another, persist for a greater or lesser length of time, and there are some who persist as a matter of principle—probably a political principle—to the extent where life and health is very much at risk. I would echo, and I am sure that anyone who has had experience of the Prison Service would also echo, the obnoxiousness of having to deal with people who persistently and adamantly refuse food. It is not only the fully-trained prison staff who are involved; this is a matter which also has to be dealt with by hospital officers, and I join in the tribute which has been paid to those who have been involved.
This is a departure from the situation as we have known it before, and if I may I should like to ask the noble Lord two questions. First, has it been cleared with the medical profession that ethically they can do this without breaching the duty they owe to their patients, when their patients are people who are in prison? For it is most important that we should do nothing by an administrative decision of this kind to put any doctor in danger of prejudicing his professional integrity.
Secondly, although the noble Lord has mentioned what happens in common law, when I had this matter before me I was told that it was a matter also of prison rules and that there was something in the prison rules which required us positively to attempt to keep alive, whether officiously (as the old rhyme goes) or not. The noble Lord has not mentioned this and, therefore, I assume that the advice he now has is that no amendment to the prison rules is necessary. If that is the case, so be it, but so far as I am concerned—and I do not know how your Lordships feel about this—if we lay down these as ground rules, people who choose

1145
to go on hunger strike for a prolonged period, if necesary for political reasons, will in future do so at their own risk. I think that we should appreciate that they do it to some extent at our risk also, because there is the possibility of martyrs being made—though perhaps no doubt one could have a glut of martyrs, which puts the matter at a somewhat small premium. That is the position I would adopt, and if we are to do this then it is as well to say so plainly.
My mind moves on from the question of hunger strikers to those who have done this in the past and to the reasons why they are in prison. I have heard—and I hope this is not too far out of order—that there has been another very disagreeable bomb incident at the Tower of London rather less than two hours ago. I do not know whether or not there is any connection with Ireland here. I wonder whether the noble Lord could, in addition to answering my other questions, tell us something about this.
LORD WIGODER: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, may I also thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement, and raise three matters arising out of it. First, would the noble Lord agree that, with the abolition of attempted suicide as a criminal offence, there is no longer any legal obligation upon other people to attempt to preserve the life of those who are engaged in hunger strikes?
Secondly, would the noble Lord agree that the moral duty and the moral problems posed to prison officers and members of the medical profession have been excruciatingly difficult? Would they welcome the guidance given in this Statement, which is to the effect, as I understand it, that in future food is to be made available and it will be up to the individual prisoner to decide whether or not to avail himself of it?
Thirdly, without referring to any specific case—which would serve no useful purpose at this point—would the noble Lord bear in mind that where hunger strikes are embarked upon by a number of people for political purposes it is highly undesirable that they should be allowed to associate or to communicate with each other freely for the purpose of gaining mutual support and for increasing the propaganda value of their exercise?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord for their reception of the Statement. On the last point which was raised by the noble Viscount, concerning the deeply regrettable event at the Tower of London this afternoon, there was, in fact, an explosion just after two o'clock. No warning was received and 24 people, according to our latest information, have been injured—in quite a number of cases, I regret to say, quite seriously. Substantial damage has been caused. Of course, we shall keep the House informed on this matter so far as we can.
If I may now turn to the specific matters which have been raised, I welcome the note which has been struck by both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord. Taking first the specific questions put by the noble Viscount, we did, in fact, consult the Chairman of the General Medical Council on this matter, and the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place is consistent with the recent statement of views of the Central Ethical Committee of the B.M.A. Secondly, on prison rules, we have looked at this and it is our view that we shall not have to change prison rules, although we shall have to change the appropriate Standing Order relating to members of the medical staff; and that will be done. I think it is Regulation 104.
If I may now turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, I rather agree with what he says on the point of attempted suicide. We have a different situation now from that which obtained at the time of the last recorded case just before the First World War, when there was a great deal of discussion. Secondly, he referred to the moral difficulties. These are indeed great, as my right honourable friend said in another place. The pressures on the medical staff have been very severe indeed in recent months and they have not been in any way lessened by some of the charges levelled against them from outside sources. Lastly, on the question of association of groups of hunger strikers, I take the point made by the noble Lord and I recognise the allusion to a recent specific case. This is something which must be looked at in the circumstances of the particular case.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Statement. I am sure that it will be welcomed by doctors throughout the country, because every time a prisoner is forcibly fed it involves a risk not only to the prisoner but also to the doctor, in respect of his whole professional standing. It is possible, of course, to make a mistake and it is very easy to do so if the prisoner is resisting forcible feeding. Therefore, it is only fair to doctors to recognise that they should be protected equally with the prisoner. This will afford them that protection which I believe they deserve.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I am very grateful for what my noble friend has just said. I think she has identified a most important point; namely, the risks involved when there is resistance to forcible feeding. As the House will be aware, on the last occasion certain directions had to be given as a result of the very substantial risks involved both to the hunger strikers themselves and to the medical staff.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should like my noble friend to be aware that I appreciate both the human and the ethical issues which are involved here. Would he not agree that there is some distinction between forced feeding by tube when the prisoners resist—which is as horrible for the doctors as it is for their patients—and intravenous feeding, when it may be a medical duty to seek to save a life? Should there not be some distinction between those two operations?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, with respect to my noble friend, who was of considerable assistance in this most recent publicised case, I regret I cannot see the distinction that he makes. A resisting prisoner can make in-traveneous feeding totally impossible. That is something we had to consider in this recent case.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether all these cases of forcible feeding are treated in the prison hospital? What are the contrary indications against their admission into the prison hospital?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, in the past I understand that in a number of cases people have been taken to the prison hospital. It seems
1148
that this has been considered to be the most appropriate place. In the future rather different rules will apply.

E.E.C.: AGRICULTURE MINISTERS' MEETING
4.11 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with permission, I will repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food:
"I should like to inform the House of the main decisions reached by the Council of Ministers (Agriculture) at its meeting of 15–16 July in Brussels.
"The main business before the Council was the difficult situation on the beef market throughout the Community. The Council agreed on a number of measures designed to strengthen the beef market and to assure reasonable returns to producers. Much the most important of these measures was the authorisation of the system I myself proposed for direct premia to be paid to beef producers on finished cattle. The purpose of these premia is to sustain producers' returns and to offer an incentive to them to market beef cattle in an orderly manner through the autumn and winter. The maximum rates rise from £9·24 per head in August to £32·34 in February. Arrangements for March and April will be decided following a review in December. The cost will be borne by the Member State from August to October, but thereafter Community funds will bear a proportion rising from 50 per cent. in November to 70 per cent in February.
"The premia will be subject to reduction or suspension only if market prices rise far enough to make this desirable—there is no automatic cutoff price. The Government intend to introduce this scheme with effect from August 5 and I shall announce full details as soon as possible.
"The effect of these premia will be to assure beef producers of a reasonable return, and to offer a real incentive to phase marketings in such a way as to maintain stable market conditions. They amply fulfil the intention I announced to the House on 26 June

1149
of giving our beef producers an assurance that, over a period, their returns would not fall below about £18 per live cwt for clean cattle. If the industry responds to the assurance which these premia will provide, average returns over the period till March should substantially exceed this figure. Permanent intervention still remains an option, but these premia represent an alternative way—in my view a far better one—of supporting the farmer whilst marketing the beef. In this sense they can fairly be said to represent a major change in the Community's beef regime and a new approach to this sector of Common Agricultural Policy. They will sustain producers' returns by direct assistance, while enabling consumers to buy beef at prices they can afford.
"The Council also decided on special measures to encourage beef consumption in the Community. First, they noted the Commission's intention of authorising member countries to arrange for the purchase of frozen intervention beef, at reduced prices, by nonprofit-making organisations. Secondly, they agreed to authorise member countries, at their discretion, to operate schemes under which those in receipt of social benefits could receive financial assistance towards the cost of buying fresh beef in the shops. The authorised rate of assistance is likely to be about £1 per head per month. 50 per cent. of the cost would be borne by Community funds. The Government are considering whether to operate this scheme in the United Kingdom. Thirdly, the Council decided to make aid available from Community funds for campaigns to promote consumption of beef and other meat.
"Finally it was decided to suspend temporarily the issue of licences for imports from third countries, except for the quantities covered by the GATT levy-free quota; and to suspend temporary importation for processing and re-export. Licences which have already been issued will enable some beef imports to continue. The Council also noted the Commission's intention to put intervention beef into cans, so as to provide a stockpile for use in future shortage and as food aid to the hungry people of the world. We think
1150
there are opportunities for much of this beef to be canned in the United Kingdom and I shall be pursuing this with the industry.
"I regard the outcome of the Council meeting as very satisfactory for both producers and consumers in this country. It is a good omen for the further negotiations we intend to carry out in this field."
That is the Statement, my Lords.
4.15 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, although this is the third Statement this afternoon, it is none the less important. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for repeating this Statement; it will be welcomed throughout the farming community, particularly because it helps to put a floor into what was a very difficult problem, one which was not difficult only to the United Kingdom nor only to Europe, but to the whole world. I should like to congratulate the right honourable gentleman for having worked this problem out with the other Members of the E.E.C. This is the right way to deal with the matters; they have provided not a solution, but an aid in time of trouble.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, what he reckons to be the estimated cost which we as a country will have to stand by virtue of the arrangements which we are responsible for looking after up to October. Also what will the cost be to the European Community, and what will be our share of it when the European Community takes over part of the responsibility for this subsidy from October onwards? In the Statement it was said that the European Community authorised Member countries to operate the social benefits scheme. One of the drawbacks of the C.A.P. has always been our expenditure towards it. I hope that the Government will take this opportunity, if there is an opportunity of us getting benefit from the Community, of receiving it. Will the noble Lord give the assurance that when the Government are considering this matter, as the Statement says, they are only considering the mechanics of how to operate the social benefits scheme and not the merits as to whether it should be operated?
Can the noble Lord also give an assurance that die fact that the Minister of Agriculture deliberately decided not to

1151
buy beef into intervention will not itself prejudice or prevent us as a country from taking advantage of the schemes relating to meat which is in intervention? The last point to which I should like to refer is this. I recognise that this is a package and one of the drawbacks of the package—and I recognise this was difficult for the right honourable gentleman to accept—is the cancellation of licences for imports. Can the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, say for how long this is going on, which countries are affected and the quantity of meat affected?
4.18 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, while associating myself with the last suggestion made by the noble Earl about imports, on behalf of my noble friends I should like to observe that this apparently satisfactory agreement clearly demonstrates the truth of our constant contention in the Liberal Party that the best way to modify the conditions under which we joined the European Economic Community is by patient negotiation within the existing machinery of the Community.
4.19 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their welcome to this Statement and I also thank the House for the forbearance which it has shown for this third Statement. As the noble Earl said, this is undoubtedly a breakthrough so far as the Common Agricultural Policy is concerned. I do not attempt to deprive the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, of the satisfaction he has in being able to say, "I told you so".
So far as the social beef scheme is concerned, the noble Earl asked me whether we shall look at it simply in terms of the administrative difficulties and not as a matter of principle. I have to tell him that there is this question of the merits of increasing the cash availability to those on social security benefits, and this is a point which must be taken into account. Nevertheless, having said this, we are looking carefully at the advantages of the social beef scheme.
The noble Earl asked me about the cost. The total cost will be about £40 million. Of that the cost to the Exchequer could be up to £23 million up to the end of February. Of course, if it goes on beyond that then there will be an addi-
1152
tional cost. The import ban will be up to October 31, and the countries mainly concerned will be Australia and the Argentine. I think that that answers the questions that were asked of me.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, as a beef producer may I ask the noble Lord whether I am right in assuming that we are going to get £18 per live cwt. as from to-day as a guarantee? Secondly, as I am also an Australian beef producer may I ask whether he could answer the question which I think was put by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, as to how long that is going to continue? Thirdly, does he not think that the present capacity for storing beef in Europe is abysmally small? Would it not be a good idea to increase that capacity over the years so that we do not have this up and down fluctuation?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, so far as the dates are concerned I said that this scheme will be in operation as from August 5. I am not saying what the noble Lord will receive for his cattle if he sends them to-morrow. The way this works out is that the noble Lord will receive from the market what he gets at the market and in addition will receive this amount of headage payment, and generally it should bring the figure up to at least £18 per live cwt. I was asked what the situation is so far as Australia is concerned. I believe I answered that. The import ban will be up to October 31.
VISCOUNT BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, the Commission have agreed in fact to help the Irish Republic during the period from August 5 to October. The Commission have also agreed not to alter the M.C.A., the green pound, at this stage. That has been deferred until December. But if in September the M.C.A. is raised—that is, the green pound recognises devaluation of the pound—that will produce a very big advantage to the Irish Republic. In that event, will the noble Lord represent to his right honourable friend that the Commission should also help Northern Ireland, so that the problem which might have existed between Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland to-day, and could come to exist in September after devaluation of the pound, is not allowed to arise? It is a complicated matter because the green pound is something which it is

1153
difficult to understand; but if one lives on the Border and sees the smuggling going on, then even though one might benefit from it oneself one appreciates it is bad from the point of view of the situation in Northern Ireland.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, the implications of the green pound are very complicated indeed. They are being studied, and if any decision is taken after the study it will be announced.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend in the first place whether he would add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords to my right honourable friend for this very satisfactory outcome of a very difficult problem? May I further ask him whether he would urge my right honourable friend to look with the greatest possible favour upon this proposal for welfare meat, as one might call it, as helping to solve the existing problem and preventing in the future the accumulation of these difficult surpluses, and also promoting valuable social welfare at a difficult time; similarly, to look with favour on the proposal for canning this meat, which has the same beneficial effects on the meat producer and implements the Government's often repeated wishes to help the under-developed countries, particularly those with the lowest standards of nutrition? Finally, perhaps I may ask my noble friend a rather more specific question. As I understood him, these premia are fixed quantities per head of livestock sent. They have nothing to do with weight. They apply equally to a lightweight animal, provided it is fit for grazing, as to a heavyweight animal. Is that so? That is the first specific question of detail. Secondly, he mentioned something like £32 for February. Is that amount to be paid regardless of the price the animal fetches at market, even if it were to fetch £19 or £20 a cwt.? Does it come in solely if the price falls below £18 per cwt., or is it adjusted depending upon the average price an animal will fetch at that time?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I said we were looking, and I think it is possible to say looking sympathetically, at the welfare meat proposal, although this has an implication which also has to be studied. May I say, in answer to the previous
1154
question that I did not fully answer, that we certainly believe that this is a definite improvement on the intervention scheme, the storing of beef which is both costly and not good for the beef. We are, again as I said in the Statement, looking at the proposal to put the intervention beef into cans—or at any rate I should say "the Commission" because this beef is already in store; and the possibility of putting it into cans for conceivable distribution in certain other areas of the world is something which is being considered. So far as the minimum weight problem is concerned, as my noble friend will know there always has been a minimum weight. The animal at the market has to be approved, has to meet requirements, and there will undoubtedly be a minimum weight. As for the mechanics of this, I thought I had tried to explain the position. The receipts to the farmer will be the amount which he gets at the market plus the figures which I have stated in addition to what he gets in free market.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend I wonder whether I might ask him a question purely and simply on the distribution side. While I have every sympathy in the world for assistance to people on social security, I can envisage so many administrative difficulties in distribution in that way that I believe there would be many loopholes of which people could take advantage. Would it not be better that the meat should be distributed through wholesalers and retailers and ultimately to the consumer at a controlled price for the whole of the Community, rather than to do things in the way which is now suggested?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the way that is now suggested was agreed at about half-past one this morning in Brussels, and if this is taken up by the individual countries the mechanics will have to be worked out. The difficulties to which my noble friend has referred are one factor which will have to be taken into account.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, were we to understand the noble Lord to say that this meat which is put into cans will be distributed to areas outside the Community, in which case no senior citizens in this country will have an opportunity of getting a can of intervention meat?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what I said in my Statement was that the Commission were intending to put into cans that beef which is now in cold store. The idea will be to use this canned beef as a stockpile for emergencies or for possible distribution to the poorer areas of the world.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, in welcoming this Statement, may I ask for elucidation on one point regarding imports—the GATT levy-free quota? Does this constitute a major part of the existing beef imports, or is it either by quantity or by percentage?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the amount of fresh and chilled beef involved for the whole of 1973 was about 40,000 tons. Only about 15,000 tons were imported in the first half of 1974.

