Lords Sitting of 29 July 1975

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Coventry):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
Lord MACLEAN: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that I will give direction that to mark the bicentennial celebrations of the United States of America there be made on behalf of Parliament to the Congress of the United States, as representative of the American people, a loan for one year of one of the two original copies of Magna Carta dated 1215 AD held by the British Library, that a permanent showcase be presented to the Congress for the display of the document, that the document be replaced at the end of the loan period by a replica, and that the presentation be made by representatives from both Houses of Parliament.
"It gave me the greatest pleasure to learn that your House proposes that this historic occasion be marked in such a way, and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposals into effect."
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

HAMMERSMITH HOSPITAL REBUILDING
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when it is expected that the rebuilding of Hammersmith Hospital, for which the plans have been completed and the preliminary "decanting" buildings set up, will be allowed to go forward.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has decided that for economic reasons this redevelopment cannot proceed in 1975–76. This and similar other developments are under constant review having regard to the assessment of priorities. It is not possible to say when the Hammersmith rebuilding project will go forward.
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for that reply, which he will not expect me to accept as being anything but wholly unsatisfactory. May I ask him whether he is aware that this hospital—the only post-graduate teaching hospital in the country—has an international reputation that draws to it each year some 1,400 qualified doctors from all over the world for specialist training? Is he aware that it is still housed almost entirely in workhouse buildings more than 70 years old? Will he represent these facts to his right honourable friend as evidence of the extreme urgency with which the rebuilding should be allowed to begin so that it may be given the highest priority?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if I may say so, there is not the slightest need for me to tell my right honourable friend what the noble Lord has said, because I know from personal knowledge that the hospital's reputation and the contribution which it has made to the health and happiness of the people is international. We are aware of this. If it was possible to proceed with the project, it would give us a great deal of pleasure. But I must be frank and say that, at the present time of financial stringency, we have to look at the Hospital Service as a whole. We have asked the regional hospital authorities and the area hospital authorities throughout the country to let us know what they can save in this field, so that a measure of priority can be given to schemes such as that in which the noble Lord is interested.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the medical research being carried on at this hospital is at least as valuable as that at any other hospital in this country, and that the conditions of working are as has already been described, best designated as primitive? Does not this famous postgraduate teaching institution deserve a far higher

881
priority than it seems to have been accorded in the reply of my noble friend?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there are a good many hospitals where there are claims for a high measure of priority. As I say, we are aware of the importance of this hospital and the contribution it has made, but we have to look at the picture as a whole. It does not give us any pleasure at all to have to say that the project cannot proceed at present. We should like to see it proceed for a variety of reasons.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, does not my noble friend realise that it would be totally false economy if some of these valuable research projects were allowed to lapse and these teams of distinguished research workers were compelled to migrate to America, where far better facilities for research exist than are to be found here?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, these facts are known. But let us be perfectly frank about it; this hospital has made a tremendous advance over a period of years in a number of fields within the building about which we are now all complaining. We should like to see the hospital have better accommodation and better facilities but, as I say, we have a limited amount of money, and it has to be distributed in the best possible way.
Lord STAMP: My Lords, as one who has had first-hand knowledge of Hammersmith Hospital for many years, may I ask the Minister the following question? Does he know that the late Richard Cross-man, if I dare mention his name, on going through the corridors of the X-ray department said to a colleague of mine, "This is a public scandal"? It is a public scandal that existed and still exists in many parts of the hospital. Is it not also a public scandal that, economic crisis or no economic crisis, such an intolerable legacy should have been handed on from the so-called affluent society of recent years to the next generation? Turning to the point he made about priorities, can the Minister name a single hospital where, having regard to all the circumstances, including the international status of the postgraduate medical school to which reference has already been made, priorities for rebuilding, or for that matter any other medical and health service project, are greater?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I cannot take up the time of your Lordships' House in Question Time to answer that fully, except to say this. There are a number of areas where the hospital facilities need considerable improvement. London as a whole is not too badly served, and I think there are many in your Lordships' House who wish there were other areas of the country served as well.
Lord COLERAINE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would admit that there is no hospital in the country which combines the internationally high reputation of the postgraduate medical school and the slum conditions in which that work has to be carried out? Do not these two factors in combination give Hammersmith Hospital a claim which no other hospital in the country has?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think we would dispute that. All I am saying is that, so far as the present financial year is concerned, we cannot do anything to proceed with the development that we should all like to see at the Hammersmith Hospital.
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, would the Minister bear in mind, when he is considering this matter, that Hammersmith is dealing with 130,000 outpatients a year in accommodation that was built many years ago to handle 20,000, and that it is dealing in the radio-diagnostic department with 50,000 patients a year in accommodation that was built to handle 12,000? Those are the kind of figures that should be borne in mind.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are aware of that fact. I should like to take this opportunity of saying that not only the Department and the Government but everyone who knows of the achievements of the hospital would want to offer congratulations to the hospital and its staff for what they have achieved under such circumstances.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister, in view of the quite extraordinary achievements of Hammersmith Hospital—with regard to heart, arteries, kidneys, and now cancer—and its contribution towards Commonwealth

883
students, whether Her Majesty's Government will consider making this additional help available as soon as possible?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend is that we will but it will not be in the current financial year.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how much longer this hospital has to stand before it ranks for preservation under the heading of industrial archeology?

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT MEMBERS
2.41 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: 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 the Leader of the House whether he will make a Statement following discussions with all quarters of the House about possible terms of reference for a Select Committee to consider methods of designating Members of this House as members of the European Parliament.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, discussions are in progress but I can make no statement at this stage.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that not very informative reply, may I ask him whether he can tell us when he expects these consultations to be concluded? A month has passed since he expressed his view on the matter so forcibly and vividly in this House.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not think that it is quite a month. It may seem it to the noble Earl, but it is not quite a month. If the noble Earl will look at the Report of what I said in that debate, he will see that I thought we should certainly not create a confrontation between the two Houses. I have
884
had consultation. I am fully aware of the views of those who represent all sections of your Lordships' House. I know that discussions have taken place through the usual channels in another place, and I am hoping that in the not too far distant future the representatives of this House will meet the representatives of another House to see what can be done in this rather difficult situation.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that phrase, "the not too distant future". Can he give us some idea whether that means when we come back in the autumn, Christmas, or this time next year?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I refer the noble Earl to the reply that I gave to him in that debate? I hoped, and it was certainly the Government's intention, that these discussions should be concluded in order that a view would be known before the opening of the new session of the European Parliament, which I think is March 1976.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind the point of view that the present system has worked very well for some 2½, years, that it has only another 2½ years or so to run if we are to comply with the decision of the Paris Summit meeting about direct elections, and that the great merit of the present system is that it provides not only continuity but a balanced delegation?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I feel closer to the noble Lord than to the noble Earl on this matter, but I was responding to what I thought was a wish in the House that there should be consultations.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the interest on these Benches remains sustained and has not lapsed as a result of the debates, and that we wish the noble Lord well in his consultations?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, all I can say to the noble Lord is that I am never quite sure what are the interests of a Bench of Independents, but perhaps one day we may know what they are.

EUROPGROUP AND WEAPONS STANDARDISATION
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what weapons have actually been standardised as a result of the labours of the Eurogroup and what, broadly speaking, was the nature of the latest Europackage.
Lord WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, there is a large number of projects where Eurogroup countries have contributed to standardisation by collaboration in development or production or by buying from other member nations of the Alliance, even though so far no weapons have been standardised for use by all Eurogroup countries. The latest Europackage, which was a statement on the Eurogroup countries' defence achievements in 1974 and plans for 1975, was attached to the Communiqué issued after the Eurogroup Ministerial meeting held in Brussels on 9th December 1974. I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library of your Lordships' House.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that not very encouraging reply to a Question which, as your Lordships are aware, I originally put in a debate on the Defence Estimates several months ago and to which I received no answer, may I additionally ask the Government whether or not they think that a serious effort should shortly be made at least to begin with the harmonisation of what may be called a new generation of conventional defensive weapons by sensible co-operation between all the European Members of the North Atlantic Alliance, thus reinforcing their whole defensive posture and saving immense sums on research and development as well?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, a serious start has been made. The Eurogroup has been set up. As I mentioned in that debate, there is a group called "Eurolong term" which meets regularly to agree tactical concepts—my favourite subject—and is proving very
886
successful. Without agreeing on tactical and strategic concepts one cannot get a common approach to weapon procurement, and until we have a common philosophy as to how we should fight a war is it difficult to get a common policy towards the design and manufacture of weapons.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, does the noble Lord recognise that standardisation offers really the only possibility of strengthening our defences without a large increase in expenditure? Does he not agree that it is really a scandal that for so many years lip service has been paid to the idea of standardisation and so little achieved? Would the British Government not assume that there can be no general agreement, but take the lead in pressing this point in the appropriate Councils of NATO and not readily accept "No" for an answer?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, first of all I would not accept that it is a scandal. The fact is that we are dealing with an alliance, with a number of nations with different national concepts and interests. Her Majesty's Government are doing as much as they can to work towards the system of commonality, which every sensible individual agrees is necessary. But, as the noble Lord must know, there are major obstacles to be overcome, and we are not the most powerful member of NATO.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, having had some experience of the Eurogroup, may I ask whether the noble Lord would agree that the only possible way in which we can make progress is for politicians, Ministers of Defence and Foreign Ministers, to make the progress? If we leave it to the military, nothing will happen.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I would agree totally with the noble Lord. But may I remind the House that, when my right honourable friend the present Chancellor was Secretary of State for Defence, an attempt to get commonality was started with the creation of the Eurodinner Group, which has now turned into the Eurogroup, and this country has in fact given a lead in creating a common European approach to weapons procurement.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he remembers that I raised this question when the "Panorama" programme on NATO was shown some time ago? If it was he who answered my question very sympathetically, does the noble Lord remember that he said that he hoped there would be a debate on NATO? May I therefore ask him whether, at the earliest possible moment, we may have a full debate of the whole issue and see what action, if any (which I hope will be possible) can be taken?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the question of a debate on the subject must go through the usual channels.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he hoped there would be a debate on NATO, so surely he can make some arrangements.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I hope that the usual channels, which are listening, will do something.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, in view of the reply that my noble friend has given to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, are we to understand that the object and purpose behind the Question is of building up a European armed force so far as our membership is concerned with the European set-up, and to build it up into a Third World force?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I do not think that was the point behind the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. He was asking what action we had taken to get common equipment throughout the various national armed forces of Western Europe, and I tried to answer that question as best I could. Perhaps I might make an additional point; I said that I would put a copy of the Eurogroup Report in the Library of your Lordships' House. I will add to it a chart showing areas where a large measure of commonality has been achieved.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will now answer the question I asked; namely, whether the Government will themselves take a lead in again raising
888
this matter to see if any progress can be made?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I said that we had given a lead. We have given a lead in Europe, and the Secretary of State has started talks in an effort to achieve a better two-way traffic across the Atlantic.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that in about 1957 a policy was promulgated to the effect that this country should cease in future to trouble about normal non-atomic weapons? Presumably that statement of policy has now been thrown aside. May I have an assurance from my noble friend that on this question of common procurement France is no longer the odd man out but is now regarding herself as a member of the team?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I could not give that assurance but I can say that there are areas of common research, development and procurement between France and ourselves.