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL
Second Reading debate resumed.
4.31 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the House will have been grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, for the thorough explanation which he gave of the new Northern Ireland Bill which is before the House, but in addition to the Bill we have a new White Paper—not to mention a Continuation Order for the Emergency Provisions Act which is to be taken afterwards. Therefore, this is not time to be looking backwards, for it is with the present and with the future that we have to deal.
I think that it is understandable that the people of Northern Ireland are now exhausted with violence. At work, people have suffered grievously. To give one example, I remember that at the end of 1973 the offices which housed the Youth Employment Service in Belfast had been bombed on seven separate occasions. With violence there has been widespread disruption of normal routine. Family life has been restricted and has been threatened. If this Bill becomes law, those who are responsible for the conduct of elections in Northern Ireland will be required to have organised no fewer than six separate polls in the space of what will probably be only about two years. For the Northern Ireland Civil Service,
1156
upon which so much has depended, the fall of the Executive has meant helping new Ministers yet again to become acquainted with the work of their Departments. Therefore, when the Convention for which the Bill provides comes to meet, it must be the hope that there will exist a united desire to find a solution by Ulster, for Ulster, out of the present troubles. Inevitably this Convention will encounter sticking points—issues upon which the political Parties in Northern Ireland are divided or, at best, do not see eye to eye. However, faced squarely, issues can be solved. Pushed aside, they may fester until, perhaps, at a crucial moment they may appear and destroy agreement.
One such issue must be security. It is the issue which is bound to be uppermost in the mind of almost everybody who is living in Northern Ireland. Perhaps one of the shrewdest comments upon the events of May was Mr. Cosgrave's expressed view that, in fact, the Executive had been brought down by the I.R.A.; and so it is that the Security Forces face their continuing task which the Army has shouldered so well for five years. However, as paragraph 42 of the White Paper says:
"Nothing would transform the security situation more quickly than a determination by the whole community to support the Police Service and to co-operate with it."
On many occasions my noble friend Lord Brookeborough has in this House urged upon the Government various methods for improving recruiting to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. If the issue of effective policing is not to be a cause of division within the Convention when it meets, then I think it is essential that the Government should ensure that the plans for the R.U.C. which have already been made should not be allowed in any way to stagnate. For instance, has the non-residential cadet scheme, which the Secretary of State announced in another place on April 4, started yet; and, if so, is there any indication of a favourable response? What is to be done about the plan for an all-Party committee to examine how best to extend effective policing throughout Northern Ireland?
My Lords, the White Paper affirms the practical fact that there is an Irish dimension—obviously a second sticking point, potentially, for the Convention. In

1157
another place my honourable friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said, that the size of this dimension depends considerably upon the Irish Government. This was not said in any spirit of antagonism. It is a practical and geographical fact that if two countries share a common boundary, relations are bound to depend upon how energetically they protect that boundary for the mutual safety of each other. Therefore, may I ask the Government what practical steps are now being taken to implement the recommendation for extra-territorial jurisdiction which was the recommendation made by the Law Enforcement Commission just a few months ago? Although the United Kingdom representatives on that Commission would have preferred extradition, effective implementation of what was the agreed recommendation could be a step forward and could help to remove a sense of understandable grievance among those who will undoubtedly be members of the forthcoming Convention.
Thirdly, I must add to the list the whole principle of power sharing. It is bound once again to be closely debated within the Convention, although it will now be debated within the context of Clause 2(1) of the Bill. However, on this issue I believe that agreement can be reached. When the three Parties which were to form the Executive started discussions last year, it was believed that they were deeply divided on many issues which were crucial to the good government of Northern Ireland; yet within two months they had agreed a declaration on social and economic aims. It may well be that the economic position of the Province will unite members of the Convention.
Part 5 of the White Paper shows that considerable annual supplements are needed by the Northern Ireland economy. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has said, there is nothing wrong in this. Ulster is part of the United Kingdom, an association for which we have been thankful in times of need, and it is right that expenditure should be incurred to pursue the kind of social and economic aims which were set out in the White Paper of a year ago.
However, the Convention will be meeting at a time when the economy of the whole of the United Kingdom hangs in
1158
the balance, and not least the economy of Northern Ireland. It is true that increased productivity, good industrial relations, the attraction of a remarkable amount of foreign investment and improvements to industrial training are advances which have been made in Northern Ireland, and they are infinitely to the credit of all those who are concerned with the economy of Northern Ireland. However, anybody who is weighing the prospects for the Province in the immediate future must study also the other side of the economic coin: the great reliance which is placed upon one industry in Northern Ireland; namely, agriculture; the difficulties which are faced by Northern Ireland shipbuilding at Harland and Wolff; the serious threat which the recent disturbances have presented to the chances of further foreign investment.
The Convention which, after all, will be led by Party leaders who are experienced in the affairs of the Province, will need to weigh with the very greatest care the appalling consequences of any return to steeply rising unemployment. It is for these reasons that I hope and believe that for those who have the future of Ulster at heart the facts of economic life will unite and not divide.
My Lords, I have no detailed questions to ask about the Bill, but I have one point which I should like to put to the noble Lord. It is a point which I believe could be rectified by administrative action. Under the Bill, we return to Northern Ireland legislation by Parliamentary Order, with the obvious disadvantages of this procedure. However, in 1972 and 1973 the Secretary of State had the benefit of an advisory commission. This meant that at least Orders had always been discussed with representatives of those who were directly affected. Surely it would not be impossible for the Secretary of State to reconstitute such a Commission. If the noble Lord's right honourable friend feels that he does not wish to duplicate the Convention in any way, then perhaps he could be advised upon Northern Ireland legislation for Parliament by elected representatives who are drawn from the Convention itself.
Apart from the main difficulties which I have sought to identify there will be other problems to be overcome if the

1159
Convention is to succeed. I must say that the elastic terms of reference, yet no provision apparently for the Convention Report to be able to voice a substantial minority point of view, are both aspects of Clause 2 which cause me some uneasiness, and there will be practical considerations as well. There will be the choice of chairman, the delicate balance between the Convention and the Secretary of State, and also the whole atmosphere in which the Convention will first meet. All these things will be crucial, and so must be the willingness of Members to agree procedure and to determine progress. But these are not items which legislation can solve. The Bill provides a way forward, and for the future of Northern Ireland it must succeed.
4.41 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I believe that we are now in the crucial period for the future of Northern Ireland, and that if right policies are pursued we may indeed begin a period of transition from violence to a constructive approach to this problem. I feel this so deeply that I think it demands a reappraisal of our views. It has certainly led me to new thinking, which I will try to express in the speech which I am now to deliver.
I largely support the White Paper and the Bill that is now before us. My one regret is that in a succeeding Bill the present provisions for the emergency will be kept without amendment. I particularly welcome the proposal for a Constitutional Convention. A few weeks ago when we discussed Northern Ireland, I made this proposal on the suggestion of Professor Rose. I had the support of a noble Lord on the opposite Benches, but that was all. There was hardly any consideration at all of the proposal, and because it has now been accepted by Her Majesty's Government I am the more glad to welcome the White Paper and the Bill.
I say that in my view we all have to reassess our views about Northern Ireland because of recent developments. First, there has been the quite extraordinary growth of a sense of responsibility within Northern Ireland itself for its future. This was illustrated by the remarkable conference held at Oxford called by the British-Irish Association, when representatives were present from Protestants
1160
and Catholics, from ex-Members of the Stormont Executive and from the Opposition. It is now being reflected by discussions which are taking place within both communities and across their religious frontiers. I welcome the fact that this is recognised in the White Paper, which says:
"The Government welcomes the holding of discussions within various groups in the community which have extended towards establishing peace and withdrawal from violence."
My Lords, I believe that that is now potentially within our reach. This growth of a sense of responsibility in Northern Ireland itself opens the door to the ultimate withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland, and the policing of violence within Northern Ireland itself.
The history of the presence of British troops is quite extraordinary. First, they were welcomed by the Catholics as a protection against the Protestant majority; then opposed by the Catholics because of arrests and, particularly, house-searching within their areas, while the Protestants supported them. Then, when arrests and house searching began in the Protestant areas, Protestant opposition grew as well, and we now have this quite extraordinary situation, that both Protestant and Catholic representatives are demanding the end of internment and looking towards the withdrawal of the British troops. I say at once what I said a few weeks ago, that the immediate withdrawal of the British troops would be disastrous. I do not think we have yet reached a situation where that would be safe, and where there would not be almost civil war, but I believe we may now be approaching that situation.
The Government have made the proposal of the Constitutional Convention, and I should like to suggest to them that, in order to give that Convention a sense of seriousness, a sense of seeking to find a solution to the problem of Northern Ireland, the Government should indicate that within 12 months of that Convention British troops will be withdrawn. We have the precedent of India, and if an intimation of that kind were made I believe it would be an encouragement to both sides in Northern Ireland to make this Constitutional Convention a real occasion when a solution might be found.
But I should like to add this. I believe it is most important that their discussions

1161
should begin about the policing of Northern Ireland. I hope there will be official discussion between the elected representatives, but I also hope that the Government will encourage unofficial discussions with the Ulster Workers' Council, who do not have elected representatives, and even with the I.R.A. It was after all a Conservative Minister who once had discussions of that kind with the I.R.A. Discussions about policing would prepare for a situation when the British troops could withdraw.
My Lords, a development has taken place in Northern Ireland during the last two or three months of which I do not think we have yet understood the significance. It is that power in Northern Ireland is passing from the old political representatives to representatives of the workers. This was shown in the General Strike which was called by the Ulster Workers' Council. I deplored many of its demands, but the I.R.A. itself cannot avoid the lesson of that quite extraordinary five days' Strike. It ended the Executive and power sharing, which I regret; it ended Stormont. But the I.R.A. have this example, that by five days' nonviolent General Strike, the Ulster Workers' Council obtained more results than did the I.R.A. in five years by violence.
My Lords, in saying that, I recognise there are dangerous elements within the Ulster Workers' Council. There are fascist elements. I am fearful of the increased influence even of the National Front within it. But on the other side, there are in the Ulster Workers' Council trade unionists who accept the trade union demands in Britain equally in Northern Ireland, and who are members of our trade unions, sound in their policy. We should recognise that when we are thinking of the emergence of the Ulster Workers' Council.
My Lords, the second fact which I do not think we have yet understood is the agreement between the workers' representatives among the Protestants, and the workers' representatives among the Catholics. As I have indicated, both are now in favour of ending detention without trial, but they are in favour of something very much more. Their social and economic programmes are almost identical, and make a bridge between the Catholic and the Protestant workers. I
1162
accept that that programme, stated only in broad principles, needs to be worked out in detail. I want to make an appeal to the Irish Catholic workers in Northern Ireland. I accept their views; I want a united Ireland, but I want a united Ireland by the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. I want a Socialist united Ireland, but I recognise that a great deal of education has to be done in Southern as well as in Northern Ireland before that is realised.
I make this appeal to the Catholic workers in Northern Ireland. They have accepted the view that there should be no union between North and South until the majority of the people in Northern Ireland have accepted that concept. The implication of that agreement is very great. No one suggests that it can be obtained in Northern Ireland until many years have passed, and acceptance of that by the Catholic workers in Northern Ireland surely means that during the period before consent—if it ever is obtained—should be one of co-operation with the Protestant workers in applying the economic, social and political programme about which they are agreed.
There is another reason why the Catholic workers in Northern Ireland should accept this position. This is the warning given by Mr. Cosgrave to which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred, that the people in Southern Ireland are becoming less concerned about unity with the North while violence persists in the North. That should be another reason why the Catholic workers in the North should turn to other proposals than the violence of the minority within the I.R.A. Unity between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland is the doorway to unity between them in all Ireland.
I want to put this in concrete terms, so I ask the permission of your Lordships to read what I am now going to say because I want it to be exact in my reproduction. I would ask the workers both on the Protestant and on the Catholic side in Northern Ireland to consider this proposal: a truce on the Border issues for ten years, during which provocative propaganda and processions by both sides would be avoided, and concentration would be given to the realisation of equal civil rights for all, including the abolition of detention without trial, the policing of violence by a

1163
representative Northern Ireland Force, and the implementation of social and economic policies of value to the whole people of Ireland. I hope that not only Her Majesty's Government but representatives both from the Protestant and Catholic sides will consider that proposal, as, indeed, I think some of them already are. I hope that this may be the way by which we may find a transition to peace and constructive co-operation in Northern Ireland.
4.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to welcome this opportunity to debate not only the White Paper but also the Second Reading of the Bill. I hope that the other Bills will in fact pass through without further ado. I should like to refer to the television appearance in Northern Ireland—unfortunately it was not available in the United Kingdom—of the Secretary of State when he presented this particular White Paper. It was an appearance which gave that White Paper the best send-off possible. If I may so put it without being condescending, it has been a long time since an Englishman or Welshman has shown such understanding and sympathy for a strife-torn people. It was a most excellent send-off. May I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, for his personal intervention in many spheres, especially agriculture, and in other areas where he has gained the confidence of the agricultural community, a very large community in Northern Ireland. It is a great pleasure that he should be answering this debate, although he may not agree with everything I have to say, especially as I intend to keep the House for some three-quarters of an hour. I have had words already from the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, to say that I ought to keep my speech short.
My Lords, first of all, the main element of this White Paper, as other noble Lords have said, is the Constitutional Convention. It has received a general welcome by working people, and if I strike a note of dissension from that it is because I believe that it should be said absolutely clearly and without doubt. I have not spoken on this subject since the White Paper was published. I have waited until the debate occurred, and I have tried—
1164
and noble Lords will agree it is very difficult with Hansard on strike or impossible to get—to find out exactly what happened in the other place. But so far as I can see from typescript reports, the debate confirms my suspicion that in fact the Convention and the whole set-up is a method, a trap, for Northern Ireland to cut its own throat and end up with the Government—if it is the same Government when the Convention reports— being able to say, "This is an unacceptable report and we will wash our hands of Northern Ireland". That is what is so difficult.
I cannot forget that the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister had a fifteen-point plan not long ago. which ended up with the absorption of Northern Ireland in the Southern Republic. I cannot forget what has been described as, his, "unfortunate" speech during the Ulster Workers' Council strike. I do not think it was unfortunate from his point of view; I think that electorally within this country it was, in fact, a satisfactory intervention. But from our point of view it all added up to what I believe to be a plan. I believe that, unfortunately, he does not mind a diminution of the territorial establishment of the United Kingdom. Noble Lords will know that I am passionately devoted to the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. I believe in its greatness, in its way of life and in the contribution it can make to world civilisation.
How does this Convention fit into the picture? The elections have been announced at a time and in a way which lead me to believe that the only result will be that extremists—and I am talking about extremists on both sides—will be encouraged to stand for this Assembly, and they will be elected on extreme platforms. What we will get at that point, or what we will achieve, is much the same as we have on television in Northern Ireland. We very often have an extreme Protestant and an extreme Roman Catholic put on either side of the television screen. They argue for ten minutes; and then the media say that they have presented a balanced picture. In point of fact, all one gets is two completely opposite points of view.
I cannot see how, with their dedication to power sharing, the Government can resolve the problem at the same time as

1165
believing that out of this Convention they can get a report which is acceptable. In fact, because of the debate I am very worried about this question of the report. What happens if there is a 51 per cent. approval of some plan, with 49 per cents against? The right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State, if I may read what I believe to be what he said—and it is all the more confusing to me—stated:
"It could, for instance, put in interim reports so long as each report which it submits is a report of the Convention".
What happens if 51 per cent. decide that the opinion of the 49 per cent. will not be heard? Then it does not become a report of the Convention. I do not want to labour this matter, but I feel that the problem that exists in regard to the report of this Convention is that the Government, headed by the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister, may quite welcome the fact that what comes out of this Convention will be something that is unworkable, and, therefore, he will be able, with apparently clean hands, to wash his hands of Northern Ireland. That is what I intend to do my best to frustrate.
I should like to know from the noble Lord how the Government can frame a plebiscite. The White Paper says that a plebiscite or a referendum will be put to the people of Northern Ireland. A Government which must involve so many items, such as power sharing of some description or a coalition of some description, must of itself be complicated. How can one frame a question that the people of Northern Ireland can accept or reject with justification? Are we to go to a point in the United Kingdom where we are to govern by referenda because, if so, I think we are running very fast into trouble. We already have a commitment on the E.E.C. We have a commitment here on the Constitution of Northern Ireland. We have a commitment in the 1973 Act that the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom shall be decided by a referendum. That is a simple question which can be decided. I am not happy about a referendum regarding a complicated matter such as a Constitution. I can imagine the Prime Minister, having received a report of this description with complete conflict, saying to friends under cover, "We have given the Ulster Unionists a very sharp knife. Now let them cut their throats". If
1166 it is done in this way in present circumstances, there is great danger.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has mentioned the question of recruitment. I do not want at this stage to go into the question of law and order and its various means of enforcement, but I must tell the House that we still have not got anywhere. We have not achieved anything so far as recruitment into the R.U.C. Reserve is concerned. We are still at the stage where Napoleon—and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Harding, if he were in Northern Ireland—would be too small to serve in the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve. Certainly Napoleon was too small, and I think that if the noble Lord, Lord Harding, were here and I could measure him he would be in that state. This situation is ridiculous, and that is why we are having a massive political attack on the Reserve forces and a demand for some form of Home Guard.
We must get the Government to go wholeheartedly into this matter, and blow aside all the vested interests which exist in the various hierarchies, which prevent us from having a massive recruitment in a local area—because it can be done. We have done it in small areas and it can be done in larger areas. We still have the position where a security man is paid more than an Ulster Defence Regiment man who is in a very much more dangerous position. I still feel that security is not being handled with the vigour that it should be. I repeat—and I think everybody knows this—that politics cannot start in a sensible way until law and order has been improved. It has been improved—and there should be no doubt about it—but it requires still more improvement.
I should like the Government to announce very shortly that there will be two years of direct rule, irrespective of anything else. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said something very significant, and I should like him to repeat it. He said "Talk, talk, talk and talk." But the Bill says six months, with a further six months. I should like to feel that there will be unending talk, because I believe that only time will resolve the problem. I should like to think that during that period of two years the Government will appoint a Chief Executive—as they can do with very small amendments to the law—who is totally

1167
non-political, and who will take up the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and start by appointing a Commission, as existed before. Then gradually, if and when elections have taken place from the Convention, those commissioners should take up portfolios under a non-political animal in the form of the Chief Executive.
I should like very quickly to refer to a tremendous campaign which has been going on in Northern Ireland, but which may not have overflowed here to any extent; that is, for the abolition of detention. All of us dislike detention, and nobody dislikes it more than we unionists, who were responsible for bringing it in under necessity. It is repugnant, I and it has got to be done away with; but it is a question of how and when. I welcome the political decision of the Government to release a small number of detainees. I welcome too—and here I believe I speak for all sensible people in Northern Ireland, whatever their religion or creed—the decision that from now on extra releases and the final extinction of detention must and will depend on the security situation, and nothing else.
People talk about letting these people out, but they forget the fact of the innocent lives that have been lost through these people, who cannot be convicted because of intimidation, murder, and other forms of kangaroo courts. Even last night a man was shot in both knees, and who must be in considerable agony. This occurred not because he gave evidence but because it was suspected that he wanted to give evidence. It is a popular cry to call for the end of detention, but, so far as the majority of people in Northern Ireland are concerned, we support the Government's decision to end detention based on a drop in the security problem. The last two years have seen a tremendous fall in the number of security incidents, and this is very relevant to detention. Two years ago there were 3,000 shooting incidents a month; now there are only 300. The R.U.C. and the Army to-day are charging 100 people a month before the courts, and only a third of them are sent to detention.
It would be totally unfair on the Army if we were to release these men, many of whom are evil men from both sides, after the Army has spilt so much blood
1168
and tears in trying to capture them. Indeed, we have had a recent lesson, because at Christmastime a political decision was made to release some 60 detainees. It is recognised in the White Paper—and it was certainly recognised, as my noble friend Lord Belstead has said, by Mr. Cosgrave, who agreed that the Executive was put down by I.R.A. violence—that between November and March the number of incidents doubled. In my view this was as much responsible as anything else for the counter-violence from other people. Let us not be under any misapprehension; there is an improvement in the security situation, and it is continuing. Any relaxation of detention must be at the risk of more incidents.
If we are to reduce the criteria, what we have to do before we do that is introduce something like the Offences Against the State Act in Dublin, by which people can have evidence brought against them by a police officer. This is not a pleasant Act, but it appears to do the job. If the British people do not want detention, then they have to strengthen the law so as to enable the forces of law and order to carry out their task. Above all else, we must have no suggestion of an amnesty for those people who have been convicted of foul crimes, at enormous risk to witnesses. There must be no suggestion to these people that there will be an amnesty, that they will be let out after having committed these foul crimes.
I now turn to politics, because this is what it is all about. In the last year there have been a certain number of quite good elements, and I am going to concentrate on them rather than on the bad. The first thing—and other noble Lords have referred to this—is that the coalition did work. That the Act was almost unworkable is irrelevant. The fact is that a number of men worked together for a length of time, and the results should not be forgotten. Nationalists were able to work together with Unionists. The next form of coalition—because "power sharing" has become an unacceptable phrase—must include some method by which people of different aspirations, as it is put, are able to work with the majority who wish to remain British.
The next factor which is most important is that the Irish Republic recognise, and are able and feel strong enough to

1169
recognise, that they do not want Ulster at any price. It is a question of "a plague on both your houses". This has a very beneficial effect not only in the Irish Republic but here and on the elected representatives in Northern Ireland. Lastly, and a matter which has been referred to, there is the Ulster Workers' Council. I do not think that anybody can doubt that the Ulster Workers' Council have influence. Exactly what electoral influence they have remains to be seen when there is an election. Any body of men—and they had elected politicians with them—who can bring a country to a standstill cannot be neglected. They themselves have said that they require any solution to include two elements: one is more elected representatives here, and the second is a form of coalition in a devolved government in Northern Ireland. These are very significant factors.
In order to deal with these problems, I am going to raise a subject which I know is not popular in Westminster at the moment, but it is terribly important that we should recognise how people in Ulster see it. There is a civil rights cry now for Parliamentary democracy—a Parliamentary democracy somewhere. It was the failure to have Parliamentary democracy in the Assembly at Stormont, or to have it appear as such—because on my side of the House we were able to satisfy ourselves that there was Parliamentary democracy, but we had a noble Lord from here who said that the Chief Executive was in fact appointed and not elected—that made it difficult. My suggestion is that we must have a Parliamentary democracy which has fair representation here in Westminster. This is a fundamental civil right.
In 1920, when Northern Ireland was set up, a certain number of functions were transferred to us. Under the new Constitution we are to have fewer functions. Therefore, it is right and proper that at the very least we should have the minimum representation that is shared by any region. This is a civil right, and I feel sure that the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Stanley Orme, who played such a part in the civil rights campaign in Northern Ireland over the tertiary civil rights—that is, a tertiary form of government, because in Northern Ireland we had Westminster and Stormont both having the same franchise, and then a tertiary
1170
form of local government where there was an apparent lack of civil rights—would agree that if that was a cause for the civil rights campaign, how much more true is it now that we should have proper representation at Westminster.
I am not asking for this merely to have more Members here; I am doing it because of the next problem which arises, that if we can do this we can unlock completely new thinking on the solution for Northern Ireland. If we settle Parliamentary democracy here with proper representation we can then think in different terms; we can produce a different form of devolved democratic government. I am not asking for enormous representation. I know that noble Lords on the other side will agree when I say that if there is extra representation it will definitely not support the Conservative Party. There will be a cross-section, so we should not be afraid of that.
Democracy comes in many forms, and if we in Northern Ireland have Parliamentary democracy in Westminster, then there is no earthly reason why we should not have some different form altogether in the rest of Northern Ireland. I am not suggesting that we should follow the Greater London Council but, after all, the Greater London Council has a greater budget by far than the Benelux countries, and nobody can say that they do not have democracy, and a democratic form of institution.
One of the problems with the Assembly and the Executive was in fact that it aped Westminster, which enabled my Party to say that it was in fact a full Parliament with a Cabinet; the words were different, but in fact the functions were the same. This enabled other people who were against the Constitution to say, "Don't talk such nonsense; it is neither democratic, nor a Government of any description." So, my Lords, I feel that the agreement when the Convention meets, the agreement from the Convention, should be on the basis of increased representation in return for a sensible form of coalition. In my view, this gives considerable room for manœuvre. In passing, may I say that in another place there has been a request for more seats under proportional representation. I should like to feel that when this Convention is over and there is another election there will not necessarily be more

1171
seats but that the size of constituencies should be reduced. We have an eight-Member constituency and a seven-Member constituency, and the size is such that an ordinary Member really cannot begin to know everybody and service that community. I think we should have three-seat still on proportional representation.
Noble Lords will know that Ulster is, with certain justification, hung up in a way that has become fairly unmanœuvrable, and to everyone else obstinate; but there is justification. The bombing and the murders have made it difficult for people to be flexible in mind. There have been many bad Government decisions, people feel, on security and other matters and, above all, we are hung up on personalities. There are the big names that everybody sees on television. They have all taken up positions from which it is almost impossible for them to get out, and it is for that reason that I ask for a complete change, with a basis of fair representation in Westminster—maybe no taxation without representation. The White Paper stresses the financial responsibility of this Parliament to Northern Ireland—the amount of money that comes from it—and I entirely agree with that. But let us have new thinking; let us have Parliamentary democracy here; and let us save the United Kingdom and then Ulster will remain British.
7.22 p.m.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, the noble Viscount has not taken as long as he said he was going to take. I think we could have listened to him for a lot longer. When anybody speaks with his dedication and his special knowledge, I think this Chamber is always willing, and indeed very happy, to listen.
On the day the White Paper was introduced, I congratulated my noble friend on the Government's initiative and their common sense; and my views now are exactly as they were before. It is a very sensible decision to put the responsibility for a solution of their own governmental problems on the people of Northern Ireland, and if they can come up with a solution which is acceptable to both sides it will not only be welcomed by the Government of this country, whichever Government it is, but I think will also be generously endowed, so that it can work.
1172
I am not going to reply directly to the noble Viscount who has just spoken, but I hope to engage my noble friend on this side of the House. A month ago I paid one of my regular trips to Ulster as a journalist, a trip made between the collapse of the Executive and the issue of the White Paper—that is, between our last debate and our present debate. People have spoken here of the mood of Ulster at this moment, and I must say I was shocked by the amount of physical damage that had appeared since my previous visit, particularly in Londonderry, which I thought had some of the brooding melancholy beauty of Leningrad. I paid, with some trepidation, a visit to the Creggan cemetery. I felt an alien, a Protestant intruder into the grief of the Bogside. I saw those costly monuments to the fallen heroes of the I.R.A., and I looked at the top and saw, "A boy aged 19". Then you think of the other boys, their contemporaries, in khaki uniforms, whom you have just left, who have been so diligently and pleasantly searching your car, and you are shocked by the tragedy of it all.
The people, our friends there, are terribly fatigued and depressed. I had come at a moment of great disillusionment, when the power-sharing, which had raised their hopes, had been shattered. I was in the house of a man who was supposed to be rather a hard man, a man of conspicuous bravery. He suddenly noticed that a van had drawn up outside the door, and one felt the wave of fear that a van outside the door caused to this man. This kind of thing represents a terrible menace. Of course it proved to be an innocent van. I also found friends of mine in Belfast asking for the very first time: should they be in Belfast? Should they come to England? Should they give up the whole struggle? Could they really continue to bring up their children in this atmosphere? This was an entirely new spirit among friends of mine who have lived and whose families have lived for generations in Ulster.
The object of my visit was to assess the strength of the Ulster Workers' Council and to try to discover why it had succeeded. I think the main reason why it succeeded—and I am sorry to have to say it—is that it was a demonstration by the Protestant community that they were fed up with the Roman Catholics; that,

1173
after all, in the allocation of power-sharing the Catholics had been given excellent offices, excellent jobs, and the reward seemed to be increased bombing by the I.R.A., and even the members of the S.D.L.V., those very wise and excellent ministers, did not play their political cards exactly right.
There were, it seems, too many well-publicised visits to Dublin; and I think, too, that the Government in the Republic did not make all the right noises at that particular time. So this was a demonstration not merely in favour of a kind of change in the Stormont procedure but a great gesture of fed-upness, so that it became genuinely popular and there was no chance of the strike collapsing, no matter how hard conditions were. There seemed to be a kind of Dunkirk spirit about, and the people said that they would sec it out until at least one of the political objectives had been obtained.
My other objective was to see how the Ulster Workers' Council were going to translate their industrial power into political power. I think there has been a certain amount of false romanticism about the Ulster Workers' Council, particularly in my Party. There is a feeling that because it is proletarian it must therefore contain some bidden beauties. There are dreams of the Catholic and Protestant working-classes, such as my noble friend outlined this afternoon, joining hands and—although he did not say it—freeing themselves from the aristocratic embrace of the noble Viscount who has just spoken and the noble Lord who is about to speak. There is a feeling that there is an opportunity for the workers to get rid of the people who have allegedly been misleading them, and that the Catholics will be able to get rid of what are called the "Green Tories". Politically, I could not distinguish between the Unionists and the Ulster Workers' Council.
I think the character of the Council was shown by what happened to Mr. Murray when he got back from that very pleasant meeting at Keeble College, which the noble Viscount who has just spoken and I both attended. He spoke some pleasant words, but apparently those words were totally unacceptable—what the Catholics call indifferent ism. That kind of political ecumenism was totally unacceptable to the people of the
1174
Ulster Workers' Council and he had to resign the chairmanship. So far as I am concerned—and I hope my noble friend will correct me if he is unable to agree—I was unable to distinguish any social or economic point of view that the Ulster Workers had as a Council. Certainly many of them have political ideas. They are various shades from pink to deepest red. But I did not and could not find, when I was there a month ago—it may have changed since, but, if so, I have not seen it recorded in the Irish newspapers—a consistent social and economic policy. I am very willing to give way if my noble friend would like to reassure me that I am wrong on this point.
LORD BROCKWAY: I am obliged to my noble friend, and I agree with his total analysis. I was against everything the U.W.C. stood for. Its opposition to power sharing, its opposition to Stormont and its opposition to Sunningdale. When I spoke to-day I indicated that I recognised that it had very dangerous elements within it; namely, Fascists, and the National Front. I added that it also has within it very good trade unionists with the same purposes as trade unionists in this country, and the shop stewards committees on which they are have adopted social and economic aims which are exactly the same as those of the Catholic workers on those Committees.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those comments, but I am not totally reassured that there is anything comprehensive in that. I must agree that a number of them dream of the day when they can get down in Northern Ireland to the conventional class struggle of politics and they will be side by side with the Catholic workers. Before that can happen the Border problem would have to disappear. Our experiences throughout the world show that even when the cause is removed, especially a Colonial cause, nationalist and tribal politics linger on for many years after there is any need for them. So far as I can discover, the Ulster workers are hoping in the next few months to have a voice in the political decisions of the Unionist Coalition and a say in the choice of candidates. This, I think, is their immediate political goal.
The para-military organisations are looking for ways of politicising themselves.