NATO DEFENCES
2.52 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they share the apprehensions regarding the grave inadequacy of the existing NATO defensive system expressed by Admiral of the Fleet Sir Peter Hill-Norton in the spring number of the NATO Review.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not consider that NATO's defensive system is "gravely inadequate", and I must beg to differ from the noble Lord when he suggests that the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee has expressed such apprehensions in the article, which I have read, to which the Question refers. There are, as the Chairman has pointed out, serious problems to be tackled and this Government will continue to play a full part in seeking to improve NATO's military effectiveness. To this end, as your Lordships will be aware, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has recently taken initiatives

889
both in NATO and in the Eurogroup with the important aim of achieving increased standardisation of defence equipment.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, would not the noble Lord nevertheless agree that the whole tone and emphasis of Sir Peter's excellent article was very different from the article contributed to the same periodical by no less a person than the Minister of Defence?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I have read the article, as I said, and I thought it was a realistic assessment of the problems that NATO as an Alliance is facing. The main point that struck me was the analysis which he made of the Warsaw, Pact intentions, where the build up of the Warsaw Pact forces did not seem to be of a purely defensive nature. If I may put the Chairman's views in perspective, I will quote the concluding remarks of his article in which he said:
"The last thing I would wish to imply is that the military situation in NATO is one of gloom. This is not the case and I am convinced it never will be. The Alliance has survived too many transient crises and difficulties to warrant any serious doubts about its durability or an enduring sense of purpose."
This does not strike me as a negative or defeatist attitude.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, in the light of the noble Lord's main Answer, may I ask him to give an assurance that no further cuts will be made in our defence forces?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is hardly for me to say.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to explain what he meant by the Government's giving full support to the article which is mentioned in the Question? What does he mean by "full support", if he is not quite certain as to the value of the article concerned?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it would be lovely if we were the major economic and military power in the world. Unfortunately this is not the case, so we do the best we can with the resources we have and with our negotiating powers that arise from them.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what he meant when he said that it was not for him to answer?
890
I thought he was answering for Her Majesty's Government.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I was hardly answering for the defence policy of Her Majesty's Government, which has been clearly laid down in a White Paper which your Lordships have debated.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, as one who has from time to time from these Benches pointed out the inadequacies arising from lack of standardisation in NATO, may I ask the Minister if he is in a position to say whether there is now less gloom about NATO defences in relation to fighter aircraft defence than there was some months ago?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I do not know how one measures gloom.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENT
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Beswick will repeat a Statement on civil aviation policy at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

COMMUNITY LAND (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
2.56 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to enable local authorities and certain other authorities to acquire, manage and deal with land suitable for development, and to make other provision for and in connection with the public ownership of land; to amend planning law and the rules for assessing the value of land in compulsory acquisition and other cases where compensation is payable; to make provision concerning unoccupied office premises; and to establish a Land Authority for Wales. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question. Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

JUDICIAL STANDING ORDERS
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. It is an Amendment providing that the time limits for taking various steps in prosecuting an appeal to the House of Lords shall not be affected by an emergency recall should such recall take place. This Amendment is similar to an amendment of Private Bill Standing Orders to which the House recently agreed and where similar considerations apply.
Moved, in Standing Order IX, at end to insert:
("Provided that if the House is recalled in pursuance of Public Business Standing Order No. 16 or Proclamation, any day on which the House sits pursuant to such recall is not a sitting day for the purposes of this Standing Order."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, we on this side of the House can accept this Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PEERS' EXPENSES
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, which gives effect to Statements which I made in your Lordships' House on 16th and 24th July.
Moved, That this House approves—

the raising from £11·50 to £13·50, with effect from 13th June 1975, of the limit upon the daily allowance payable to Lords attending sittings of this House or of Committees of this House;

the following alteration in the arrangements for allowances available to Members of this House under the Resolutions of 11th November 1970 and 20th January 1972—

(a) the rate of the supplementary London allowance (£228 a year under the Resolution of 20th July 1972, as amended) to be £340 a year in respect of periods beginning on or after 13th June 1975, but as and when thereafter any change is made in the Civil Service rate of Inner London weighting, the rate of the allowance payable to Members of this House entitled to the allowance to correspond to that Civil Service rate, omitting the
892
element in it which represents the cost of travel to work;

(b) the car mileage allowance (7·7 pence per mile under the Resolution of 11th November 1970, as amended) to be 10·2 pence per mile for journeys commenced on or after 13th June 1975, but as from when the corresponding Civil Service rate is next altered thereafter, the allowance for Members of this House to be the same as that corresponding rate (which is the rate for cars over 1,750 c.c. used for journeys on official business).—(Lord Shepherd.)

Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, while expressing my pleasure at the increase in the allowances, may I ask my noble friend to say why this should have been backdated and what in this context is the significance of the date 13th June?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the significance of this date is that the Government undertook to fulfill the Boyle recommendations on the date on which the Report was made available. When we considered the interim award of the Boyle Committee, we felt it would be right that it would operate from the same date as the recommendations for another place, and that is the reason for the date 13th June.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, may I draw the noble Lord's attention to the supplementary London allowance referred to in paragraph (2)(a)? This is a matter which does not affect this House very much, but is it intended that this should be a permanent feature of our life? London was created by people coming here because they wanted better employment and better wages. The result has been congestion and enormous sums of money have been spent on decanting people out of London. Are we wise to have a supplementary allowance to encourage people to come back here? Is it intended that this should be a permanent feature of all forms of remuneration for Government service in London? Is it not something that should be dispensed with at the earliest possible date?
Lord SHEPHERD: I suggest that this is an issue which goes a great deal wider than the Motion which is before the House. I believe this matter was reviewed as recently as last year, and the view then was that the weighting allowance should apply not only in the public service but in local authorities and, in some cases, in private industry. It is a recognition that there are special factors

893
related to working in London. Whether or not that is right is a matter for debate, but it does not arise on the Motion which is now before the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STATUTORY CORPORATIONS (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL
3.1 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, I beg to move that the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Bill be read a second time. This is a most important Bill affecting the liberty of the subject, and noble Lords must bear with me if I discuss it rather fully. It is in effect the Government's implementation of the Report of the Committee chaired by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, to whom I paid tribute in this House on behalf of the Government for the very remarkable performance which he and his Committee put up for us.
The Committee's recommendations are far-reaching and most of them are embodied in the Bill before the House. I think the most helpful way I can introduce this Bill is to dwell on the omissions or variations from the Gardiner proposals, so that we shall discuss the Report as a whole rather than only the accepted parts that appear in the Bill.
Since the Committee completed its work, the Provisional IRA have declared a ceasefire in Northern Ireland. Although Provisional IRA violence has not ceased completely, it has declined considerably and this has contributed to a substantial fall in the level of violence. For example, the average number of explosions per month has fallen from 57 in 1974 to 26 in the first half of this year. Shooting incidents on the same basis have fallen from 267 to 136. In these circumstances, your Lordships' House may ask why it is necessary to bring this Bill, containing emergency powers, before them. However,
894
the fact that there were 106 deaths and 822 shooting incidents (including 83 punishment shootings) in the first half of this year justifies the need, I submit, for emergency powers to continue in force for the time being. We must also bear in mind, moreover, that there could be an upsurge of violence. We hope very much that this will not occur, but it would be reckless not to recognise the possibility and take appropriate steps. Some of the provisions of this Bill may be only contingency provisions; but we cannot risk being without them.
Among the most important parts of the Bill are the provisions for detention. My noble and learned friend's Committee reported
"We would like to be able to recommend that the time has come to abolish detention but the present level of violence, the risks of increased violence, and the difficulty of predicting events even a few months ahead, make it impossible for us to put forward a precise recommendation on the time".
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he wants an end to detention. As he said recently in another place,
"I cannot commit myself at this stage to a specific date but I hope that the situation will progress sufficiently to enable all the detainees to be out by Christmas".
This statement produced a storm of contemptuous criticism from some Loyalist activist quarters, suggesting that we are playing into the hands of the IRA, and a bitter denunciation from the theorists of Sinn Fein that we are using detainees as hostages and spinning out their release intolerably. In fact I think everyone in the minority section and very many in the majority section of the community would agree with my noble and learned friend in his Committee's wish to see detention ended, and also that this is a decision which must be related to circumstances and left to the Secretary of State. I think most people who are honest with themselves would agree that he has gone just about as fast as he reasonably could.
The situation has improved, but an end to detention will and must depend upon progress towards the end of terrorism. But until it is permanently ended the powers of detention must be retained. The Secretary of State hopes not to be obliged to make further ICO's, but he will not hesitate to protect the public by using such powers if this seems to be right