1175
My noble friend has used words which will not commend themselves either to Social Democrats or to noble Lords of the Opposition Party. There is, of course, a possibility that the random violence on both sides—Catholic and Protestant—will cause the two sides to get together and call a truce. This hope is based on the strength shown by the Ulster Workers' Council. There is a belief, rightly or wrongly, that the I.R.A. and the extreme Republicans who support it must now see clearly that their hopes of being the masters, if Britain would only go away, are based on a complete illusion. The I.R.A. policy has failed. They have seen the strength of the Protestant forces of Northern Ireland.
The question is, how can the Republican forces in Northern Ireland be brought face to face with reality? One of the suggestions, which was made at the Oxford Conference, was that perhaps it is not until people are freed from internment, including some of the top leadership of the I.R.A., that it will be possible for the I.R.A. to bring about a change of policy. Whether there is any strength in that argument I do not know, but I heard it from more than one pair of lips.
At the Oxford Conference the proposals in the White Paper were greeted with great public good will, but with many private doubts. When I contacted the people who had those private doubts I asked them what initiative they could see that contained the seeds of hope. They could not suggest any initiative other than this one. What they did say about this one is that its great merit is that it gives another lease of time; time, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, says, to talk. The situation is not static. Although the words power sharing themselves are by now becoming taboo, the idea of it is still powerful in Northern Ireland. The Council of Ireland is not an idea any more. It is difficult for we who do not belong to Northern Ireland to understand exactly how much fear and prejudice the very idea of the Council of Ireland caused, until we think of the fears that some people at Westminster have of a mild form of economic union suggested for Europe ten years from now. They get very worried about it. It is only by contemplating the kind of feeling people have about the sovereignty
1176
of the part of the world where they live that we can understand how people feel in Northern Ireland.
Finally on a slight note of hope I should like to quote from the Irish Times, a newspaper which got a new editor a few days ago. On July 12, it had a leading article which I should like to think—I may be wrong—was his testament of faith. He was pointing out that 16 years from now the Orangemen of the North will be celebrating the 300th anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne. Will they be marching, he said, through the smoking rubble of a Province that has ceased to exist for all human purposes, or will the tercentenary of the pious, glorious achievement of King Billy take place in a new Ireland, one whose outlines none of us can yet foresee? Lower down in the article he expressed the hope in this way:
"Gradually, however tragic the process, there is emerging in the North a feeling in the two communities that a chance exists of getting across to each other, which neither acting alone has satisfactorily managed, or through traditional allies in Britain or the Republic. It is a small seed of mutual recognition that should not be overestimated, but perhaps it represents the crack in hidebound attitudes on which the future may be built."
5.37 p.m.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, although I suppose nobody on his side of the House knows more about Northern Ireland than the noble Lord. On one occasion he attended a political meeting in my home village of Ahoghill, although I was not aware of the fact that he was in the room. That was many years ago, so I am pleased now to be following in his footsteps. The noble Lord was talking a few moments ago about the Council of Ireland. I cannot forbear, even at this late stage, to repeat very briefily what I said when we came back after the Election in March. I should like to read a few words of what I said on that occasion. To my friends in Dublin I said:
"Please do not press for the immediate establishment of a Council of Ireland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 73, 13/3/74.]
I added that if this frail vessel were to sink no one would suffer more than the Government in Dublin.
The frail vessel I had in mind was the new power-sharing Executive which I

1177
thought was—I still think so—the most wonderful thing that ever hapepned in Northern Ireland in my lifetime. Unfortunately, when you are dealing with Irish affairs you must take into consideration the views of the Government of the day in London, and the views of the Government, if there is one at the time, in Belfast. It is difficult to marry all these views together and get a consensus of opinion.
Also, I am the first person to appreciate that had it not been for the plans for the Council of Ireland it would have been impossible for the S.D.L.P. to serve in that power-sharing Government, because it had abandoned its previous position, which was that it could not share power until internment was brought to an end. So it was obviously an extremely difficult situation. Nevertheless, had it been possible to put the Council of Ireland on the long finger at that time, then possibly, and to use that terrible American word, "hopefully", the power-sharing Executive would have survived and the future course of Northern Ireland might have been different.
I had the honour to sit through the first two hours of the discussions in another place on Monday. As a matter of personal interest, I counted the average number of Back-Benchers attending that debate on both sides. I am not talking about the eleven extreme representatives from Northern Ireland, who were ob-obviously bound to be there. I am talking about detached Back-Benchers on both sides of the House. There were approximately eight on each side of the House. I was not in another place to-day—I was here—but I am sure the House was packed to hear about Cyprus; and yet there is Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, going on every day, every week, every month, every year. I sometimes wonder whether the British people realise how serious the situation is upon their own back doorstep.
My Lords, I was delighted to hear the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to-day. But I have heard suggestions from this side of the House—or, perhaps I should say, more widely from the Conservative Party in general—about whether the Government were right to scrap the 1973 Constitution. I would say this to them, my Lords: what else could the Government have done? The power-sharing Executive came to an end.
1178
The Secertary of State for Northern Ireland took immense trouble to see the leaders of the various Parties to try to find out whether it might be possible to form a new power-sharing Executive, presumably still based on the 1973 Constitution. It proved impossible, and I would repeat: what else could the Government have done, but to draw up new guidelines for the future?
I think we must face up to the fact that the future of Northern Ireland rests with the people of Northern Ireland, however divided those people may be. It is a fact of life. We have tried all these years to guide the people of Northern Ireland. They do not want to be guided—at least, not in the way we have tried to guide them in the last few years—and I really feel that there is nothing else that one can do in these circumstances. I think one could say that it is doubtful whether any lasting settlement can be completely imposed from outside.
Leading on directly from that, it is my earnest hope and prayer that bi-partisanship will survive. Those of us who have read a little Irish history know what happened between 1800 and 1914. Whenever there was a change of Government in London there was a change of policy in the administration of Ireland in Dublin. It was known as the policy of "kicks and kindness". When the Tories were in power, repression was tried; when the Liberals were in power, reform was tried. We cannot possibly go back to a division of policy between the two main British Parties on the future of Ireland, and on the future, in particular of Northern Ireland.
We must try to remain united; we must try to continue with this bi-partisan policy. If it breaks here it will certainly break in Dublin, where my friend, Mr. Jack Lynch is having the greatest difficulty in keeping the Fine Gael Party in some good sense and some good order on the Northern Ireland problems. So I think that we in Great Britain must try to set a good example on this, and try to keep the policy of bipartisanship going in the future. If there are any Conservatives who feel there would be some political advantage in breaking this bipartisanship, I would advise them to read the speech made by Mr. David Howell when he was a Minister in Northern Ireland. He made it perfectly

1179
plain that, in his view, the Tory Party could never go back again to the old days of 60, 70, 80 or 90 years ago and I am sure that his speech was a great act of statesmanship.
I was tempted to interrupt the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. If I did not do so it was because of my gratitude to him for the great part he played over the question of the Price sisters; and, of course, there was also the part played by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. Had those two girls died, it would have been yet another addition to the list of martyrs for the I.R.A. Therefore, I should like to thank the noble Lord for what he did, and I am sure history will thank him. Having said that I want to take slight issue with him on what he said in his speech. In his argument on the question of withdrawing troops from Northern Ireland—not immediately, but in time—he drew in aid the parallel of India. If my memory serves me right, after the British withdrew from India—I am not saying that policy was wrong, but this, I believe, is a fact—some 3 million people were killed. I am not suggesting for a moment that this would happen in Northern Ireland, but I think there is a danger that, if the troops were to be withdrawn, there could be a monumental civil war in which 100,000 people might be killed. I just mention this in passing to show why I did not agree with the noble Lord in bringing in India to aid his argument.
Secondly, may I just say this on the question of the Ulster Workers' Council. I am guilty myself, because I wrote an article in the Observer saying that the middle-class moderates had failed, and that if the working-class extremists could get together and solve the problems of Northern Ireland we should welcome this possibility. But he went on to say that there were many good trade unionists among the U.W.C., and I should like to say this. The, unfortunately, very effective Protestant strike which brought the power-sharing Government down was not the first strike we had had, and whenever the extreme Protestant working-classes were acting almost in an unconstitutional manner the man who tried every time to stand up to them was the secretary of the local Irish Congress of Trade Unions, my old friend Billy Blease. I should
1180
like to mention that en passant; and while I admit that if the worst comes to the worst we must hope that the extremists can somehow come together and settle these problems, nevertheless at the same time all down the years, in my day, I found that the trade unions in Northern Ireland behaved in the most responsible manner. I am afraid that some of these people connected with the U.W.C. and not part of that great responsibility.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I intervene? I should like to express my very deep appreciation to the noble Lord for what he said about myself, and to assure him that my greatest concern was not the lives of the two girls, but the effect that their deaths would have had in escalating the situation in Northern Ireland. About India, may I just say this. The noble Lord put very low the number of those who died. As a matter of fact, nearly as many died as died in Europe during the war. But I would suggest that there is this difference between India then and Ireland now. India had been under British occupation. There had been the intensified feeling between Indians and Muslims, and very little acceptance had been given to Gandhi's proposal for an adjustment between them. I did not suggest immediate withdrawal from Ireland: I suggested it after the Constitutional Convention had met. My hope is that at that Convention an agreement would be made about the new policing of Northern Ireland against violence, which would make the presence of British troops unnecessary.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, it would be wonderful if that could take place, but I fear it might be impossible. I just want to conclude by mentioning something which is rather topical at the moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, knows only to well. Certain extreme politicians are trying to make themselves popular with their grass roots by suggesting that there should be a Home Guard set up in Northern Ireland. All I should like to say to these extreme politicians is that it was President Makarios who set up the National Guard in Cyprus, and we all know what happened to him. Just as the extreme politicians found that the Ulster Workers' Council was not willing to listen to them

1181
when they decided to call their strike, so if they set up a Home Guard they may well find that they will end by riding inside the tiger themselves. I just mention this en passant. I want to finish as I began by saying that I do not see what else the Government could have done in the conditions which exist to-day. I only hope and pray that the patience of the British people will last long enough for us to be able to solve this appallingly difficult problem in Northern Ireland to-day.
5.53 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, at the beginning of this debate I said that there was every reason to welcome talk and talk again on the other side but that there was very little excuse at the moment for a great deal of talk over here, and I think that noble Lords have been forbearing in the length of their speeches. They have all been interesting and constructive, and I think our debate has been a useful one without being too long. I shall try and fit into this pattern. I am not repeating my opening remarks to indicate why I approve of what we are doing, but I will try and sum up a little of what has been said.
My Lords, generally the approach of the White Paper, which is, as it were, activated in this Bill, has received universal support except I think from the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. I will have a word to say about his views later. Generally speaking, we have had a very good reception to what we are trying to do. I remember the last debate, or the one before last, when the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, said that any proposition coming from this side of the water would be turned down. I think the Government are rather inclined to agree with this. We are not putting up propositions; we are asking the people in Northern Ireland to put up their own propositions, and I think this must be right.
If I may first comment on a few of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine—because his speech is the nearest in our memory—it is certainly true that he warned us to keep the Council of Ireland on a long finger. It seems a very long time ago—it was my first appearance in connection with anything to do with Northern Ireland—
1182
and I replied to him that Sunningdale was a package, and like the Gospels you could not take out of it bits which suited you. To-day he has been honest enough to admit that without it the S.D.L.P. would never have come in and there would not have been Sunningdale. This is a typical Irish situation. There are always three things which have to be done, one of which contradicts the other two.
A number of rather important points have been raised, particularly one by the noble Viscount. Lord Brookeborough, on the clarification of the Convention's report. This is, I think, something that one does not want to go into in very great detail at this stage. My right honourable friend explained on Monday that the provision for reports in Clause 2(2) of the Bill is not intended to allow groups of Convention members to submit their own dissenting reports. Any report must be submitted by the Convention as a whole. There is no bar, however, to the Convention deciding to include the separate views of any of its members if it wishes to do so. Any such report must be one which the Convention as a whole is content to be put before Parliament even though it is not supported by all Convention members.
All of us who have chaired councils or committees know this situation. If you have six minority reports you are a very bad chairman and the thing is a failure; but if you have two reports, one major and one minor, this is acceptable. The work has been done and if the Convention is unable to reconcile the two clearly it comes back to Westminster and we are not tremendously further on, but the situation will have been talked about and more ideas will have come into being. I do not think one can take it any further than that. We do not want to anticipate what the Convention will do. It will be self-governing and I hope it will be responsible enough, if there is a major difference—which there is almost bound to be—to try to reconcile it with some kind of compromise proposition. This is what we all hope for, but we may not get it. We are not going to tell them how to do it, but I thought it was worth just mentioning it at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, made on inaccurate remark. He said that the 1973 Constitution had been

1183
scrapped. This is not the case, and there is no intention that it will be the case. I think this is a slip of the tongue. We cannot impose the solution, and a great deal of the talk this afternoon has been suggesting solutions. This is not really what I am concerned with. Whatever noble Lords may suggest to-day, however marvellous the suggestion, once we pass the Bill it is not in the Government's hands to adopt it, so I shall not deal with suggestions in detail. Bipartisanship was referred to again by the noble Lord. This I think is absolutely fundamental. It had a slight quiver a week or two ago but it is back as solid as it can be now, and I think that the support from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to what we are trying to do was total. The other point which the noble Lord raised, which applies also to my noble friends Lord Ardwick and Lord Brockway, was about the U.W.C. and the trade unions. From this position I shall say nothing about that. The situation was acutely difficult for everyone concerned.
If I may turn now to the Opposition, as it were, which is the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, he was kind enough to start by being very agreeable and appreciative of the performance of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State generally and in particular on television, and we appreciate his appreciation. But I really cannot accept the kind of talk he produced about the Leader of my Party. I think it is absolutely unacceptable, it is pure nonsense and the noble Viscount ought to know it. I cannot speak too strongly in denying categorically that anybody in our Party who is responsible for policy is setting a trap hoping that the Unionists will fall into it by putting up to this Government an unacceptable compromise. That is totally untrue, and in my opinion should not have been said. Having said that, the rest of the speech of the noble Viscount was, as always, most helpful and useful, but as it was almost entirely about the things that we might do which are now going to be in the hands of the Convention I shall not reply in any great detail. I have not had time (we have been so busy) to look into the exact qualifications for size—a matter which has always worried the noble Viscount—for the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but I shall
1184
see whether we can get an inch or two taken off.
Several noble Lords, and the noble Viscount in particular, said that politics cannot start until law and order are established. Of course we all know that the reverse is equally true: law and order cannot be established until political stability acceptable to the people is established. This is what we are asking the Convention to do, and it is not at all easy. I am not sure that at this stage it is possible. We may need to have a Convention every two years for ten years; but we will get it in the end, and when we do then the people for whom we are trying to hold the fort will at last be able to hold their own fort, and do it happily.
Several noble Lords talked about detention. I had meant to deal with this matter in the second part of the proceedings, which is the renewal of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, but there are no speakers down for that and I hope we can take it fairly formally if I deal with these points now. I believe that would be to everybody's convenience. I should like to make one or two remarks about detention which is the stickiest point in the whole issue. It is the point one feels one cannot get rid of, and yet one cannot make any progress until one has got rid of it. It is a very difficult situation, as everybody who has anything to do with it knows.
To give your Lordships some background in considering this matter in the last three months 379 people have been charged with security offences. In a number of cases it has not been possible, due to evident and often acknowledged intimidation, to produce the evidence necessary to obtain conviction. In effect, my right honourable friend has had to detain no less than 138 people during this period—that is, out of the 379 charged—under interim custody orders under Schedule 1 to the Act which will be before us in a few minutes. I can give examples of the kind of situation which leads up to this, but I do not think that noble Lords need much persuasion. We cannot let the provisions for detention in the Act which we are to discuss be allowed to lapse, because one cannot ask security forces to risk their lives in protecting the public unless one gives them full backing in arresting and locking up

1185
terrorists when they catch them. That is obvious, and one simply cannot do it. The proper thing to do is to use the normal machinery of the courts, but because of intimidation in present circumstances this is simply ineffective in bringing terrorists to book.
My right honourable friend has stated his intention to make a start with further executive releases. Last week he ordered the release of seven, last Thursday another was released to get married and not to go back, and to-day a further six have been released. My right honourable friend hopes to make further and regular releases if the security situation permits; this means in effect—and this fact should be noted—if there is some response from those who are at present committing acts of violence. If they cease their terrorist activities, the Secretary of State will go ahead with a programme of regular releases by executive decision in parallel with the reviews being undertaken by the Commissioners. But if the terrorists persists in violence, then my right honourable friend will have no alternative but to discontinue or slow down the release of detainees. The choice is now in the hands of the terrorist organisations. If they want people to be released from detention, let them cease violence. If, on the other hand, detention provides them with a convenient excuse for violence, the people of Northern Ireland will now be able to see whether their criticisms of detention are sincere or hypocritical. If violence is checked, detention can be ended. The choice is a simple one.
It is recognised that detainees who are released will, in many cases, face special difficulties and steps have been taken to make assistance available in relation to social and domestic problems, so that persons will not drift back into terrorism as the easy option. My right honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Stanley Orme, has spent a great deal of time on this matter. He has had a committee formed, and we have agreed to allot a sum of £20,000 to help organisations outside the Government which are prepared to assist in this process of rehabilitation. It is, again, rather a difficult business because people who are too helpful always end up getting shot. But we shall do the best we can.
1186
Finally, of course, we hope that the Gardiner Committee, over which my noble and learned friend is presiding at this moment in Belfast, in considering the present provision for detention will be able to recommend alternative procedures which, while continuing to ensure that the public is protected from the terrorist, will nevertheless remove some of the more distasteful aspects of detention. The point to be clear about is that it is one thing to release detainees, but it is quite a different matter to remove the law which justifies or allows detention without full trial in an ordinary magistrates' court of people who are virtually caught redhanded.
My noble friend Lord Brockway had a rather more rosy view of the whole matter than I have, but none the worse for that. It is nice that somebody should feel hopeful about these matters. There has been a major change, or at least there is the beginning of a major change, in the political power of the kind to which he referred. The working man, particularly the Protestant working man, is moving a little away from the aristocratic leader to whom he is so used, and is beginning to do some work for himself. We welcome that from this side of the House, without any offence to my aristocratic friends.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, made a suggestion that I do not want to support at all. This is not a question of policy, because nothing has been said about it, but I believe that it would be absolutely wrong to set a date for the removal of troops. Of course, if the Convention said that they wanted this, then that would be another matter. But my experience of the Ulster character, which is strictly limited but which is beginning to be quite useful in depth, is that nothing provokes them so much as any feeling of threat. This is a threat and I believe it to be dangerous. But it is entirely arguable and I may be quite wrong. I do not want to take too long, but I thought the noble Lord's appeal to the workers was an eloquent one. Certainly if they would listen to him nobody would be more pleased than I should be. I hope very much that they will do so. It is a pity that there will be no Hansard, but perhaps the noble Lord would like to put out this appeal and to circulate it.

1187
Coming from him, it is a very valuable appeal and we must all support it.
My noble friend Lord Ardwick spoke of the "hidden beauties" of the working class—pulling the leg of my noble friend Lord Brockway a bit, I think. We have already discussed this relationship but what we have—and he made this point in favour of what the Government are doing—is that at least this is giving us another lease of time, and there is some hope emerging that the differing bodies are beginning to see a possibility of getting access to each other. What is so curious is that in many walks of life they work perfectly well together without the faintest trouble, and yet there are just these edges which nobody is able to control.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked me many different questions to which I am proud to say I have the answers. I will give them to your Lordships very quickly. He asked about the non-residential cadet scheme. The answer is that this is going well. The first examination for applicants—this is for the Royal Ulster Constabulary—was held in June, 1974, and 53 boys between the ages of 16 and 17½ have been selected. They will start a two-week induction course in mid-August and will attend technical college at the beginning of September. Generally speaking, this is going well and the noble Lord can rest assured that it will go on doing so. So that is good.
The second question he asked me was about the all-Party Committee to examine effective policing throughout Northern Ireland. This Committee is rather in abeyance at the moment. My right honourable friend, in spite of the fact that the Assembly still exists in theory, has not thought it right to disband the Committee, but circumstances have changed since the Committee was appointed and it will be difficult to hold meetings during the holiday season. My right honourable friend intends to look at the whole matter again to see what is appropriate at the end of that time.
He asked me also about the Law Enforcement Commission. Drafting is well ahead on our side, and the Irish sent us a first draft of their Bill last week, so although I cannot give a firm date, this matter is going ahead in a perfectly satisfactory way. The noble Lord asked
1188
me about the Advisory Commission set up by the previous Conservative Government to advise Parliament on the Orders in Council. Nothing has been arranged about these as yet and I do not think the Secretary of State is particularly keen to do anything in a hurry, so I would rather wait before giving an answer in this regard until a firm decision has been made. My feeling is that this is probably not the method he will use.
I have spoken for a great deal longer than I intended, but several very interesting questions were raised and I have done my best to answer them. May I sum up by saying that this Bill has three clauses and is intended to do two things: first, to establish the method by which my right honourable friend will be responsible to Parliament for the good govenment of Northern Ireland during an interim period; and, secondly, to arrange for elections to a Constitutional Convention with a duty to make recommendations to Parliament as the best and most acceptable method of governing Northern Ireland. My Lords, I am grateful for your support. We must all wish God speed to the Convention.
On question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended, pursuant to Resolution, Bill read 3a and passed.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS BILL
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS: That they have returned the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, having made the necessary corrections to Clause No. 27 and Schedule No. 1 referred to in their Message of yesterday.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT 1973 (CONTINUANCE) ORDER 1974
6.13 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE rose to move, That the Draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 (Continuance) Order 1974, laid before the House on July 4, 1974, be

1189
approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved. I hope to speak about it briefly and I shall try to answer any points which are raised.
This order is to continue the Emergency Provisions Act passed in 1973. I do not feel in this House it will be necessary to go into very great detail to demonstrate that the Emergency which justified the Act in the first place is with us still and justifies its continuance. As I think most noble Lords will agree with this, I do not propose to list the really vile crimes which continue to be committed by the men of violence on both sides. My right honourable friend gave a very full account of this in his speech in the other place and I would refer noble Lords to that Record. Perhaps it is enough to say that we have 15,000 troops in Northern Ireland and in the last three months 178 bombs were exploded by terrorists. There were 909 shooting incidents, and 6 soldiers, 5 policemen and 35 civilians were killed; 67 soldiers, 21 policemen and 458 civilians were injured and treated in hospital—all this as a direct result of terrorist activity. Of the 379 people charged with security offences 138 were detained under interim custody order.
The proxy bomb, where a wife or relation is held as hostage and the husband forced to deliver a bomb to a certain place, is a continuing method of assault. Perhaps the nastiest feature is the internal revenge within the violent groups—67 punishment woundings (most of them knee-cappings) have occurred since January 1, and only last week there was the disgusting humiliation by shaving and exposing in public of two young girls. We can best show our contempt for this kind of behaviour by approving the Order. My Lords, I will say no more now but shall be happy to answer any questions noble Lords may like to put. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 (Continuance) Order 1974, laid before the House on July 4, 1974, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EGIONAL EMPLOYMENT PREMIUM (CONTINUATION OF PAYMENT) (WINSFORD) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1974.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES rose to move, That the Draft Regional Employment Premium (Continuation of Payment) (Winsford) (Amendment) Order 1974, laid before the House in June 25, 1974, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved. From 1966 Winsford was eligible for development area benefits, but this was contingent upon its taking two-thirds of its expanded population from Mersey-side. From 1967, regional employment premiums were paid and the payments were to last for seven years. In 1972, Winsford was not taking enough to justify its development area status. It was downgraded to intermediate status. But by Order regional employment payments were continued to September, 1974, to firms which had established themselves in the area in expectation of these benefits. On April 20, 1972, at column 137, Volume 837, the Minister of State at the Treasury gave an assurance that Wins-ford would get the same arrangements for phasing out the regional employment premium as applied elsewhere. In 1974 my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget Statement, announced that regional employment premium payments would continue while the whole matter was being reviewed.
The effect of this Order is to continue to allow regional employment premium payments at Winsford for one year until September, 1975, while the review is taking place. Thus, in accord with the undertaking given in 1972, firms in Wins-ford will get the same treatment as firms elsewhere. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Regional Employment Premium (Continuation of Payment) (Winsford) (Amendment) Order 1974, laid before the House on June 25, 1974, be approved.—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION BOARD (EXTENSION OF FUNCTIONS) ORDER 1974
6.19 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL LORD WELLS-PESTELL rose to move, That the Draft National Radiological Protection Board (Extension of Functions) Order 1974, laid before the House on July 1, 1974, be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the National Radiological Protection Board (Extension of Functions) Order. Your Lordships will find that this is not a controversial measure.
The National Radiological Protection Board was set up under the Radiological Protection Act 1970 to carry out research into the hazards arising from ionising radiations and to give advice and information about them. By way of explanation, as I understand it, this sort of radiation is the radiation emitted by radioactive substances such as radium or cobalt in medical uses and during the operation of X-ray apparatus whether for treatment or in industry. These radiations can kill living cells and bring about mutations, so it is obviously very important to take protective measures to avoid accidental exposure to them. However, there is another form of electromagnetic radiation which is not ionising but which in various forms can also create hazards for the public or for workers. As I understand it, these are radiations such as ultra violet light, infra red light, microwaves and radio waves. Within that range of radiations damage can be caused to living cells by inducing heat in the cells as, for example, happens with microwave ovens with which some of your Lordships may be familiar. Another source of hazard which is of interest to-day is the damage which can arise from the use of lasers which provide an intense source of energy.
In view of the significant increases in the uses of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiations since 1970, such as the increased use of microwave ovens in commercial and domestic premises and of lasers in research, medical treatment and in industry, especially engineering, the Government and their predecessors have felt that a focal point is now required for the United Kingdom's efforts in relation to protection in this field and for
1192
the dissemination of information. Provision is made in Section 1(6)(a) of the Radiological Protection Act for the range of functions of the National Radiological Protection Board to be extended in this way, for the possible need had been foreseen. If your Lordships are agreeable to the Order laid before you, it will be possible for the National Radiological Protection Board to develop its expertise in this field further, and to enter into co-operative relationships with the organisations which are using or studying these radiations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft National Radiological Protection Board (Extension of Functions) Order 1974, laid before the House on July 1, 1974, be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend some questions about this Order, which is an extremely important one. As I understand it, it is an Order which uses a clause in the Radiological Protection Act that allowed for its extension in exactly this way. Is it proposed that the National Radiological Protection Board should in future be able to carry out investigation into all fields concerning radiation? This is vital for the future. As my noble friend has rightly said, we have a number of forms of radiation which have been coming into use and which are not controlled at all. For example, ultra-violet lamps which are sold for medical purposes. There is surprisingly little control over these and much risk can be attached to the use of them. I should like to know whether it is the intention that in future this will come under the National Radiological Protection Board which will be expected to carry out investigations in all these fields. Incidentally, there is one other field to which attention has frequently ben called in the Press in connection with supersonic aircraft, and that is the possible breakdown of the ozone layer. The risks are sometimes exaggerated but, nevertheless, there is a certain risk. The ozone layer is virtually our only protection on the earth against ultra-violet radiation. So it is important that work should be done.
As a result of this Order, when is the National Radiological Protection Board expected to take some responsibility for the whole field of radiation? It seems

1193
to me it will necessarily be involved in connection with the Health and Safety at Work Bill which we have previously considered in your Lordships' House. The Commission set up under that Bill is responsible for looking after all the different fields of health and safety at work, and one of the fields is radiation hazards inside works.
Will the Commission be entitled to pay the National Radiological Protection Board for work which it expects to be done on its behalf? I am not very clear about this, because the Radiological Protection Act specifically mentions the Atomic Energy Authority and the Medical Research Council as the two bodies which can contribute. Equally, it seems to me that the new Health and Safety Commission should be able to contribute towards the work.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I have one question that I should like to ask. We have heard of the proposed expansion of nuclear power stations. Have the Government any plans for the disposal of nuclear waste? I understand that nuclear waste is dangerous to those who are working in the power stations and anybody in the vicinity.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if I may be permitted to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, frankly, I do not know what the Government's plans are in relation to nuclear waste; but I will make a point of finding out and letting the noble Lord know. I am sorry that I cannot answer him at this stage. Regarding the questions put by my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones, the reply generally to what he has had to say is, "Yes, this will be within the scope and function of the Board". However, having said that, the function of the Board is three-fold: one is research, the other is advice and the third function is technical service, but not executive control. It may help if I say that, as my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones knows very well because he is an authority in these matters, there are many organisations with an interest in non-ionising electromagnetic radiations, including the National Physical Laboratory, the Central Electricity Generating Board, the B.B.C. and the Medical Research Council, which produced a report on the hazardous effects of microwaves in 1970. I ought to point out the Home Office are responsible for
1194
administering a safety code of intense radio frequency radiations drawn up under the aegis of the Post Office in 1960.
The Board will consult these and other interested authorities as the need arises. My noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones also referred to the Health and Safety at Work Bill which was before your Lordships only a few days ago before going to another place. In Clause 73 the Board are required to carry out the proposed Health and Safety Commission's functions relating to radiation if so directed by the Health Ministers. The essence of the clause is that it makes the board the agent of the Commission and, as such, the Board will have certain functions to carry out. The Board will be paid by the Health and Safety Commission for the work it undertakes.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CALF SUBSIDIES (UNITED KINGDOM) (VARIATION) (No. 2) SCHEME 1974
6.30 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on July 1, be approved. The effect of this Variation Scheme is to apply the £10 increase in subsidy rates which was recently approved for calves born in Great Britain to all calves bora in the United Kingdom. In other words this Variation Scheme provides for calves born in Northern Ireland to become eligible for the £10 increase. The original intention was to exclude calves born in Northern Ireland from the increase because when the first Variation Scheme bringing about the increase in. Great Britain was drafted a beef marketing subsidy, broadly equivalent in value to the £10 increase in the calf subsidy rates for calves born in Great Britain, was in operation in Northern Ireland; its purpose was to prevent distortion of trade across the Border as a result of the difference in the guide price in the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom. The situation has since changed. Following agreement reached in the E.E.C. Council of Ministers on June 17 and 18 last the guide price in the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic became the same from July 1; the special subsidy in Northern

1195
Ireland ended on that date, and the intention is that, subject to Parliamentary approval, the £10 increase in the rates of calf subsidy will become payable in Northern Ireland forthwith. The proposed Variation Scheme No. 2 will give effect to the increase.
As a result, calves born anywhere in the United Kingdom on or after October 30, 1973, and certified live—which is Stage A—will until further notice be paid a subsidy of £18·50 a head if male, or £16·50 a head if female. When carcases of other animals which have not already qualified under Stage A are presented for certification—which, of course, is Stage B—the effect will be that carcases certified anywhere in the United Kingdom on or after December 16 next will until further notice be entitled to the same increased rates of subsidy. The cost of applying the increased rates in Northern Ireland will be about £5 million a year. I do not think I need take up more of your Lordships' time in explaining this small but important change in the calf subsidy arrangements which I feel sure will meet with your Lordships' approval.
Moved, That the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on July 1, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for introducing this Order and for explaining it. I should like to ask him only one question. As he explained it, this subsidy refers to Northern Ireland and it is going to cost £5 million in a full year. Is it not a fact that it replaced the scheme which was originally devised by the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Agriculture after his meeting in Brussels in March, whereby the farmers disposing of fat cattle in Northern Ireland were to receive a subsidy of £1·76 per cwt., whereas those in England were to receive an additional calf subsidy? I think I am right in saying that that was the case, and the difference then was the fact that those people in Northern Ireland who disposed of their fat cattle, in fact, therefore received about £20 per animal subsidy, because a 10 cwt. beast at £1·76 comes to a subsidy of about £17, whereas now they are to receive the relatively reduced
1196
sum of an extra £10. I think that this is so and I appreciate the reasons why this has taken place. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having explained what this Order refers to.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his welcome of this Order. He mentioned the original arrangements in Northern Ireland. Of course, with the alignment of our guide price with that of the Irish Republic on July 1, payments under the beef marketing scheme have ceased and instead the increase of £10 per head in the calf subsidy will apply. This represents a slightly lower overall return and is injected at an early stage in the production chain instead of at the point of slaughter. However, Northern Ireland producers will benefit from a stronger market as a result of the guide-price increase, and they had no guarantee that payments would be guaranteed at a level of £l·76p for the duration of the beef marketing scheme. I hope, therefore, this gives the noble Earl the assurance for which he has asked.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question. Does the subsidy to bull calves apply irrespective of whether they are castrated?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I regret I have not the answer to that, but: I will undertake to find out and write to the noble Lord about it.
On question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL LIME SCHEME (EXTENSION OF PERIOD) ORDER 1974
6.35 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the Agricultural Lime Scheme (Extension of Period) Order 1974, a copy of which was laid before the House on July 2, 1974, be approved. An Order was las approved in 1969 to operate until the end of this month and the purpose of the Order now presented is to continue from that date for a further five years the authority by which payments are made to farmers as a contribution towards their costs in liming agricultural land.
The subsidy was introduced to encourage liming so that an improvement in