895
in the face of violence. Some changes need to be made in the existing provisions, as my noble and learned friend has pointed out in his Report, and I will come on to these a little later.
Secondly, in paragraphs 107 and 108 of its Report, the Gardiner Committee highlighted the unfortunate consequences and side effects which followed the introduction by administrative means of special category status to certain groups of convicted prisoners. Though I understand very well the circumstances in which it was introduced, I have never met anybody, except the prisoners themselves and their friends and relations, who approves of the so-called Special Category status. It is impossible clearly and legally to define, and hence is arbitrary and open to wide abuse in its application. It is greatly resented by the ordinary criminals and many crimes committed for the most sordid self-interest are subsequently coated with the veneer of so-called political motivation, so that some gullible members of the public are induced to regard the criminals as "our boys", when they are in reality nothing more than the perpetrators of callous crimes motivated only by greed or vanity.
The problem is that it is not easy to get rid of something which is so highly valued by the offender and his friends. Northern Ireland has roughly three times as many people in prison, in proportion to its population, as any other European count-try. In consequence there is a much larger number of citizens outside the prison walls who actively oppose us for shutting up their friends and relations despite the frightful nature of many of the crimes committed. Another consequence is that those who support crimes see these prisoners as propaganda material. We must hope to reach a stage, as my noble and learned friend suggested in his report, when we can say that Special Category status will not be given to men convicted after a certain date. I hope the Secretary of State will have something to say on this subject in due course.
This thorny problem of Special Category has been a major obstacle to the introduction of a parole scheme on Great Britain lines. Several times the Secretary of State has said he wished to introduce
896
such a scheme, but so far it has foundered on the snags of Special Category. However, much progress has now been made in working out a practical scheme and I am hopeful for the future. The absence of some such scheme is a real hardship for ordinary prisoners in the Province, who may have all the conditions requisite for parole in Great Britain set in their favour—a faithful wife, a guaranteed job, a good prison record—yet instead of being considered for parole after a third of their sentence, they have to sweat it out till the end, less the statutory third remission for good conduct. However, some useful changes are on the way. My right honourable friend has already announced in another place that legal measures now under consideration include new alternatives to imprisonment, including community service orders, which have been so successful, and deferred sentences.
This brings me to the Committee's concern about the availability of prison accommodation in paragraphs 110 to 113 of its Report. My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner raised the matter again during the debate in the House on 26th June. Here I think I can report a considerable degree of urgency on our part. The prison building programme which was announced last November is going well and the public inquiry into the siting of a new prison at Maghaberry has now finished. We now await the inspector's report, but in the meantime work proceeds at the Maze with the construction of new cell block accommodation, and by November 200 individual cells will be ready, while by October of next year a further 300 will be completed. Work goes ahead on various sites on the provision of new accommodation for 40 women prisoners by January 1976, as well as 50 borstal trainees and 300 young offenders by December 1976. The new kitchen at the Maze was completed in March and the alterations planned for the hospital will be finished by March of next year. Meanwhile all the 18 compounds which were wrecked in the October riots have been, or are being, brought up to a very decent standard. The last phase will be completed by mid-September.
I think this has been a remarkable accomplishment, as it is in addition to the

897
new building works I have already referred to. My noble and learned friend said in his speech a week or two ago that we had not turned a sod towards the new prison programme. If he was referring to Maghaberry he was right, because we are still awaiting the inspector's report, though an immense amount of work has gone into the plans. But I hope that what I have just said will convince him that a good many other sods have been turned and, in my opinion, great credit is due to the people concerned who have displayed commendable drive and energy. In addition the Committee on Young Offenders, under my chairmanship, has been urgently considering the use of accommodation for young offenders together with the related question of training and the procedures for release. A draft of our Report is already with the Secretary of State.
I should like now to turn to the clauses in the Bill. I have spent so long on these vitally important but most general subjects that I propose to run through the clauses quite quickly, pausing only to explain any differences between them and the Gardiner proposals. Clause 1 is a permanent addition to the Statute Law of Northern Ireland and brings the law on the admission of written statements into line with the remainder of the United Kingdom. It is a desirable reform in any circumstances, and will go some way to meet the problem mentioned in paragraph 45 of the Report, which mentions the serious cost to the public, and the great inconvenience to the Army, of bringing soldiers back to Northern Ireland to give evidence for the prosecution.
Clause 2 of the Bill enables the court, at the initial hearing of a scheduled offence, to decide whether to hold a preliminary investigation or a preliminary inquiry. Clause 3 enables a court to try scheduled and non-scheduled offences together, subject to the existing law governing the joinder and severance of courts. We have not given the accused a right of veto over the mode of his trial. We believe that the trial judge should determine any question regarding the indictment, taking into account what the parties have to say.
Clause 4 gives a wider range of judges the power to grant bail to persons charged with scheduled offences and completely removes the restrictions on the granting of
898
bail to persons charged with scheduled offences to be tried summarily, or to persons convicted of a scheduled offence, as recommended by the Committee. Clause 5 is in line with the spirit of paragraph 40 of the Committee's Report, in that it enables bail applicants to obtain legal aid more simply.
Clause 6 has the effect of removing from the 1973 Act any reference to the Belfast Recorder's Court. It is administratively more convenient to list all scheduled offences for trial at the Belfast City Commission where the Recorder, like any county court judge, may, at the request of the Lord Chief Justice, sit and act as a judge of the City Commission for the trial of a scheduled offence. Clause 7 repeals Section 5 of the 1973 Act, which allowed written statements to be admitted as evidence in the trial of scheduled offences where the witness was unable or unfit to attend the trial or could not be found. This provision has not been used, and accordingly the Government have decided it should no longer remain.
Clause 8 gives effect to the recommendation in paragraph 57(a) of the Report that the special provisions on evidence contained in Part 1 of the 1973 Act should no longer apply to summary trials of scheduled offences. Clause 9 repeals Schedule 1 to the 1973 Act and provides for the new detention arrangements contained in Schedule 1 to this Bill.
Noble Lords are probably aware that transmitters are frequently used in Northern Ireland to detonate explosives and to set up ambushes of the Security Forces. Clause 11 introduces a power to search for and seize transmitters which, it is suspected, have been or will be used illegally. Clause 12 makes it an offence to recruit others to join a proscribed organisation or to carry out the orders of a member of such an organisation.
Clause 13 extends the provisions of Section 20 of the 1973 Act, which at present makes it an offence to collect information about the Security Forces which is likely to be useful to terrorists, and to cover persons holding judicial office, court officers and prison officers. Secondly, the clause makes it an offence to collect any information likely to be useful in planning or carrying out any act of violence.
Clause 14 provides for the repeal of the penalty of 18 months imprisonment

899
for riotous behaviour imposed by Section 22 of the 1973 Act. This offence will now, as recommended by the Committee, be dealt with summarily. Clause 15 makes it an offence to train others in the use of arms and explosives or to receive such training. At present there is no way of bringing to justice a person who instructs others in the theory of making or using bombs or weapons, but who does not actually construct or handle the explosives or weapons. Clause 16 implements the recommendation of the Committee that it should be an offence to wear a hood or mask in a public place or in the vicinity of a dwellinghouse.
My Lords, the remaining clauses are purely technical. There is, however, one point that should be expanded upon, and this is in Clauses 21 and 22. The use of emergency provisions is distasteful and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State felt that there should be a provision in the Bill requiring him to return to Parliament at no greater interval than six months to request the approval for renewal of any, or all, of these provisions. Therefore, Clauses 21 and 22 provide, first, that the temporary provisions of this Bill should lapse at the same time as the similar provisions in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 and the Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act 1974; and secondly, that these provisions can be renewed by Parliament, thereafter, for a maximum period of only six months.
I now move to the provisions of Schedule 1 which, with Clause 9, repeals Schedule 1 to the principal Act and provides instead the completely new procedure for detention. In paragraph 159 of the Committee's Report, which contains one of its most important recommendations, it is argued that because the deprivation of the liberty of an individual by extra-judicial process is a very serious decision, the responsibility should be taken by the Secretary of State himself. This has been considered very carefully and your Lordships will see that my right honourable friend has accepted the recommendation with all the grave responsibility that this entails. This means that the commissioners and appeal tribunals introduced by the 1973 Act will cease to hold office subject to certain transitional provisions. The Committee
900
argued that because the commissioners' hearings were similar to the ordinary judicial process, this process is being brought into contempt in Northern Ireland. Moreover the Committee, quite rightly, criticised the delays which in the past have crept into the detention procedure. The Government have accepted these criticisms. However, they in no way reflect on the commissioners, and I should like today to add my own appreciation to that already expressed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the commissioners for the way in which they have carried out their difficult task.
The new advisory system will work as follows. Where it appears to the Secretary of State that there are grounds for suspecting that a person has been concerned in terrorism, he may make an interim custody order as at present. Within 14 days he must refer the case to an Adviser, or the order will cease to have effect. Where a case is referred to an Adviser, he—the Adviser—must consider it and report to the Secretary of State whether or not he considers the person detained has been concerned in terrorist activities, and also whether the detention of that person is necessary for the protection of the public. When the Secretary of State receives this report he must consider these two criteria and if he is satisfied that both are met he may make a detention order. If he is not satisfied he must direct the person's release. Noble Lords will note that the Schedule provides that a single Adviser shall consider each case. This is a departure from the Committee's recommendation that a detention advisory board should be created with membership of 7 holders of judicial office, 3 of whom should constitute a division for investigating a case. After much thought and consultation it was decided that it is not practicable to provide this number of judges at the present time for what could be, in the event of an outbreak of violence, a full-time task. Advisers will therefore sit alone and, like the commissioners, will have held judicial office in the United Kingdom or be barristers, advocates or solicitors of not less than 10 years' standing.
A most important aspect of the new arrangements is the introduction of time limits. The Gardiner Committee recommended that there should be limits of