1197
soil fertility could be achieved. Since the inception of the lime scheme in 1937 uptake has increased from ½ million tons to cover 6 millon tons in the late fifties and early sixties, when the backlog of poor condition was being corrected, and in recent years it has fallen to maintenance levels of about 4½ million tons. The lime status of our land must not be allowed to deteriorate, particularly in areas such as the hills. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this valuable and important agricultural practice ought not to be neglected and the help given by way of subsidy—approximately £5 million annually—should continue. Approval of the Extension of Period Order will allow this to happen. Our concern now, I sugguest, is simply the Order which gives authority to make payment and not the rates of subsidy or the Scheme itself which in contained in a separate Instrument.
Moved, That the Agricultural Lime Scheme (Extension of Period) Order 1974, a copy of which was laid before the House on July 2, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, again we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for explaining this Order. I commend the fact that he refrained from saying that the previous Government were, in fact, not going to continue the present Administration in their beneficence are to do so. He must have felt hard pressed to restrain himself over that, and I commend him on it. Of course, as he knows full well, only limited funds are available to the agricultural sectors and it is open to opinion as to how they are best spent. The noble Lords' Administration consider that the lime subsidy is a good one. It will certainly be a very valuable subsidy and will be appreciated by those who will avail themselves of it.
I wish to ask the noble Lord only three questions, and I should be grateful if he could give me the replies to them. I let him know in advance the questions which I would be asking, because they are of a technical nature. Is the granting of a lime subsidy, as this Bill permits, in accordance with the Community regulations, or is it in contravention of them? Indeed, how do the European Economic Community's Regulations affect the granting of such a subsidy? Is it the case
1198
that they could be regarded as unfair national subsidies which would create unfair trading between countries? I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give your Lordships' House some enlightenment upon that point. The last point is that the noble Lord said that this subsidy would run for five years. I am not quite clear whether this is an undertaking that there will be a subsidy for five years, or whether at is merely the provision of Treasury funds to enable the Minister annually to decide whether or not to make available a lime subsidy. If the noble Lord could answer those questions, I should be grateful.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I have always had such a cordial relationship with him, and have had so much courtesy from him, that I did not think it was fair to remind him that his Government were not going to continue the subsidy when it came to an end at the end of this month. However, I am very glad that he has now had second thoughts upon that point. With regard to the specific questions which he asked me—and I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving me notice of them—
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I did not say that I had had second thoughts. I was merely giving the Government a bouquet which the noble Lord had failed to give himself.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful. On the question of the E.E.C., production grants such as the lime subsidy may be incompatible with the conditions for competition in agriculture under Articles 92 to 94 of the Treaty. However, these general aids have not yet been considered and may, indeed, not 'be reached for some time yet. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot say more than that. With regard to the effect of the subsidy, the draft Order has no effect upon the conditions of the lime subidy Scheme or the rates of subsidy. It is simply the authority by which Ministers may make payments within the terms of the existing Scheme or any subsequent Scheme. Therefore, the extension, for five years is permissive. It does not bind Ministers to continue the subsidy for that, or any period, and it is reviewed annually.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOP GARDENS (REPLANTING AND RESTRUCTURING) SCHEME 1974
6.42 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, first may I apologise to your Lordships for taking three Orders at the same time? I think it is inevitable as we reach the late summer. This is the last of the Orders. I beg to move that the Hop Gardens (Replanting and Restructuring) Scheme 1974, laid before this House on July 2, be now approved. I am sure that noble Lords are well aware of the role and importance of English hops in the brewing of our beer. The Scheme we have before us to-day, which I commend to your Lordships, is designed to ensure that the right varieties of hops are grown in the best possible conditions so that this useful sector of our agricultural industry can continue to flourish.
The Scheme does two things. First, it encourages growers to continue and to accelerate the replanting of their gardens with the new varieties of hops which have been successfully developed in the United Kingdom, which are rich in the bittering acids which are essential for the types of beer which are becoming increasingly popular and for which there are better export opportunities. Secondly, the grants for restructuring—that is, rewiring and re-poling hope gardens—will ensure that the elaborate structures are suitable for vigorous hop production for years to come.
The maximum grant payable under this Scheme is about £280 per acre and half of the money paid out by the Government will be reimbursed from the European Communities' Guidance Fund, known as FEOGA. It is expected that the net cost to the United Kingdom will be about £350,000 and that 2,500 acres of hop garden will be modernised, either by replanting or restructuring or both. This Scheme is being made under an E.E.C. Regulation, No. 1969 of 1971, and permits grant to be paid for work done between February 1, 1973, and January 31, 1975. This is a shorter period than the Regulation provides for grants to be paid, but we could not claim on the Community funds before we had adopted the Common Agricultural Policy on February 1, 1973. Growers have however been eligible for grants for renewing wirework
1200
under the Farm Capital Grant Scheme since January, 1967.
The determination of the closing date is more complex. The E.E.C. Regulation provides for these grants to be paid only to recognised producer groups. Although we have the Hops Marketing Board—and I am glad to have this opportunity of paying tribute to the excellent work it has done, and indeed is doing, for the industry—we do not have producer groups in the sense defined by the Regulation. It was therefore necessary to obtain a derogation from this requirement to enable us to pay grants to our own growers. This we have succeeded in doing, but it has taken some time and is the reason why it was not possible to make the Scheme any earlier. The derogation was obtained under a provision of the Act of Accession which effectively limits its application to two years from the date of Accession. Thus, the United Kingdom Scheme runs for only two years from February 1, 1973, to January 31, 1975. On the other hand, individual producers do not need to be members of a recognised producer group in order to benefit.
Finally, I should like to point out that these grants will not lead to overproduction of hops in the United Kingdom. Of course, it is a condition of grant that the area of hops planted must not exceed the area grubbed to make way for them. Thus we shall avoid undesirable surpluses, while ensuring that our growers are able to take advantage of a Scheme which is also available to their competitors in the European Community. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Hop Gardens (Replanting and Restructuring) Scheme 1974, laid before this House on July 2, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
6.49 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it has been an enlightenment to know exactly what this Scheme is about. For those people who have been against the Common Market—and there have been some—I know that it will give them particular pleasure to feel that the European Community is at least helping hop growers to produce the kind of hops that go into British beer, which people like to drink. If, in fact, we shall get a 50 per cent. grant, as the noble Lord has said,

1201
doubtless this is a Scheme which will commend itself, and if it helps to modernise the hopyards, so be it.
I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he could explain something, because I found it a little complicated to understand the Order when I was reading through it. One thing I found to be complicated was Section 4(b) where it says quite clearly that one can obtain a grant provided certain replanting has taken place before June 4, 1974. So although the Order is coming into effect now, on July 16, it is only applicable to certain crops which have been planted before a date upon which the Order came into effect. This seems to be a curious process and I suppose it is the fact that those people who were involved with hops were aware that they could get this grant if they planted certain varieties before the Order came into operation. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would explain why this was done.
Would the noble Lord also be kind enough to explain the following section; namely, Section 4(c), which says that one can only get a grant provided that
"the area re-planted has not previously been the subject of a payment under this scheme in respect of replanting".
As the Scheme was only laid on June 20, and as it is going to terminate on January 31 next year, I do not see how one could possibly get two applications for the same piece of ground in such a short period of time as six months. Is this not in fact so, or does the clause have a different bearing?
It is perfectly clear that when the Order refers to hectares and "units of account" that the European Economic Community is somewhere involved in this, and I am glad to hear from the noble Lord that this is a European Community scheme which Her Majesty's Government have decided to take part in, and if this is a case of FEOGA funds being made available to modernise hopyards I should have thought it would commend itself to your Lordships.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl and I will do my best to answer his questions. With regard to the first question, although the
1202
Scheme does not come into operation until July 23, 1974, payments can be made for work done since February 1, 1973. Thus the Scheme has an effective life of two years.
As the noble Earl has said there is reference to hectares and to units of account in the Order because it flows from a Commission Regulation which is itśelf in hectares. It relates to about 17,000 acres in England, of which about 2,500 acres are likely to be affected. As the noble Earl has said, of course the Community countries will be contributing to this Scheme as part of the arrangements. It will cost about £350,000 to the United Kingdom and a similar amount will be contributed by the Community. This Scheme is partly the result of our entering Europe, but it is also very much a result of changing tastes. There is now growing up a certain consumer resistance towards bitter beers and there is a very definite move into the lager type of beer, which is a change in national taste. Of course the hop growers and the brewers are anxious to keep abreast of these new marketing developments and that is one of the main reasons why this Order is being moved to-day.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1974.
Education (Mentally Handicapped Children) (Scotland) Act 1974.
Northern Ireland Act 1974.
Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1974.
Fife County Council Order Confirmation Act 1974.
Spanish and Portuguese Jews' (Golders Green) Burial Ground Act 1974.
London Transport Act 1974.
British Airports Authority (Longford River) Act 1974.
Old London Road, Hythe, Burial Ground Act 1974.

HOUSING BILL
6.56 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Schedule 4 [Declaration of housing action areas by Greater London Council]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 4 shall be the fourth Schedule to the Bill?
BTRONESS YOUNG: I beg to move to leave out Schedule 4.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): The Question is. That Schedule 4 be the fourth Schedule to the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say Content, to the contrary, Not-Content.
BARONESS YOUNG: Not-Content.
LORD RAGLAN: Content.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I think the Not-Contents have it.
BARONESS YOUNG: If I have misunderstood, I apologise and it must be entirely my fault. I spoke to this Amendment on an earlier Amendment, and that is why I moved it formally. If I may add a further explanation, the Amendment to which I spoke earlier—whose number I am afraid I do not at this moment recall, but the issue in point concerns the Greater London Council—was accepted by the Government and this is a linked Amendment with the Schedule.
LORD HUGHES: Surely what the noble Baroness did was correct. The Motion was, That this be the Schedule to the Bill and she therefore was Not-Content because she did not want it to be a Schedule to the Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Then it was correct, and the Schedule is out.
On Question, Schedule 4 disagreed to.
Schedule 5 [General improvement areas]:
6.58 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 58A:
Page 117, line 43, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment and Amendment No. 58B are consequential on the clauses that we dealt with at our last Sitting. They provide for the conversion of priority neighbourhoods into general improvement areas and for the incorporation of parts of priority neighbourhoods into general improvement areas. I trust the Committee will accept them as consequential to Clauses 49A and 50.
BARONESS YOUNG: Do I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, was speaking also to Amendment No. 58B?
LORD GARNSWORTHY. That is so.
BARONESS YOUNG: I should like to ask one question. We in fact discussed the question of priority neighbourhoods and I do not understand why, when a map is to be marked which includes a general improvement area and within that general improvement area there is to be ' a priority neighbourhood, that section should then be referred to as "priority land". It seems to me to be rather confusing. Would it not be better to call it a priority neighbourhood. Perhaps the noble Lord could explain this point.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Off the cuff I cannot give an explanation, likely to satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Young, this evening. I thought we had covered this last Monday when we dealt with it. The noble Baroness is coming to see me to-morrow; perhaps we could discuss this in detail then.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am quite happy to discuss it in detail. I am not questioning the point about a priority neighbour- hood, a term I understand we did discuss before. I am concerned only about the new term "priority land", which might be confusing to people as it is different from the one we discussed before. I am quite happy to leave it until to-morrow.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I take the point of the noble Baroness. If she is

1205
not satisfied with the point to-morrow, we can come back to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 58B.
Amendment moved—
Page 117, line 47, at end insert—
("29B.—(1) If a local authority, propose, by a preliminary resolution under section 28(1) of this Act, to declare their intention that an area should become a general improvement area and that area consists of or includes land which, immediately prior to the declaration, is comprised in a priority neighbourhood declared under Part VA of the Housing Act 1974, they shall indicate on the map referred to in (he said section 28(1) the land which is so comprised (in this section referred to as "priority land").
(2) If a local authority, by a confirmatory resolution under section 28(2) of this Act, confirm a preliminary resolution and declare as a general improvement area an area which, immediately prior to the declaration, consists of or includes priority land, then, with effect from the date on which the confirmatory resolution is passed, the priority land shall be deemed, as the case may require, either—

(a) to have ceased to be a priority neighbourhood by virtue of a resolution passed on that date under section 38(3) of the Housing Act 1974 (as it applies in relation to such a neighbourhood by virtue of section 49C of that Act); or

(b) to have been excluded from the priority neighbourhood concerned by virtue of a resolution passed on that date under section 39(1) of that Act (as it applies in relation to such a neighbourhood by virtue of the said section 49C).").—(Lord Carnsworthy.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS YOUNG: Amendment No. 59 is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 118, leave out paragraph 5(i).—(Baroness Young.)
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I must make clear with regard to Amendments Nos. 59. 60 and 61 that we are unhappy at the decision made by the Committee in regard to the Greater London Council's powers on housing action areas. I do not propose to resist the Amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is moving, but I must make our position clear in case we need to come back to it at a later stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 60.
Amendment moved—
Page 119, line 9, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 16.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Before I call Amendment No. 61 I should point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 61 A.
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 61.
Amendment moved—
Page 119, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 39 on page 120.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 6 and 7 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Provisions to be substituted for subsection (1) of section 60 of the Housing Act 1957]:
7.5 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 123, line 36, leave out from ("and") to end of line 39 and insert ("the house or dwelling to which the notification relates is included in the compulsory purchase order or clearance order as confirmed by the Secretary of Stale and, in the case of a compulsory purchase order, is so included as being unfit for human habitation, then, according to the nature of the notification, the local authority shall make a payment under this section in respect of the house or dwelling, namely").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 62 I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 63 and 64. Schedule 8 sets out the revised provisions to be substituted for subsection (1) of Section 60 of the Housing Act, 1957, which currently empowers the Secretary of State to direct a payment if he is satisfied that an unfit house which is included in a confirmed slum clearance compulsory purchase order or clearance order, has been well maintained.
Under the new procedure, local authorities will themselves decide in the first instance whether such houses had been well maintained. Paragraph (l)(a) of Schedule 8 requires the authority in the order to notify their decision to every owner and occupier of an unfit house. Paragraph (1C) as drafted places a duty on the authority to make a well maintained payment in respect of any property

1207
which was the subject of a notification under paragraph (1A)(a) to (d), that is, where a payment for good maintenance in their view is justified if the relevant compulsory purchase order or clearance order is confirmed by the Secretary of State. Of course, such a payment should be made only if the particular property affected is included in the confirmed compulsory order or clearance order.
This Amendment ensures that no payment shall be made if the property is either excluded from the compulsory purchase order or clearance order on confirmation by the Secretary of State, or is reclassified by him as not being an unfit house. Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 are consequential. I hope the Amendment will commend itself to the Committee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 63.
Amendment moved—
Page 123, line 41, after ("subsection") insert ("a payment").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 64.
Amendment moved—
Page 123, line 43, after ("notification") insert ("a payment").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Option Mortgages: Amendments of Part II of Housing Subsidies Act 1967]:
7.8 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 64A:
Page 124, line 22, at end insert—
("—. (1A) In paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of that section (declaration by borrowers as to use of land, etc.),—

(a) for the words "and the land" there shall be substituted the words "that the amount of the loan will not exceed the appropriate limit determined under section 24A of this Act and that, before the expiry of the period of 12 months beginning on the date referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the land"; and

(b) for the words from "being the borrower" to "one of them)", in the second place where those words occur, there shall be substituted the words "or persons in such
1208
circumstances that the residence condition in section 24B of this Act is fulfilled";

and at the end of that paragraph there shall be added the words "and
(d) that, if the borrower or, in the case of joint borrowers, any of them is married and is not treated for income tax purposes as living apart from his spouse, the borrower or, as the case may be, each of those joint borrowers and (in either case) his spouse have signed and delivered to the lender a declaration either that there is no existing loan—