901
seven days for the service of the statement of allegations, 21 days for the submission of the report to the Secretary of State and seven days for the Secretary of State's decision, making five weeks overall. The Bill introduces a simpler system which seeks to provide better safeguards for the detainees' interests. This procedure will take seven weeks, and if a detention order is not made by the Secretary of State within seven weeks of the date of the interim custody order, the person must be released. Paragraph 8, however, also provides for three extensions of one week each, should exceptional circumstances arise to prevent an Adviser from completing his report on time. An Adviser, for example, might fall ill before completing his report; and it is therefore necessary for some contingency measure to be available to deal with this sort of situation. I believe we are meeting the spirit of the Committee's recommendation, since, by introducing the overall limit, persons held on interim custody orders will have their cases determined inside a much shorter period than has been possible under the commissioners' system.
My Lords, we come to the subject of release. The Secretary of State may exercise his unrestricted power to release at any time. He may also refer a case to an Adviser for an opinion as to whether the person's continued detention is necessary for the protection of the public. In addition, the detainee will be able to request the Secretary of State to refer his case to an Adviser after one year has elapsed since the making of the order or six months from the notification that the previous request has not resulted in his release.
As the Secretary of State has pointed out on a number of occasions, there has been a reduction in violence in Northern Ireland and there has been a change in the nature of violence. We recognise the heartfelt desire of all parts of the community for peace and have responded to the reduced activity of the Provisional IRA by a lower profile by the Army. At the same time, the police have reacted sharply to the outbreak of violent gangsterism and are demonstrating their ability to deal with it. So far this year, 72 persons have been charged with murder, 59 with attempted murder and 255 with firearms offences. In all, 667
902
persons have been charged with scheduled offences, and it is a matter of great satisfaction that the police are increasingly successful in bringing criminals to justice through the courts. It is essential, however, that the police and the Army have appropriate powers to deal with the present situation and to cope with any worsening of the situation. It is too soon to drop our guard, but there is hope that the present progress will be maintained and that we shall be able to remove emergency provisions from the Statute Book.
My Lords, the Report is a very wide-ranging document, and I do not pretend in this already overlong speech to have dealt with all its aspects. But I hope to have said enough to convince my noble and learned friend and his colleagues that the Government have treated the Report with the utmost seriousness, and in the Bill now before your Lordships have implemented the greater part of the Committee's recommendations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
3.24 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the explanation which the noble Lord has given of this Bill has been particularly useful this afternoon because the Emergency Provisions Act 1973 has now been in operation for exactly two years and, clearly, an Act which was designed to meet the changing emergency situation in Northern Ireland is bound after such length of time to need some revision. This Bill which is based, as the noble Lord said, on the very thorough Report of the Commitee which sat under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, makes alterations in the Emergency Provisions and changes the detention procedure. I think it is right to bear in mind two points which the noble and learned Lord's Committee made in the first chapter of their Report. First, in that chapter the Committee exposed the bogus claim that terrorist organisations are freedom fighters. In a memorable passage the Commitee said that terrorists,
"can offer no gifts to the people of Northern Ireland by way of greater freedom, security or prosperity which the people cannot now attain by legal or democratic means."
The second point that I picked and which is contained in that chapter showed

903
that the same argument applies to those who engage in subversion and that to counter those who seek to undermine Government authority, the Government themselves must act with speed in order to sustain their authority, and the general public must recognise that it is they who are the real targets and who ultimately could be the victims. It is fair to claim that it is for those reasons, among others, that the 1973 Act, based on the Report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, was passed into law. The Act established single judge courts which the Gardiner Committee found had worked well and more speedily than jury courts would have done—and this is an important consideration at a time when the Royal Ulster Constabulary are succeeding in bringing an increasing number of prosecutions of alleged terrorists before the courts.
This Bill is not concerned with the form of trial for scheduled offences, but as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, explained, the first eight clauses make some alterations to the trial procedures. Perhaps I should ask for the indulgence of the House in speaking in this debate as someone who is not a lawyer. The only point that I would make on the subject matter of this first area of the Bill is to say that I welcome the Attorney General's acceptance in another place of Paragraph 62 of the Gardiner Report clarifying the Attorney General's power to certify out any offences when he considers this is in the best interests of justice. It is very much of concern to the Security Forces and the RUC in particular that the interpretation of the Attorney General's power has seemed to require a policeman or a soldier to appear always before a single judge court if the charge falls within the list of scheduled offences. I must say that I welcome the Attorney General's clarification of his discretion in this respect.
My Lords, Clauses 10 to 16 introduce some new offences which the noble Lord explained and makes some alterations. I think it right to bear in mind that in the main this area of the Bill strengthens the powers of the Security Forces. I hope that it will not surprise the House if I say that, even in the present situation when we have, at least nominally, a cease-fire. I still think that this is right.
904
Although, as the noble Lord told us, the ceasefire has led to a considerable reduction in the general level of violence and, in particular, in the use of explosives, there is no getting away from it that the high number of sectarian murders this year shows that the determination of the hard-core terrorists remains. There is no evidence that I am aware of that, if the convention were to reach agreement on a constitutional settlement, this might not be the signal for renewed violence from those whose interests would be threatened by an agreed political future for the province.
My Lords, it is mainly for these reasons that I support Clause 11 which introduces a new power to search for and seize radio transmitters. Your Lordships will remember that only 10 clays ago there was the case of the four soldiers who were killed at Forkhill in South Armagh. This was caused by an explosion which was probably set off by the use of a radio transmitter. I welcome also Clause 13, which extends the offence of collecting information about the Security Forces which could be useful to terrorists, to information about persons who hold judicial office and those who are court or prison officers. Recently in the debates on the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill, my noble friend Lord Brookeborough described how people in Northern Ireland can be "planted" in employment in order to watch the movements of an employer. The Judiciary in Northern Ireland are at risk, as past events tragically have proved, and this clause will enable the law to prevent spying in order to endanger the lives of those whose occupations place them and their families in more than normal personal danger.
I also welcome Clauses 12 and 15 which make it an offence to recruit others to an illegal organisation, and to instruct in the making and the use of firearms and explosives. On the first of these two clauses, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will be aware from the proceedings in another place that concern was expressed that Clause 12 may not cover those who express support for terrorism in public and, by their influence, either encourage or threaten others to support illegal organisations. This is no academic point. To persuade people, especially young people, to become

905
involved in terrorism, especially if it is done by the use of threats, is both wicked and subversive. If the court decides that such a case does not fall within Clause 12, I am no lawyer but presumably the only other charge which could have been brought would have been that of conspiracy, which the Gardiner Committee pointed out is a crime involving difficult questions of law, and which it is difficult to prove. Therefore at this stage may I simply express concern that those who stir up trouble and encourage or threaten others to violence may, as I understand it, still not be within the scope of this legislation.
The major alteration which this Bill makes, however, is for the Secretary of State to become solely responsible for a decision to detain a person who is suspected of terrorism. When Direct Rule began in 1972, there was, as your Lordships will remember, a system of internment whereby an executive decision of the Government of Northern Ireland could deprive a person of liberty. This was replaced by the Detention of Terrorists Order of the same year which virtually was reprinted as Schedule 1 of the 1973 Act, whereby if the Secretary of State decided, on information received, that an interim custody order ought to be signed, then the case went before a commissioner for determination. May I join the noble Lord in a tribute to commissioners, not all of whom were young men by any means, who carried out long hours of travel and work in what could have been a certain amount of danger to themselves, and have done so until now when their work is to be finished.
The Committee of the noble and learned Lord explains the drawbacks to this system; the necessary concealment of identities; the curtailment of the process of cross-examination; the admission of hearsay evidence and, in the end, a lower standard of proof. If this system had been claimed as being a full trial with the normal procedures of the law, I agree that such a claim would have been pure hypocrisy. But as the Report of the noble and learned Lord records in paragraph 153, the objective of detention has been to give the suspected terrorist,
"every opportunity consistent with security to challenge and test the allegations made aginst him."
Now Schedule 1 is to sweep this away and replace it with an executive decision
906
to be given by the Secretary of State. True, each case will be referred to an Adviser, but it appears that he will sit in splendid isolation, admittedly having the power to interview but with the respondent's case only to be conducted personally, not on a legally represented basis.
I admit freely that this process is going to be swifter, which is of great importance to those who are placed under an ICO. Although, as the Gardiner Committee records, the commissioners worked with scrupulous regard to the principles of justice, none the less, I concede also that the procedure was obviously open to criticism. But what worries me is that what at first sight may appear a welcome change, in its turn raises some fundamental questions. Is it consistent with civil liberties and human rights—part of the Gardiner Committee's terms of reference—that there will be no legal representation before an Adviser and, incidentally, no provision for an appeal? Despite the practical drawbacks of the commissioners' procedure, is it to the advantage of the suspect that no witnesses at all are to be cross-examined? Is an executive decision really preferable to a decision given by a lawyer after considering the available evidence?
Because every provision has been made in Schedule 1, following the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, to ensure that within these procedures decisions will be reached once again with as scrupulous regard to fairness as is possible, I do no more than point out what I believe are the weaknesses of the Schedule. Inevitably, this new system will be criticised; but may I give the noble Lord an assurance that I am not trying to play this both ways. I believe that because the Government are genuinely attempting to sustain their authority, and to protect the public in circumstances where ordinary trial procedures are sometimes impossible, this Schedule, despite the weaknesses about which I have reservations, should none the less be supported and made to work.
What of the future? I was surprised to read in Thursday's House of Commons Hansard the Secretary of State's expressed opinion that by Christmas he hopes to be able to release all the 300 or so remaining detainees. Certainly it has been the policy of each of the three Secretaries of

907
State for Northern Ireland since Direct Rule began to end detention when the security situation allowed. But I was not clear from the Secretary of State's words whether he took the view that this moment had now arrived. What is clear is that this would involve a high rate of release of the most difficult cases at a crucial moment in Northern Ireland's history. I realise that the Secretary of State has an unenviable task in balancing releases with the requirements of security, but in the coming months I hope he will not forget the threat of the work of the Convention from the men of violence who remain, waiting in the wings.
There are parts of the Report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, which have not been included in this Bill, and the noble and learned Lord referred to some of them on the Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuation) Order which we took just a month ago. Since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, spoke, the Secretary of State has made clear during the Second Reading of this Bill in another place, that shortly an office is to be established in Belfast to serve as an advice bureau for those released from detention, to be manned partly by the Prison Welfare Service. This is welcome news; and so also was Lord Donaldson's statement this afternoon that the Government have the question of parole under close review.
What I found not so welcome a month ago was the view of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, expressed in reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, on that occasion, that special category status appears to be an insoluble problem at the moment. I hope that the noble Lord's statement today that in due course the Secretary of State will make a statement on this intractable problem, which I freely admit he inherited, will be in the reasonably near future, though I suppose that the Secretary of State will wish to wait until he has reached decisions on the Report on Young Offenders which the noble Lord's own Committee has now submitted to his right honourable friend.
I know that Lord Donaldson's hopes that the new cellular accommodation which has been completed at the Maze may be suitable for juveniles. He has expressed that view before. May I take
908
this opportunity to say that I wonder whether there might be an opportunity here to rehouse some special category prisoners, and perhaps make some progress in that way. My Lords, I have ventured to express reservations about Schedule 1 to this Bill, but otherwise I welcome these provisions which I believe are necessary additions to the emergency legislation for Northern Ireland.

CIVIL AVIATION POLICY
3.40 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Beswick): My Lords, with permission, I will now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade.
"With permission, I will make a Statement on future civil aviation policy in the light of the Policy Review which my Department has recently completed.
"Present policy largely reflects the recommendation of the Edwards Committee which reported in 1969, when it seemed likely that the United Kingdom's airline industry would go on expanding fast throughout the 1970s. Since then, however, the airline industry worldwide has suffered a severe setback from the oil crisis and the consequent economic recession. Traffic carried by United Kingdom airlines fell by about 10 per cent. in 1974 and British Caledonian Airways, the airline chosen by the previous Government to fulfil the 'second force' role envisaged by Edwards, was obliged to make a substantial cutback in its operations and, in particular, to withdraw its scheduled services from the North Atlantic. Current forecasts indicate that there will be only a gradual recovery over the next few years in the United Kingdom's airlines' main markets.
"It is against this background of a much less buoyant outlook for our industry that I have had to consider whether it remains in the national interest to continue with existing policy and especially to seek to have more than one United Kingdom airline serving any international long-haul route. In the present difficult conditions facing all airlines, aviation authorities

909
throughout the world, including the USA, have been seeking to limit the competition faced by their main flag carriers. Thus, for the foreseeable I future there will be hardly any routes on which we could hope to introduce a second British airline on terms which might enable us to increase significantly our share of the revenue. Moreover, British Caledonian's experience of the North Atlantic has clearly shown just how difficult it is for a second United Kingdom airline to compete profitably against established national flag-carriers. I have accordingly decided that in future it should be our general policy not to permit competition between United Kingdom airlines on long-haul scheduled services and therefore not to license more than one United Kingdom airline on any given long-haul route.
"I realise that this decision will rule out such possibility as there might have been of British Caledonian's returning to the New York and Los Angeles routes at some future date or mounting scheduled services in competition with British Airways on other long-haul routes to North America and Singapore for which it was granted licences in 1973. I am, however, convinced that such competition would bring no advantage to British aviation as a whole and that it would cause damage to British Airways without ensuring a profitable operation for B.CAL or other British carriers.
"Nevertheless, I want B.CAL to continue as a scheduled carrier on major routes. I accept that B.CAL has made a valuable contribution to the total United Kingdom aviation effort in the past few years, that it is valued by many consumers for providing a choice of British airlines on a number of domestic and European routes and that it is the main operator from Gatwick where traffic must be expanded progressively as part of our national airports strategy. I am anxious to retain B.CAL as a second centre of airline expertise in the United Kingdom and to do what I can to help make more secure the jobs of the substantial number of workers who depend on B.CAL for their livelihood.
"I have therefore decided that British Caledonian should have a
910
sphere of influence for its long-haul scheduled activities. This will be based upon its West African and South American services and I envisage a limited exchange of routes with BA which would consolidate the two airlines' respective spheres of interest and be of benefit to both. I shall arrange further discussions with the airlines, with the aim of securing early agreement on an exchange that would be operationally sensible and reasonably balanced. Within its sphere, British Caledonian will continue to be the preferred airline. I believe that on this new basis British Caledonian's services will be complementary to those of British Airways, rather than competitive with them and that this will open the way for closer co-operation to the advantage of both airlines.
"British Caledonian will retain its present network of European and domestic services. It will also remain free to operate non-scheduled services throughout the world and on these services it will retain a measure of preference over all other British airlines except British Airways.
"I said earlier that I had decided it was no longer generally desirable to seek to designate more than one United Kingdom airline to serve any individual long-haul route. I have, in this context, looked carefully at the Skytrain service proposed by Laker Airways. I am satisfied that if it is allowed to go ahead in the conditions likely to prevail in the North Atlantic market for a considerable time ahead, it would divert traffic away from the existing services and in particular damage British Airways. I have accordingly told Laker Airways that in these circumstances the Skytrain service cannot be allowed to start.
"The United Kingdom's airline industry, like that of other countries, has faced and will continue to face a period of considerable difficulty. So far we have withstood pressures better than most and I believe that we can surmount them in the future. I do not think that frequent or major changes in policy affecting the industry are desirable. So, my aim has been to make only such changes in policy as are necessary if the industry is to deploy its resources to best effect in

911
the very competitive international markets in which it has to operate. These policy changes will need to be incorporated in new policy guidance for the Civil Aviation Authority, for which I shall be seeking the approval of Parliament in due course. I am also considering whether an amendment to the 1971 Civil Aviation Act will be required. I shall set out my proposals in greater detail in a White Paper to be published in the autumn. Meanwhile I am placing in the Vote Office a note about the factual background to the Review."
3.47 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the Statement which the noble Lord has just made is undoubtedly wide-ranging. I understand that it arises from a review which has taken place in the Department of Trade, and as no White Paper is yet to be published I would thank the noble Lord for undertaking to let the House have a note about the factual background to this review. The Statement indicates some of the problems which British Caledonian has been facing and, if the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, the Government's solution appears to be to pin back British Caledonian to their existing services. This raises fundamental questions and worries. May I ask the Government whether they are satisfied that this airline, which they go out of their way in the Statement to say is valuable from a national point of view, is in fact viable; and, if so, and if B.CAL is to be pinned back to existing services, what steps will be taken to see that this airline can remain viable? The noble Lord has given some details and, if he feels that he does not want to give us any more this afternoon, that will be one of many important reasons why a debate will be necessary on this subject.
My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask two other questions which refer to the past. Have the Government issued any designation to British Caledonian to operate, since they came into Office? I am well aware that the Statement is dealing with the future, but I should be interested to know whether the Government have ever done this for B.CAL since they came into Office. If they have not, it is not surprising that this airline is finding it difficult to expand and
912
prosper. My second question on what I feel is an associated problem concerns the British Airways shuttle service which operates from Heathrow. May I ask whether B.CAL's wish to establish a special instant purchase excursion at winter weekends between London and Scotland, and London and Manchester, will be allowed to go ahead? I think this will be extraordinarily important for this airline. My own view, for what it is worth, is that commercial decisions of this sort are the real problem of BCAL, and until we can be sure that they will be decided in this airline's favour we shall all be uncertain as to what will be the future of this most important airline.
Finally, may I say that I appreciate, as the Statement says, that airlines are facing a very difficult time, but nothing will be solved by simply reducing competition, and to this extent I deprecate as strongly as I can the decision of the Government about the Laker Skytrain service. I think it is the very greatest pity. But, again, this is something into which we can go in greater detail later. I am sure the House will want to study the Statement and will hope for the opportunity of debating this important subject as early as possible.
3.50 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for repeating the Statement from the Secretary of State for Trade. I should like to reiterate part of what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said about the shuttle service in regard to British Airways and British Caledonian. What chance have British Caledonian of remaining profitable on their domestic routes, if they are in direct competition with British Airways' shuttle service? Secondly, with regard to the Laker Airways Skytrain which, from all the forecasts that can be made, could be a success on the North Atlantic route, may I ask whether there would be a chance of British Airways running the Skytrain service? Lastly, I believe that British Caledonian have approached the Government about possibly coming in with a minority—and I repeat the word "minority"—State participation. If this idea has any foundation, could not such participation provide some stability and security to British Caledonian and all their employees?
3.52 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords opposite for the way in which they have received the Statement. May I say straight away to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that I should be very happy to debate with him the policies set out here, together with the implications for the future, and indeed also the circumstances which have led to the present situation. May I say to him that in view of the way in which the previous policy guidelines were compiled, I think that his reception of this Statement is perhaps rather ungenerous. After all, we had a situation in which the Government of the day took away profitable services from British Airways and gave them to British Caledonian, without any compensation whatever to the public Corporation. That was entirely wrong, and indeed was glaring political dogmatism. That is the fact, and because of that I feel this quite generous Statement ought to have been received much more kindly. I say that even though I have a very soft spot for British Caledonian and admire the way they have operated their services and also the service they give on their routes. The noble Lord says that it is Government interference which has caused problems to British Caledonian. That is not so, and I really would delight in debating that proposition with the noble Lord. What has created their problems on the North Atlantic route is the 10 per cent. reduction in overall traffic. It was not a Government decision which caused British Caledonian to give up their operation on that planned route.
The noble Lord asked about the possibility of giving to British Caledonian some hope for viability in the future. I have said there will be discussions to explore the possibility of a limited exchange of routes, which could benefit both airlines. I would have thought that both the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, would welcome that rather than adopting the rather critical attitude they have adopted.
I was also asked about the possibility of B.CAL competing with British Airways on domestic services. I am not sure whether the noble Earl was suggesting that there should be some artificial restrictions on British Airways to allow British Caledonian to go ahead on the
914
domestic services; but in view of the great support and praise they have given, rightly, to British Caledonian, I would have thought they would have been happy to have left B.CAL to carve out their own market in the domestic sphere. Of course, in the main, they operate from Gatwick as opposed to Heathrow, and this is a service to the community generally. I have said that it will be the deliberate policy of the Government to encourage the development of Gatwick, so that B.CAL will naturally benefit from any such development.
I was asked about the possibility of British Airways operating the Skytrain service. So far as I know, they have no intention of doing this in the way in which Mr. Laker had intended to do it. I personally am sorry that particular development has not proved possible, but it will be known that the American authorities have not agreed to the licensing of the Laker Skytrain service precisely because they felt the diminished market did not merit this additional competition. May I say, finally, to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, over the merits of competition, that, in view of the fact that there is no other country in the world apart from the United States of America on the North Atlantic route where there is competition between national carriers, I should have thought he would have learned something from that experience.
3.58 p.m.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, I hesitate to speak at this moment because I missed the beginning of the Minister's speech; but I should like to correct any impression he may have that we on this side are ungrateful. I do not think that should be so, because I happened at the time to be the Minister responsible for perhaps creating the position which the noble Lord did not altogether like at the time. Whether we were right or wrong, I feel that it was a success and I am very grateful for the fact that the Minister has come away from the position that some, at least, of his colleagues wanted; that is, of destroying British Caledonian at the earliest possible opportunity. I think the shuttle service to Glasgow has been a great success and I hope that British Caledonian will be able to produce something as effective on their other domestic lines. I am very grateful for the Minister,