(i) the whole or any part of the interest on which is payable (whether alone or jointly with any other person) by the spouse; and

(ii) in respect of which an option notice for the time being has effect or in respect of which a claim for relief has been or is to be made under section 75 of the Finance Act 1972 (relief for payment of interest); and

(iii) which relates to, or was made with a view to the repayment of a previous loan which related to, land used wholly or mainly for the purposes of a dwelling (not being the dwelling to which the declaration under paragraph (c) above relates) which is that spouse's only or main residence or a caravan so used,

or that such a loan does exist but the spouse intends that, within the period of 12 months beginning on the date referred to in paragraph (b) above, the dwelling referred to in subparagraph (iii) above will cease to be the spouse's only or main residence.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 64A and to associate with it Amendments Nos. 64B, 64C and 64D. These Amendments to Part II of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967, which deals with option mortgages, are consequential upon restrictions on tax relief on interest contained in the Finance Bill now before Parliament. The Minister for Housing and Construction announced on June 26 that restrictions similar to those placed on tax relief on interest would be placed on the availability of option mortgage subsidies. The intention underlying the Amendments is simple. Option mortgage subsidy will not in future be available for very large loans, or for loans for what may generally be described as second homes. The option mortgage scheme was introduced primarily to help the less well off whose income is not large enough for them to enjoy the full extent of tax relief on mortgage interest.
The new restrictions embodied in these Amendments will not affect this sort of borrower, but the option mortgage scheme is open to any borrower irrespective of income or house price. For

1209
these reasons, it is essential to amend the scheme and to close a loophole by which someone who wants a mortgage and is ineligible for tax relief could obtain an option mortgage subsidy. The Amendments are unavoidably lengthy because the limitations involve adaptation of the scheme as a whole. But representatives of the lenders who have been consulted have not found the proposed changes unacceptable on administrative or other grounds. In practice, the limitations should normally involve little more than a signature on a statutory form by an applicant indicating his loan is eligible for subsidy, and a notification from the borrower to his lender if this loan ceases to be eligible.
Finally, as the Committee will know, when the Minister for Housing and Construction announced the restrictions he said there would be transitional payments so that existing option mortgages which do not meet the new requirements would cease to attract subsidy after April 5, 1980. This parallels the tax relief transitional arrangements. Any option mortgage taken out after the date of his announcement but before the appointed day when the restrictions come into operation, which did not meet the new requirements, would cease to attract subsidy at the end of a period of three months after the appointed day. The appointed day will be as soon as possible after enactment of this Bill. Unfortunately it has not been possible to table Amendments covering these transitional arrangements and certain special cases in time for this stage of the Bill. But the Government intend to table Amendments to that end for Report stage. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his explanation, and, of course, for sending me a note on this clause. I appreciate that this brings it in line with the proposals the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in his Budget about tax relief on mortgages, and of course on the option mortgage scheme. I wonder whether I could ask one question about this matter of second homes. I appreciate that there is a long list of relatives who can occupy a second home and that there will be regulations on this matter. Does this cover the point of somebody who buys a house for a retirement home with the
1210
intention of living in it within two or three years, or is this altogether excluded from it?
LORD HUGHES: I am not absolutely certain about this. I think the position referred to by the noble Baroness is not excluded by these provisions, but I am not absolutely certain of it, and if it should turn out that in fact the answer is other than I am indicating at the moment I will certainly let the noble Baroness know in ample time before the next stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.12 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 64B, 64C and 64D.
Amendments moved—
Page 124, line 24, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("paragraphs").
Page 124, line 26, at end insert—
("(ix) if subsection (5) of section 24B of this Act applies, the expiry of the period of one month beginning with the date on which the lender receives a notification (or, if he receives more than one notification, the first notification) under that subsection or, if he does not receive such a notification, the date on which the lender first becomes aware that the residence condition is not fulfilled as mentioned in that subsection;
(x) if subsection (6) of section 24B of this Act applies and the lender receives a notification in accordance with that subsection, the expiry of the period of twelve months beginning with the date specified in that notification, and if that subsection applies but the lender does not receive such a notification, the expiry of the period of one month beginning with the date on which the lender first becomes aware that the residence condition is not fulfilled as mentioned in that subsection.")
Page 125, line 18, at end insert—
("1A. After section 24 there shall be inserted the following sections:—
"The appropriate limit for loans
24A.—(1) In relation to a loan in respect of which an option notice has been signed (in this section referred to as "the relevant loan") the appropriate limit referred to in paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of section 24 of this Act is £25,000 reduced by the amount or, as the case may require, the aggregate amount outstanding by way of capital on the date referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection in respect of every loan

(a) the whole or any part of the interest on which is payable (whether alone or jointly with any other person) by the borrower who signed the declaration under the said paragraph (c) or, in the case of joint borrowers, by any of the borrowers who signed that declaration or, where the

1211
borrower or any of those joint borrowers is married and is not treated for income tax purposes as living apart from his spouse, that spouse; and

(b) which falls to be taken into account by virtue of subsection (2) below and is not to be disregarded by virtue of subsection (4) below.

(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, a loan falls to be taken into account under subsection (1) above if—

(a) it is a loan in respect of which an option notice for the time being has effect; or

(b) it is a loan to which Part I of Schedule 9 to the Finance Act 1972 (loans for purchase or improvement of land on which interest is eligible for relief in full) for the time being applies (cither in respect of the whole loan or subject to any limit of amount), and the land or caravan referred to in that Part is not used in such circumstances that it falls within paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Finance Act 1974 (commercial lettings).

(3) Without prejudice to section 34(2) of this Act, the reference in subsection (2)(b) above to Schedule 9 to the Finance Act 1972 is a reference to that Schedule either as amended by Schedule 1 to the Finance Act 1974 (restrictions on relief for interest) or (if interest on the loan is expected from section 12(3) of that Act) as originally enacted; and in the case of a loan to which the said Schedule 9 applies as originally enacted, the reference in subsection (2)(b) above to the use of land or a caravan in circumstances falling within paragraph 3(1)(b) of the said Schedule 1 shall be construed as a reference to use which would fall within that paragraph if that Schedule applied in relation to interest on the loan in question.
(4) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) above, a loan (in this subsection referred to as a "previous loan") which falls within paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of that subsection shall be disregarded in determining the appropriate limit in relation to the relevant loan if—

(a) the relevant loan is made with a view to the repayment by means of the relevant loan of the amount outstanding on the previous loan; or

(b) the previous loan is an existing loan which is specified in a declaration made for the purpose of satisfying, in relation to the relevant loan, the condition in section 24(3)(d) of this Act; or

(c) the previous loan was in connection with the only or main residence of a person who is, or is a qualifying relative of, the borrower or any of the joint borrowers under the relevant loan and the relevant loan is made for or in connection with any one or more of the purposes specified in section 24(1)(b) of this Act in such circumstances that the dwelling referred to in that section is to be used instead as that person's only or main residence.

The residence condition
24B.—(1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, the residence condition is fulfilled with respect to a dwelling to which a declaration under section 24(3)(c) of this Act relates if and so long as—

(a) the dwelling is occupied wholly or partly as his only or main residence by the borrower himself or, in the case of joint borrowers, by each of them; or

(b) at any time when the borrower or any joint borrower does not occupy the dwelling as mentioned in paragraph (a) above, the dwelling is so occupied by a qualifying relative of his.

(2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act a person is a qualifying relative of a borrower (or a joint borrower) if he or she is—

(a) the borrower's spouse and is living apart from the borrower;

(b) the borrower's former spouse;

(c) the mother of either the borrower or his spouse and is widowed or living apart from her husband or, in consequence of dissolution or annulment of marriage, is a single woman; or

(d) such a relative of the borrower or his spouse as is specified in subsection (3) below and is either over the age of 65 or incapacitated by infirmity from maintaining himself, in whole or in part.

(3) The relatives referred to in subsection (2)(d) above are—

(a) a parent or grandparent;

(b) a brother or sister who is over the age of 16; and

(c) a child or grandchild (in either case whether legitimate, adopted or illegitimate) who is over the age of 16.

(4) A person shall be treated for the purposes of this section as living apart from his or her spouse if he or she would be so treated for income tax purposes.
(5) If, after the delivery of a declaration under paragraph (c) of section 24(3) of this Act, the residence condition is not, within the period of 12 months specified in that paragraph, fulfilled with respect to the dwelling concerned, then, within the period of one month beginning on the day following the expiry of that period of 12 months, the borrower or, in the case of joint borrowers, each of them shall notify the lender in writing to that effect.
(6) If, at any time after—

(a) the delivery of a declaration under paragraph (c) of section 24(3) of this Act, and

(b) the residence condition has been fulfilled with respect to the dwelling concerned,

the residence condition ceases to be so fulfilled, then, within the period of one month beginning on the date on which that condition first ceased to be so fulfilled, the borrower, or, in the case of joint borrowers, each of them shall notify the lender in writing of the date on which the condition ceased, and of the fact that it has ceased, to be so fulfilled.
(7) Any person who knowingly fails to notify the lender as required by subsection (5) or subsection (6) above shall, on conviction on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years ".")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 125, line 18, at end insert—
("1B. In section 26 (extension of right to opt for subsidy to certain other cases) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection: —
"(4A) In relation to a case where a self-build society, within the meaning of Part I of the Housing Act 1974, which is for the time being approved for the purposes of section 341A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 borrows or has borrowed from a qualifying lender on the security of a freehold or leasehold estate of that society in Great Britain, the Secretary of State shall by regulations provide that this Part of this Act shall have effect with such adaptations and modifications of the provisions thereof (other than section 24(2)(b) and (c)), appearing to him to be appropriate or expedient, and subject to such special conditions appearing to him to be necessary or expedient, as may be prescribed by the regulations; and in relation to such a society, the said section 24(2)(b) shall have effect as if—

(a) the reference therein to the Income Tax Acts included a reference to the Corporation Tax Acts; and

(b) in subparagraph (ii) thereof, for the reference to income tax there were substituted a reference to corporation tax."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 65. The purpose of this Amendment is to enable approved self-build societies to benefit from the option mortgage subsidy. The effect is that they will pay a lower rate of interest on the money they borrow for the purchase of land and for the construction and improvement of dwellings. Self-build societies are housing associations set up by groups of people building their own houses principally with their own labour, although some work requiring skills not available within the group may be contracted out. By acting co-operatively their work is facilitated and they gain some benefits which would not be available to them as individuals. The society almost invariably disbands when the houses are completed and occupied by the members. The societies do not receive any of the subsidies available to housing associations providing accommodation for letting.
At the Report stage in another place a new clause was introduced enabling the Secretary of State to approve self-build societies for the purpose of certain tax reliefs. Introducing the clause, the Minister of Housing and Construction said that it had long been a subject for complaint, which had been referred to in the Report of the evidence to the Cohen Committee in 1970, that self-build societies are not eligible either for tax relief on the interest on the mortgage loans or for the benefits of the option mortgage subsidy that co-ownership societies are.
The new clause introduced at the Commons' Report stage will enable approved self-build societies to obtain certain reliefs from corporation tax, and this Amendment will enable such societies to benefit also from the mortgage option subsidy. Neither the Amendment nor the new clause giving relief from corporation tax will enable individual members to claim relief from their personal tax assessments on the basis of their share of their societies' mortgage interest payments. The option mortgage subsidy is generally likely to be more beneficial to self-builders, who tend to have only moderate incomes, making it unnecessary to go into the drafting complexities of giving tax relief, which appear formidable. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for that, and say that I welcome this proposal. I shall want to study what he has said, because I think I might have further points on it. But I am glad to welcome the proposal contained in this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 65A:
Page 126, line 39, at end insert—
("The Magistrates' Courts Act 1952
1. In Schedule 1 to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 (indictable offiences by adults which may be dealt with summarily with consent of accused) the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 14:—
"15. Offences under section 24B(7) of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967".").
The noble Lord said: We have dealt with Amendments to Schedule 9 to the Bill, restricting the option mortgage scheme, to bring it into line with the restrictions on tax relief announced in the Budget and currently before Parliament in the Finance Bill. One part of these Amendments provides that it shall be an offence if a borrower knowingly fails to notify his lender that his loan is no longer eligible for option mortgage subsidy, and that following conviction on indictment the maximum penalty shall be two years' imprisonment. This Amendment provides that the same offence may, with the agreement of the accused, be tried summarily in a magistrates' court. On summary conviction the maximum penalty would be six months' imprisonment or £400 fine or both. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 66. This Amendment was dealt with when we were dealing with Clause 110.
Amendment moved.
Page 126, line 45, at end insert—
("1A. In section 105 of that Act (local authority's powers of dealing with land acquired for provision of housing accommodation) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection:
"(4A) Where a local authority acquire a house or a building which may be made suitable as a house (or an estate or interest therein) and, in the case of such a building, themselves carry out any necessary work as mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, they shall, as soon as practicable after the acquisition or, as the case may be, after the completion of the necessary work, secure that the house or building is used as housing accommodation." ").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Amendment No. 67 was covered when we were dealing with Amendment No. 41. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 128, line 10, at end insert:
("5A. At the end of section 6 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1962 (interpretation) there shall be added the following subsection:
"(2) Any reference in section 2(1)(a) or section 3(1) of this Act to a person's address is a reference to his place of abode or his place of business or, in the case of a company, its registered office." ").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 134, line 27, leave out ("for the words" closing or clearance order "there shall be substituted the words" or closing order" ").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical Amendment. The deletion of the words "clearance order" from the passing of the Act would mean that any person displaced from his home after the passing of the Act as the consequence of a clearance order would be denied a home loss payment to which he might otherwise be entitled. This is not the intention, and the Amendment will remove this possible loss of entitlement to home loss payment. It will result in the surplus word "clearance" being left in Section 29(7) of the Land Compensation Act 1973, but that can be removed later by Statute Law Revision or on consolidation, and it is certainly preferable to denying to individuals a home loss payment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 11, as amended agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS BILL
Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ASHDOWN FOREST BILL
7.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, generally, when a Bill of this nature comes before your Lordships' House, somebody speaks on behalf of the Promoters. It seems that I follow the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees. I was rather surprised, because I expected that he was going to give us a long dissertation on the difficult problems that arose last time, from a constitutional point of view. Although all of your Lordships who have remained to talk about this Bill probably remember what it is all about, perhaps I ought

1217
to remind you that it is a Bill that makes provision for the better regulation of this attractive area of mostly open heath-land of about 6,500 acres, which carries some beautiful flowers and attractive little animals, which is already designated as an area of special scientific interest, and which is shortly to be designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty.
The old arrangements for its management broke down. They were out of date, and the first Bill was promoted to put this right. The Bill that was before your Lordships' House a couple of years ago was warmly welcomed by all the amenity societies and conservation societies, and indeed by everybody who had any ownership or property interests in it. Indeed, it was promoted, by general agreement, by the local authority. I, among many others, welcomed that Bill and it passed through both Houses of Parliament. Then, for reasons which are beyond the knowledge of your Lordships, and indeed possibly beyond your comprehension, it failed at the last fence.
So often your Lordships can produce an expert on almost any subject that may come up, and I note with interest that we are to have a maiden speech from a noble Lord who may well be able to explain to your Lordships how this unfortunate occurrence took place. Nevertheless, here we have the Bill again, substantially in the same form as it was before, with one or two alterations about which everybody is very happy. I have a feeling that some of the reasons which caused this Bill to be delayed for a couple of years were due to a misunderstanding of the original provisions. Be that as it may, changes have been made in this Bill of a kind which I am sure are now satisfactory to everybody concerned with the old Bill, and I warmly commend it to your Lordships.
7.24 p.m.
LORD CHELWOOD: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, as Chairman of Committees, having moved the Second Reading formally, and your Lordships having had a very useful short explanation of some of the problems into which this measure ran during the last two years. I now have the very welcome chance of making this my maiden speech in your Lordships' House. Naturally, I ask for the patient indulgence traditionally shown to new Members going through this ordeal.
1218
I am told that it is somewhat unusual to make a maiden speech on a Private Bill. I have an interest to declare. I am one of several noble Lords who are Commoners of Ashdown Forest, and I have lived within its historic boundaries for more than 50 years in Chelwood Gate, one of the ancient Gates on the southern edge of the Forest. I have rights of pasture and herbage—that is, to graze cattle and sheep. I gather that in the 13th century if a customary tenant owned 10 swine, the Monarch could claim the best one or charge 2d. a pig, a privilege that the Monarchy lost some time ago, and I can tell your Lordships that it is not being claimed in this Bill. I also have the right of estover, to take wood to burn on my hearth or to repair my tenements, and the right to take bracken and heather to bed down my animals—my animals consisting, at the moment, of one Sealyham. At present, I exercise none of these Commoner's rights, nor do I regard Ashdown Forest as belonging just to those lucky enough to live on it, Commoners or not.
This great stretch of heath, some 14,000 acres in all, is little over an hour's journey from London. About half the area, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has told us, is open and accessible to the public. Ashdown Forest belongs to us all; to those who walk in it, who ride on it, or who just wish to relax on it. It belongs no less to the occasional curlew that nests in it, to the nightjars that can be heard churring occasionally on a summer's night, to the over-numerous deer, to the badgers, one of which I very nearly ran over last weekend—it just avoided death by the skin of its teeth—and to the rare flowers, including the very rare Marsh Gentian. Until a century ago the Black Cock bred there. I am sorry to say that they never will do so again.
Ashdown Forest is one of the largest and scientifically most important areas of open country in the overcrowded South-East of England, and from it one enjoys breathtaking views of the South Downs across the Weald. It is of singular beauty and conjures up something that George Borrow wrote:
"There's the wind on the heath, brother; If I could only feel that, I would gladly live forever."
So would I.
How I wish it were my late father, Admiral Beamish, who could be