915
for saying, if I understood him correctly, that the Government are determined to give British Caledonian a really fair chance of being an effective second-force airline.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his objective and fair-minded statement. Remembering, as I do, that we both helped to inaugurate the North Atlantic services in somewhat inclement weather, I am sorry, as he is, that this service did not prove as profitable as was hoped.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, like others, I have listened with great interest to this Statement. Since the Edwards Committee reported conditions have altered adversely for the airlines, but I cannot quarrel with the broad decision of the Government to confine competition on the main air routes of the world to an international basis, rather than having, in addition, national competition. I think that what British Caledonian have achieved over the years is greatly to their credit.
I should like to ask for clarification on part of the Statement: do I understand that British Caledonian's area of what I might call operational influence in West Africa will remain with them and not be encroached upon by British Airways, the other main operator? Secondly, I agree with other noble Lords in their regret that the Laker Skytrain cannot go forward. I do not believe that the Skytrain would have taken a large element of the travelling population from the other airlines. Indeed, it might have opened up a different layer of travellers from those travelling on the normal scheduled airlines. Therefore I hope that in the future the Government will not close their minds absolutely to taking another look at this problem. Having said that, broadly speaking, I cannot quarrel at all with the Government's policy.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords—
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, may I just answer the noble Lord, Lord Balfour. I should like to thank him for his approach to this problem. So far as the West African sphere of influence is concerned, I can tell him there is no intention of encroaching upon it, except for a
916
possible Concorde service down there, which could be something for the future. Far from encroaching upon the West African sphere, West African and East African services are open for discussion with the possibility of some exchange with British Airways, although British Airways' contribution to this exchange may be to the Central or Northern part of the South American Continent.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to elaborate on the previous speaker's last point. It appears to me that the Government take the view that there is a certain amount of traffic which is carved up between the national airlines, that it is static and that it falls according to economic circumstances. I should not like to think that the Laker Skytrain venture will be completely ignored because we have to support static national bodies. The only way to build up again real traffic is by new concepts of air travel which could result in more people travelling a great deal more cheaply. I hope that the Government will not be confined to a policy of supporting airlines simply to prevent them from losing money, because this appears to be a very negative development concept.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord talks about carving up the market, but it is not open to any one country to do that. This is an international business, and it is up to each national carrier to get as much business as possible out of the international market. Any national carrier has to be designated by both ends of the route. The fact is that, when we agreed that the Laker Sky-train should operate, the American authorities would not agree to it, on the basis that there was not sufficient traffic to enable it to operate successfully.
May I suggest to the noble Lord that he is in error if he thinks it is just a matter of preserving something for British Airways. One must remember that it is a question of overall planning in conjunction with the carriers of other countries. If the noble Lord asks whether the Government have closed their mind for all time to the possibility of a Laker Skytrain, the answer is. No, but for the time being the answer is, Yes.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, my spontaneous and instinctive reaction to the

917
Statement which the noble Lord has just read out is that everybody who has the long-term interests of British civil aviation at heart will welcome this stoppage of internecine competition by the duplication of route licences. The good wind of common sense is blowing over the whole structure.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, did not make any comment on my belief that British Caledonian had approached the Government to take a minority interest in the company.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for what he has said. With his experience, I am sure that what he has said will carry weight. I understand that the chairman of British Caledonian had put forward this idea as a possibility. Although the idea was considered, and I have no doubt that had it been accepted we should have been shot down as extending public ownership, it was not accepted.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question with regard to the Laker Skytrain. I appreciate that if you are going to start such a service you must obtain the agreement of both sides. The Statement which the noble Lord read out says:
"I have accordingly told Laker Airways that in those circumstances the Skytrain cannot operate."
Can the noble Lord say for how long this embargo will last? This request has been under consideration for some time. Will the embargo last just for a year, or are Laker Airways entitled to come back in a short while and ask again? Is the noble Lord able to say that at a time of high fares and a slump he supports in principle any such initiative as this which will encourage an extension of the air market and will also encourage to fly people who would not otherwise have been able to fly? Can the Government say that they are in agreement with that principle, even if at present they are having difficulty over obtaining agreement with their American counterparts?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, what I have said is that although there was readiness by this side to give permission, up to the present time there has been a refusal by the American side. However,
918
since the application was first made there has been a downturn of traffic on the North Atlantic. In those circumstances, we think it would be inadvisable to inject the additional competition of a Skytrain service. However, it would, of course, be possible for Laker Airways to operate a charter service across the North Atlantic.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether there is any likelihood of an international change in the definition of licences between charter and schedule and a coming-together of the two services under one licence, and whether this has in any way affected his thinking?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, my understanding is that recently there have been certain changes, but so far as I know there are no discussions taking place at the present time. Wearing another hat, I wonder whether I may suggest that unless there is any great demand for further debate we should now return to the business of the day.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL
4.6 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord KILBRACKEN: My Lords, if I may bring the House back to the debate on Northern Ireland, I should like to begin by saying that this new legislation comes before your Lordships' House at a time when, for almost the first time, I am feeling a considerable degree of cautious optimism. In the opening remarks of my noble friend Lord Donaldson, I was glad to notice, or thought I noticed, the same cautious optimism. No interim custody orders have been signed since February, and the Secretary of State has said that he hopes to end internment by Christmas. The constitutional Convention have shown far more sense and responsibility than many of us ever thought we could hope for. There seems to be hope that they may even arrive at a conclusion that will be acceptable to the representatives of both communities in Northern Ireland, especially if the wilder elements on the Loyalist side can be kept under control.

919
Above all, the ceasefire is still holding, despite the severe—sometimes very severe—stresses to which it has been subject on the part of the men of violence on both sides, and also occasionally, it must be said, on the part of the Security Forces.
There has been a significantly lower level of violence. I must add that in recent months this violence has been more on the Loyalist than on the Republican side. Of course, this violence has also changed in its nature but it is not affecting the day-to-day life of the community to the extent that it affected it in the past. Therefore, I hope that at any rate the most important of the powers now offered by this Bill—I accept that it is necessary to have them in case there is a deterioration in the situation, which I very much hope will not occur—will never have to be employed, and that no extension beyond next January when the Bill otherwise expires will be necessary.
And I hope the Security Forces who need to have these powers in reserve will exercise them, and the other powers which they already hold, with the greatest possible discretion and maintain the lowest possible profile through these absolutely crucial months ahead. Having been in the areas where they are extremely visible on the streets of Belfast, I know the greatly increased tension that their very presence, their very visibility, causes and I wish that the Army could remain in their barracks or, at any rate, not in the general and daily view of the public unless they are investigating some specific incident. Although that may not be possible, I hope that their commanders will be urged to use the greatest possible moderation and tact in dealing with the security situation as it exists today.
So far as I am concerned, the most important section of this new Bill deals with the powers of detention, and before considering the changes I feel bound to follow my honourable friend Mr. Fitt, who said in another place in the debate on this Bill how much he wished that detention could end now instead of waiting until December. To choose the mildest possible metaphor, it is a wart on the face of British justice, and so long as it continues violence will continue. My prime wish is that detention could end at once, although of course I cannot hope
920
for one moment that my noble friend or his right honourable friend could possibly agree to such a course.
When we come to consider Schedule 1, which embodies some of the recommendations, and ignores others, of the Committee headed by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, there are changes that I myself welcome, and others about which I feel apprehension. I want to go in a little detail into the new procedures which will be followed when this Bill becomes law. On the one hand, it is highly desirable that there will now be virtually no delay in informing a person after he has been detained as to the terrorist activities of which he is suspect. Previously, a man could be held for weeks and months without being given any indication of what was alleged against him, and now that is no longer possible.
Next, there will be a quite remarkable reduction in the maximum delay that is permitted to occur between the signing of an interim custody order and the making of a detention order, and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has already referred to this point. A period of seven weeks, which may be extended in exceptional circumstances by three periods of one week each, making a total of 10 weeks, is the absolute maximum. This is something for which I have asked earlier, because I have met men who have been held for months under interim custody orders and have then been released without any case being made against them. It seems almost incredible that it should now be possible, when under previous legislation men were held for such long periods, that the maximum period permitted between the ICO and the detention order is normally to be seven weeks; and when I consider that the, I think, 112 detainees who are at present held under interim custody orders will have to come before the Advisers within the seven weeks of the Bill's becoming operative, it seems to me that the Advisers will have their work cut out.
There are one or two points that I am not happy about and, although I do not expect my noble friend to reply to them today, I hope he may give them some thought before the Committee stage at which, I am afraid, I may not be able to be present. The first point is that a man who has been detained, a man who has

921
received an interim custody order, is given only seven days from the time he is told of his alleged offence to make a written representation to the Adviser. The Secretary of State said in another place that it was not intended to keep the man to that time table, and that if representations were made outside the week they would still be accepted. I think that is absolutely essential, because to get legal help, to arrange meetings with a solicitor, to draw up your case, to prepare it and submit it all in a week is, practically speaking, impossible, and if a man is to be allowed a longer period, as the Secretary of State indicated in another place, it should surely be in the Bill.
My second point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead: that is, that no lawyer or solicitor may be present, as he was entitled to be before, when the detainee appears before the Adviser. This change was recommended by the Gardiner Committee, although no definite reason for making the recommendation was given. It was indicated by the Secretary of State that the purpose was to bring about what he called "a much less formal arrangement" when the detainee appears before the Adviser. But, formal or informal, it seems to me unjust that a man who has had no legal training at all, and may have had very little education at all, should have to appear before the Adviser without his legal representative. Furthermore, although it is not stated specifically in the Bill, it appears from what the Secretary of State said that his lawyer or solicitor will not appear before the Adviser either. What he said was:
"There will be no legal representation at the inquiry".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/75; 896.]
In any case, neither the lawyer nor the detainee will apparently have any knowledge, as they had before, of the evidence given by other persons called before the Adviser. My belief is that either the solicitor should appear with the detainee before the Adviser, or certainly that the solicitor should be called to give evidence before the Adviser.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, also mentioned that in the new legislation there is no provision, as there is under the existing Act, for an appeal when a detention order has been made. I have not been able to find any recommendation in
922
the Gardiner Report that this right of appeal should no longer be allowed. This means that once a detention order has been issued, the detainee can take no action to have his case reviewed for at least a year after the detention order has been made.
My Lords, one final point I want to make is that, if the detainee requests a review of his case after a year, the Schedule lays down that it must then be referred to an Adviser within 14 days. Incidentally, it does not state what happens if it is not so referred. There is no sanction so far as that is concerned. This time limit is an innovation but then, as before, once it has been referred to an Adviser, there is no time limit as to how quickly the Adviser has to consider it. There is no time limit on how quickly the Secretary of State has to reach his opinion. If there is a time limit for notifying the Adviser, there should also be only a fairly short time elapsing before the Secretary of State has to make his decision known.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, if I may interrupt, there is of course an overall time limit of seven weeks.
Lord KILBRACKEN: My Lords, perhaps I have it wrong. Of course, there is an overall time limit of seven weeks in the first instance when an interim custody order is served when a man is detained; that is to say, there are seven weeks between the interim custody order and the detention order. I am talking about the period between his application for his case to be reviewed and the decision of the Secretary of State. In that case, I think the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will find that I am right and there is no time limit. These are the only points I wish to raise. In general, I welcome the Bill and hope and pray that the progress being made—which we must believe and trust is being made—in Northern Ireland will continue in the months ahead.
4.23 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to begin by welcoming this Bill, and say how sorry I am that some of us on this side of the House did not put down a Motion or an Un-starred Question to debate the Report

923
first before this Bill came in. But no doubt the noble Lord will agree that the programme is full enough without that. I feel that the Committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, produced such a wealth of material which ought to be discussed, but which really cannot be discussed in a debate of this kind. For instance, I believe that not enough attention has been paid to the broadcasting by the media of people's religions when people are murdered, or to the areas in which people are attacked. I know of one incident which I would mention because it is particularly horrifying, where on the first of two successive nights it was mentioned that a Protestant had been missed, followed the next day by the murder of a Protestant. To all in the area where this murder occurred, it was quite obvious that the Provisional IRA murder squad was at work. In the days following, a considerable number of attacks were made on Roman Catholics in areas away from where that murder occurred, when in point of fact a Protestant murder squad were murdering their own people.
For that reason, I believe we should pay more attention to that part of the Report in which it is suggested that possibly the Security Forces should be involved in consultations with the Government, the BBC and ITA on their responsibilities in this matter. The fact that I have quoted that particular incident from my own knowledge is irrelevant as to what the man's religion was, or who the murder gang were. Whoever it may be, it is very emotive to hear that someone of some religion has been murdered, and in my view it produces the wrong reactions.
My Lords, I welcome this amending Bill, together with the 1973 Act, in implementing the Report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. But as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has said, this is set against the present security situation in Northern Ireland and its handling by his right honourable friend and his colleagues. The Secretary of State in another place said that he intends to release all detainees by Christmas. He hedged that Statement around with all sorts of conditions, such as the prolonged cessation of violence, but we in Northern Ireland do not know
924
what that means. I believe it was a most unwise decision to announce a timetable. In the last 14 days, four soldiers have been murdered and one badly wounded, one ex-soldier has been murdered and another wounded, and several other attacks and incidents have occurred. It is at this moment that the Secretary of State has made the announcement that he will release all detainees by Christmas, hedged around by these conditions.
My Lords, I can remember when the Government of the day made the announcement of the date of withdrawal from Aden. I can only say that the men of violence in Northern Ireland believe that this announcement by the Government is a prelude to some form of disengagement. Whether consciously or unconsciously done, I am quite confident that just as the men in Aden armed violently and rapidly to make sure they were not the ones to be killed, this is going on in Northern Ireland today. I deplore it very much. I can no longer believe—and I should like to believe—that the release of detainees really will be related to the level of violence. Together with the Convention which I have always regarded as a trap to the people of Ulster to the separate nationalisation of Harland and Wolff which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will say are far-fetched and totally irrelevant—all of these seem to me to be in danger of making it look as though there could be a disengagement from Northern Ireland. If I express my alarm fairly starkly, it is because our own lives are at stake in the area where I live.
My Lords, at the present moment, the public in Great Britain has reported to it only major incidents. Incidents which occur nightly, which would make headlines if they occurred in Birmingham or Liverpool, are not reported at all, and people genuinely believe that there is a ceasefire. But to my mind—and if I sound a note slightly different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, I know he will understand my position—in South Armagh, an area 30 miles by 15 miles, there has never been a ceasefire. It has not been recognised under any conditions. Every night the IRA proudly carry out attacks; they even set up road blocks for considerable periods on our roads, and they proudly

925
claim the foul murder of those four soldiers at Forkhill. During all this time, the Army's profile is what is called low, and in order to avoid provocation, the Army in that area is supplied by helicopters. To supply them by lorries, with soft vehicles, would be considered provocative. The noble Lord will say, and other noble Lords have already said, that things are definitely better since the Christmas ceasefire. But I wonder how much better it would have been had there been no parleying with the men of violence. I have always felt that a ceasefire is very easy for the men of violence. All they have to do is to stop shooting without any parleying at all.
I know that the Government had a very difficult decision to make that time, and certainly nobody would deny the skill with which the Secretary of State has managed the affair since he made that decision. But I believe we are now paying for the consequences, and we are giving something in order to gain very little. The members of the Convention, almost without exception, believe that the ceasefire will be broken at a time convenient to the IRA. Some believe that it will be when the Convention fails to agree; some believe it will be when the Convention does agree. Others believe, as I do, that it will be when the IRA are at last convinced that they can get no more political advantage out of this ceasefire, and they must then be convinced, which they are not at the moment, that there will be no withdrawal from Northern Ireland. I do not believe that the IRA are conditioned in any way by the speed of release today. They have made it absolutely clear—every one of their spokesmen has said it—that what they require before the ceasefire is finalised is an announcement of British withdrawal. If they continue this ceasefire, it means that they still believe they can achieve their aim. It is the Government's duty to make it quite clear that that cannot happen.
My Lords, this amending Bill will change many things for the better and all of those I welcome. If we had had more time I should have liked to go into a number of the subjects which I welcome. The rebuilding of the Maze is a tremendous achievement by those involved. The record of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in arresting and charging
926
terrorists is a wonderful one, considering what they have been through and how few their numbers are, and their morale is truly remarkable. But in present circumstances it is the men who organise these crimes, who are behind them, whom we have to detain. Sad though it may be, I believe that if there were any further increase in violence detention would have to be reintroduced, and rapidly. I am delighted to have heard the noble Lord say that the Secretary of State would do this without hesitation, if there were an increase in violence.
In the face of a terrorist attack, every country must take legislative action to make quite clear the inevitable failure of the terrorist, because whatever country he is in it must be made clear that he cannot succeed. Whatever level of suspension of freedom any country decides to impose—because it has to suspend liberality; that is what is being attacked—what is most important is that that level shall be consistently followed throughout. My main criticism of what has gone on in the last five years is probably that we have always failed to be consistent. We detain, we release, we charge, we give political status and we release again. We do not pursue a persistent course. It is like dealing with children. Terrorists should understand that if they do something there will always be a reaction. It is not a question of being tough and rough; it is a question of being consistent. I think that the Irish Republic probably deserves as much credit as any country. They decided the level on which they would tackle the IRA, and they have tackled it consistently and quietly, without any deviation at all. I think they deserve great credit for it.
We have mentioned the question of political status, and the noble Lord has gone further than I thought he could do in saying that he would abolish it at the earliest possible opportunity. But I know of another man, a murderer, who is looking forward to going to court, looking forward to taking over as a compound commander. He becomes a big man, whereas in the area that he came from he was nothing but a petty criminal. At the same time as suspending these freedoms, we must also do what we can to support those citizens who are taking action and bearing the brunt on our