1219
making this speech to-day instead of me. I know that some of your Lordships remember him with great affection. He was in every way more worthy of the honour bestowed on me, both because of his distinguished Naval career and because of his devoted work in another place. This is one of the very many subjects on which he would have spoken with great knowledge and authority, for he was in fact one of the Conservators of Ashdown Forest. In studying the Bill throughout its progress and setbacks—and it has had some difficult and serious setbacks—I have always asked myself how he would have judged it. I am in no doubt that he would have welcomed the Bill as it is at piesent drafted, as I now do.
The purpose of the Bill, badly needed and somewhat overdue, is to protect the unique charm of Ashdown Forest, its ecological value, which is very high, and its facilities for public enjoyment and relaxation, by means of good management and adequate financial backing. The Conservators' duties are clearly laid down in Clause 16, the last few words of which require them to maintain the Forest as a quiet and natural area of outstanding beauty. We all rejoice that modern travel brings areas like this within the reach of millions of vistors every year, but it also makes them highly vulnerable to exploitation and to risks such as fire, and other undesirable things. Only time will show whether at some future date further amendments to the Bill may be desirable. We shall need to be sure that there is adequate public accountability when the county council uses public funds to the tune this year of more than £11,000 to meet the deficit on running expenditure, without having a majority on the newly constituted board of Conservators. I confess to some concern about that.
But whatever its minor imperfections, after its major re-shaping—and no Bill is perfect—this Bill serves in one respect as a model for others of its kind. The original Promotors of it, the former East Sussex County Council, of which the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, was an outstanding Chairman and for many years the Chairman of the Planning Committee, leaned over backwards, perhaps even a little too far, to meet all the valid criticisms and to take account of the many suggestions that were made.
1220
Adopting the same constructive and flexible policy, representatives of the Conservators, the Commoners, the new Wealden District Council and the new East Sussex County Council have together hammered out any remaining points at issue and reached agreement, and I congratulate all concerned on the give-and-take approach they showed. However, I think that to seek to amend the Bill in Committee in your Lordships' House at the instigation of the Commoners on this occasion would be a mistake, might result in a serious setback and might mean losing the Bill yet again, which would be very unfortunate indeed. All the local authorities involved, as well as many amenity bodies and individuals in the Ashdown Forest area and beyond it, have been determined that in its final shape the Bill should be consistent with the highest standards of good management in the broad public interest. The Sussex Trust for Nature Conservation, of which I am currently President, has supported this measure in principle from the outset.
My Lords, I made my first maiden speech in August, 1945, nearly 29 years ago, from the identical Bench to this on the other side of your Lordships' House, and a very frightening thing occurred. Within ten seconds of my rising to speak and catching Mr. Speaker's eye about 200 Conservative Members of Parliament got up and left the Chamber, leaving me with one Opposition Whip and some 200 Labour Members to listen to me. I discovered very quickly, because a friend whispered to me, that, in fact. Winston Churchill was just about to speak to the 1922 Committee. I was very relieved that this was the reason.
In that speech, my Lords, I made two references to Sussex. I said, first, that Sussex is the most intelligent county of all and, secondly, that Sussex people will not be "druv". I must admit that the first statement is a matter of opinion and highly controversial, a note which I must scrupulously avoid to-day. I had in mind the fact that every seat for Sussex was held by a Conservative, which is still the case to-day. However, the second statement that Sussex people will not be "druv", has been underlined yet again by the intense pressures that have been exerted on all sides to make sure that the objectives are right in this measure and that the Bill has the best possible chance

1221
of achieving them. No one has been "druv" as they say in Sussex, and I am happy that there is now a general feeling of approval and satisfaction on Ashdown Forest and throughout the county about the Bill in its present shape.
The Commoners of Ashdown Forest have had the good sense throughout many centuries to fight for their rights and to view authority with suspicion, whether the authority was that of John of Gaunt, who was given the Forest by his father, Edward III in 1372, or that of the Conservators or the County Council, or anyone, for that matter who could threaten their neighbourhood and in some cases their livelihood too. For their part, the Conservators have for many years, in my view, done a splendid and selfless job with inadequate resources and been too much criticised and too little praised. William Cobbett, that dogmatic and peripatetic gentleman whose writings I enjoy so much, described Ashdown Forest as "Verily the most villainously ugly spot I ever saw in England". He must have been suffering from a very bad hangover. For my part, I love it, and not only because I live there, but because it represents home to me and because in our crowded island and in the increasing congestion of the South-East it is such a fine stretch of open country, so rich in wild life, where every prospect pleases.
Last weekend Sussex acted as host to representatives from 38 counties attending the Biennial Conference of the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves and 100 persons visited Ashdown Forest. It sometimes looks like Scotland and it looked even more like it on this occasion, because it pelted with rain, there was a very thick Scottish mist and they were not able to see very much. It was bad luck. I agree with the late Garth Christian, a friend, a neighbour, a distinguished naturalist and a constituent of mine for the years I was in the House of Commons, in another place, whose death seven years ago was a great loss to Sussex and the whole conservation movement. He knew and loved every inch of Ashdown Forest, and described it in these words:
"Soil and sky, plants, animals, man: these are the elements that form Ashdown Forest. And it will remain a place of beauty, constantly delighting the eye and the ear, if only enough
1222
people care; if we face the future with our eyes open and plan now for the shaping of tomorrow."
I am sure that Garth Christian would have strongly approved of this Bill, my Lords, because it shows clearly in its own small way that enough people care and are determined to shape to-morrow in the way which he had in mind. The Bill is intelligently drafted. It is straightforward. It deals with a lovely part of our English countryside that it is the privilege and responsibility of all of us to safeguard for future generations.
7.36 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to welcome and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. He has been known as "Tuffy" for so long that no doubt he will become so known in this House. Like Lord Chelwood, I made my maiden speech from practically the identical place in your Lordships' House that I occupied in the House of Commons when we were lodgers here. Then I had a horrifying experience, because it was one of those occasions, and the noble Lord will remember, when in Defence debates there took place a mini-debate, and then when it was over the Speaker put the Motion: "The Motion is, That I do leave the Chair". Everybody said they were waiting for me to get up. The Speaker left the Chair; the debate collapsed and I was left suffering from the very worst form of ingrowing speech, namely, an ingrowing maiden speech. So the noble Lord is not alone in having that horrifying experience; but he will find your Lordships are a very amiable lot. I am quite sure he will contribute very greatly to our debates.
My Lords, it is characteristic that in a matter such as the Ashdown Forest Bill it is possible for us sometimes to achieve results and to make changes which are valuable and which we are prepared to devote the time to, but which, in the more politically, I was going to say, hot-headed House—a more Party-politically interested House—might escape notice. At any rate it is a great pleasure to see the noble Lord here, and I am quite sure that he will with vigour enliven our debates in your Lordships' House. It is equally a pleasure to hear him speak on this matter, on which it is very obvious he has deep feeling and concern from

1223
his long experience as a Member of Parliament.
I too welcome this Bill very much indeed, and I welcome the expressions of hope that the Bill will now proceed rapidly into law. On the last occasion a number of statements were made which have been shown to be quite inaccurate, and I want to take this opportunity to set the Report right. It was partly the inaccuracies of those arguments and the rather rigorous rejection of certain views by a noble Earl who is not present that led to action in another place by two Conservative Members and one Labour Member as a result of which the Bill was lost.
The Bill now before us is significantly different in certain respects and in my opinion significantly better than the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, so passionately defended on the last occasion, on which he was so inadequately briefed by his friends. I must therefore correct the Record in certain respects. It was argued that the opposition to this Bill came from a small clique—the numbers were given as 12, or 2 per cent.—of the Commoners. This, of course, was the number on the Committee of the Commoners' Association. In fact something like 60 per cent., 350, supported the Petitions and supported the further action. It has been the staunchness of the Commoners that has led to a Bill which is very much better than before. At this point I should also like to pay tribute to the new county council and, in particular, to Mr. Green, Chairman of the Committee, in showing a sensitivity to Commoners which not everybody shows.
I was drawn into this because of my long association with the Commoners of the New Forest. Those who might be called the Establishment find Commoners extremely irritating. They are a very traditional body of people who stand up for their rights, to some extent regardless of Party; whether it is the King's Woodsmen in the New Forest or whoever it is, they will fight for their interests. It is to their credit that they have now achieved changes in the Bill which are worth noting. For instance, the constitution of the Board of Conservators—the noble Lord referred to it—now ensures that the county representatives are
1224
reduced from nine to eight, so that they do not have an absolute majority among the Conservators.
I have a great deal of sympathy for local authorities who, as we know very well, will have to provide most of the money. It will be the ratepayers and the local authorities, who are the democratically elected bodies. But in dealing with commons and Commoners' rights there is a need for sensitivity and, in the same way that Whitehall is sometimes regarded as remote, so may be county hall. A tribute is due to the new county and I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, who was an alderman of the old county, is to speak.
Another major change concerns the exchange of land by the Lord of the Manor, power for which is deleted in its entirety. This means that the boundaries of the Forest stay as they are. There is no power for the Lord of the Manor to exchange forest land. This is a great relief to Commoners. Noble Lords who may feel that this is a matter of no importance underestimate the psychology and natural suspicion of authority which Commoners have had over countless centuries. This single most objectionable feature of the old Bill has now been removed.
Furthermore, the Conservators will be able to exchange only land which is outside the Forest, if and when they have any, and they have powers under the Bill. There are a number of other proposals which I shall not detail, including granting of licences, and activities inconsistent with the use of the Forest by individual members of the public are out. It is a greatly improved clause which lays down the main duies of the Conservators. I shall not bother your Lordships by quoting it, but this is a Bill which is a great improvement on the Bill that was before us earlier.
There are a number of other points on which I should have liked to put the noble Lord, Lord Henley, right, but I do not wish to detain your Lordships. I am not sure that the noble Lord was properly informed on the extent to which Commoner rights are actually exercised. I am told that up to 50 Commoners make use of the right of pasture. I should like to stress that those who are concerned with common land sometimes fail to recognise the value

1225
of Commoners' animals. The New Forest would be an absolute jungle were it not for the contribution of the Commoners in achieving the present balance of ecology.
The fact that the original Bill was, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, supported by the conservation societies, showed either that those bodies had failed to appreciate the significance of this, or that they had not studied the Bill. Since I am told that they supported only the principle of the Bill, I think it is fortunate that it has been possible to have another look. There is one further by-product which comes from the previous debate. I should like to express my appreciation to the Chairman of Committees for the fact that, in future, amendments made in the Committee in the other place are now listed and are available; the filled-up Bill is also available to your Lordships. So there was even a small constitutional improvement as a result of that.
It is perfectly true that there are aspects of the present Bill with which the Commoners are not entirely happy. But it is also true that they have done a deal and have no intention of hazarding this. It may well be that the admirable activities of the Chairman of Committees and his counsel, if they consider certain drafting points which are subsequently acceptable to the Promoters of the Bill, will ensure there may be the sort of improvements which are desirable. But, certainly, there would be no intention of endangering a Bill which is a great improvement and which will contribute significantly to the enjoyment by the public, with due regard to the real dangers of public activity in our ever-encroaching population. At the same time, it will ensure that that area of land, about which the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, spoke so eloquently, will continue to be a source of enjoyment and use for many generations to come.
7.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, having recently assisted in the introduction to this House of my noble friend Lord Chelwood, I am glad to have the honour of echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said about his maiden speech. Knowing the noble Lord's qualities, I hope that he will be listened to by your Lordships with increased pleasure and attention. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, certainly ended the debate in a burst of glory in his official costume.
1226
I congratulate him on that. But he suggested that I was the leader of the old gang that made all these mistakes. That is not really true. I had nothing to do with the original Bill. I think some of the misunderstanding arose from the fact that if you take general powers you can always say: "If you use these powers to excess they will be troublesome", and of course they will. Under the Bill it was possible that the whole of the forest could be re-afforested. It was unlikely to happen, but it was possible.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Viscount? I did not make any imputation on his past performance, but merely regretted that I could not give all the credit I should like for the legacy.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much. It was possible to read into the original Bill a good deal more than was actually intended. But it is all over now; everybody is very happy. As it has now become uncontroversial—one of the few uncontroversial issues that come before your Lordships—the less I say about it now the better. I am sure that the present county council will warmly welcome the reception which your Lordships have given it.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I too should like to intervene briefly to welcome the Bill, though certainly not to propose any Amendments to it, and to congratulate my noble friend Lord Chelwood on his maiden speech. I do not know about the conventions, if there are any, which normally require one to make one's maiden speech on a Public Bill. I should have thought that the overriding convention was that it is better, if possible, to make your maiden speech on a subject in which you have an interest and concern. I think my noble friend has amply established his credentials in that respect.
I should have thought, in general terms, that there is no doubt at all—and my experience in the Department of the Environment with responsibility for countryside affairs has certainly borne this in on me—that we need to have better management of common land and greater public enjoyment of it; in so far as this Bill achieves both these objectives, it will be very good to have it on the Statute Book. However, since the Bill first

1227
appeared before your Lordships, two things have happened which are beneficial and which support the purposes of the Bill. We have enacted the Nature Conservancy Council Act, and we have passed the Local Government Act 1974. As a result of that, there are two bodies, the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council, each of which can grant-aid the Conservators and neither of which could have done before. So there has been that benefit over the past two years.
I should have thought there had been another trend; namely, a greater understanding of the importance of educational facilities and interpretative services in the countryside, particularly in areas such as this, where there is rather more virtue and beauty than at first meets the eye. I would hope that the powers of the Conservators here and the wording of these clauses are wide enough for these services and these facilities to be provided, so that we do not just make provision for the public to enjoy Ashdown Forest, perhaps in ignorance of its many virtues, but help the members of the public who go there to appreciate and understand its many virtues and beauties.
7.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to join the noble Lords who have spoken in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, on his maiden speech. I think it was particularly appreciated because he was speaking with, I think he said, 50 years' experience of Ashdown Forest. I have known the noble Lord for many years as an outstanding authority on foreign affairs, and I must confess that his intimate knowledge of Ashdown Forest came to me this evening as a pleasant surprise. However, in view of the very wide range of his knowledge and experience, I am sure your Lordships hope that he will intervene frequently in our debates in time to come.
My Lords, I have no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will excuse me for not having put the case for the Promoters in introducing the Bill, because I am strictly forbidden by your Lordships from taking sides on Private Bills. In any case, I think that this would have been quite unnecessary after your Lordships
1228
had heard the speeches, entirely favourable to the Bill, made by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, himself and the noble Lord who followed him. I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken and who have given the House the benefit of their views, and I undertake to draw the attention of the Promoters to what they have said.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.