927
behalf. This is the burden of what I wish to say.
I feel that it is wrong of the Government not to have put in this Bill an amendment to Section 3(5) of the 1973 Act. This section deals with the granting of bail to members of the public who have committed an offence under the 1861 Offences against the Persons Act; I think I am right in that. A magistrate is prevented from granting bail, except to a soldier, and he does that on an undertaking from an officer that the soldier will be produced in court and, if I may quote paragraph 37 of the Gardiner Report, that he will be kept, "in military custody". That is a very important phrase which I will come to later. The magistrate is prevented from granting bail to a constable in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who may have been with the soldier at the time when the alleged assault occurred.
I know that the original object was to demonstrate clearly that the police are only part of the citizens of a country; and I accept that it is very important that they should not be apart from the people. But it is self-evident to me that in the present conditions in Northern Ireland the Army and the RUC are appointed by the people to act as their agents in this perilous task of suppressing a revolution. It seems to me that the corollary of that is that they should both enjoy a protection which is not special, but is something which the ordinary citizen, because he is not engaged in that task, does not need. That is why I believe the Government should look again at this matter.
I know I shall be told that Her Majesty's Forces keep in military custody soldiers who have been given bail by the magistrate, and I am in no way suggesting that that is wrong, that this should not be so; I believe, as I have said before, that they should have this protection, because they are not in the position of normal citizens. But I find it difficult to see how a man given bail in a civil court, in connection with an alleged offence against the 1861 Act, can then be put in custody by the Army. In fact, I have had a look at the Army Acts—and I admit that there is a lot more in the Army Acts and in the Armed Services Act to go through—and I can find no power whatsoever to allow the Army to do this
928
legally. Paragraph 37 of the Gardiner Report, as I said, says that he will be kept in military custody. What does this mean?
Under Sections 70 and 74 of the Army Act, which deal with the keeping of a soldier in custody, a man can be kept in custody only if he is charged under the Army Act itself: he cannot be so kept otherwise. I find one very sinister phrase, and I wonder whether the noble Lord could comment on it. The 1966 Armed Forces Act, Section 15, says:
"A person who is subject to service law and is detained in the custody of a civil or service authority of a country outside the United Kingdom…".
Is Ulster being treated as if it were outside the United Kingdom, and are these people being held under Section 15? Otherwise, I can see no right by which the Army can keep them. I believe that this country has been kidded into believing that the men who have been granted bail in front of a magistrates' court have been kept in military custody.
May I turn to Hansard, because the Government, and even my own Party, the other day contributed to this. On July 14th, Mr Mates said:
"He will be aware"—
that is, the Reverend Ian Paisley—
"that when a soldier is bailed it is a technical matter, because there is provision in the Army Act for him to be held in military custody."—[Official Report, Commons, 14th July, 1975, c. 1196.]
With those words the Minister, Mr. Moyle, did not disagree. In fact, the Minister himself said:
"The honourable Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) put his finger on the point that members of the Armed Forces are subject to the Army Acts." [Col. 1200.]
I can find nowhere that they are subject to the Army Acts. If I am right, then the RUC should have the same "privilege", which was the word used in the Report, as the Army has.
I believe that it is done on what might be called the "old boy net". The magistrate is approached by an officer authorised by the Army to say that he will see that the soldier is brought to court at the required time. But the courts in Northern Ireland have been assured that the man will be kept in custody, and it is on that basis that bail is granted. I cannot see, by any stretch

929
of imagination, how this can be called military custody, and I wonder when criminal law has been administered on what I would call a "friendly basis".
Once the man is in barracks he is restrained in that he is kept there voluntarily. I suppose he gives a voluntary undertaking. If he decides to run away, there is no way by which the Army can stop him except to restrain him by physical force. And I should have thought that the Army would then be liable for assault, because he is not charged under the Army Act and the Army has no right to hold him unless he is so charged. If I were the magistrate, I would certainly not be satisfied with considering that sort of operation as "in custody". There are many other reasons why the RUC should have the same privileges. I am not asking for automatic bail; I am asking only for discretion to be returned to the court for the Army and the police.
During the last few months the emphasis has been very much on bringing these villains to court, and the record of the RUC has already been commented on. But the effect of this is to put the RUC into the van to a greater extent than they were when the Gardiner Report was first produced. Both the soldiers and the police in Northern Ireland are the direct agents of the Crown and since their position, their employment, is at stake the sanctions that can be applied against them seem to me to be so enormous that the chance of them bucking bail is very small. This view has been supported in the very few cases which have come before the High Court. Because they were quite certain that the police were liable to be given bail, that it was right and proper that they should be given bail, they have heard their cases with tremendous rapidity.
I think that the method by which our High Court hears bail applications throughout is an example anywhere. But this does not alter—and I know that I am challenging a most able Report by most eminent men—my disagreement with paragraph 37. The Royal Ulster Constabulary are at a disadvantage. The High Court cannot always hear an application for bail at once, and the indignity and humiliation imposed on a police
930
man, who is alleged to have committed assault and has been arrested and kept in custody, is something which aids the terrorist who aims to discredit the forces of law and order and the Judiciary.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, may I intervene? The noble Viscount is giving the impression to the House that this is something that has happened, but it has not.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, it has not happened because, in the few cases in which a policeman has been charged, the High Court have heard the bail applications at once. I feel, and this brings me to the next point, that it is not a good thing for Justice if the High Court appear, because they believe the policeman to be worthy of getting bail, or likely to be, to give more attention to a police application for bail than to an ordinary person. I feel that this impression should be removed.
Finally, in my appeal to the Government, may I say that, strange as it may seem to all of us here, Section 3(5) is seen by many people in Ulster as being an insult to their very fine and gallant police force. Indeed, the last Government almost had to deal with a mutiny, because that force believed it to be so. Therefore, I feel that the Government should look again most seriously at this section, because the operation of the so-called military custody of soldiers granted bail by the magistrates is not proper, and, secondly, because I believe that both parts of our civilian forces—that includes the Army, who are still acting under Common Law—should be given extra protection. I therefore welcome the Bill.
Lord KILBRACKEN: My Lords, could the noble Viscount give me that reference again?
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: Section 3 of the 1973 Act.
4.46 p.m.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has suggested that the Government should seek to demonstrate that terrorism cannot succeed. That would certainly involve a revolutionary change in the policy not only of this Government but of every Government which this country has had since the war,

931
because on every occasion since the war Governments have so conducted themselves that terrorism has always succeeded. In Palestine, in Cyprus, in Aden, in Kenya, in a variety of places in Africa, terrorism has always succeeded. The principal road in Nairobi which was once named after our present Queen, Princess Elizabeth, is now named after the terrorist General whom we eventually captured and hanged. This is the measure of success of terrorism.
The rôle of a succession of Her Majesty's Governments has been that when faced with terrorism they have regarded themselves as a kind of referee to keep the ring between the terrorists and their own forces, leaning a little on the side of the terrorists, giving the impression that, after all, the terrorists are people with whom they will eventually have to deal when they become the Government, and they should not have to fight them for too long. It is that sequence which has led to the present position that we are facing.
I do not find this a happy situation, even though I find it a profoundly foreseeable one. We are in the third year of this miserable business, we are in the third thousand of the victims of assassination. We are having what we are told is a ceasefire. This seems to me very odd language to use. It is a language which may be used between belligerents within the rules of civilised warfare—if warfare can ever be called civilised—but a ceasefire between the police and the assassins seems to me odd. The very use of the word seems to involve the recognition of the assassins as lawful belligerents. The ceasefire seems to be a success so long as murders run on at an average of about one a day. We are told that we must be very careful, because we are under threat that the ceasefire may stop and the murders may be considerably more frequent. I do not believe that we can ever succeed on this kind of basis. I remember well being involved in Cyprus in the early days, when it all seemed so very clear. I put in a report to the late Lord Harding, who was there, in which I said very simply that the alternative to civil war was British rule and that, if British rule was to continue, we had to do what was necessary to stop EOKA. I am certain that,
932
if the forces had had their hands freed for a fortnight, EOKA could have been eliminated. It would have been the easiest thing in the world, if the British Government had not effectively been playing on the side of EOKA and preventing our forces there from taking the steps which were at that time so obviously available. We have seen what has happened since. The misery is not ours but that of the people of Cyprus. The civil war has come and many thousands of people have died, and died horribly. NATO is in disarray; all because we were too squeamish to kill a few hundred people when it was necessary. Much the same happened in Aden, but I will not go into the details of that.
When this happened two years ago in Ireland I produced a solution which was then regarded with the utmost indignation. I said, "Take the detainees who are acknowledged members of the IRA, have a lottery, put them in a row and say, "Each time a bomb goes off, one of them will be taken out and shot!" Had we done that we might have shot half a dozen, but we would have saved a couple of thousand lives. It is this lack of courage in the face of violence—a lack of courage to be more violent when it is necessary; quickly, hard and resolutely—that always leads to this miserable sequence of events that goes on and on.
We have now reached a situation in which there are two solutions and they are now vastly more difficult. To my mind, one is to put Northern Ireland under martial law, and by that I mean that one gives the Commander-in-Chief of Northern Ireland authority to issue orders and to try offenders against his orders. Those orders would include a ban on the carrying of arms, the possession of explosives and various other forms of assault on the police. He would be given the right to try those offences by field court-martial under the presidency of a major, to be carried out within 24 hours of arrest and the sentence to be executed within 24 hours of it being given. I think that such a solution would stop what is now happening. If we do not adopt such a solution, we will meander on until we pull out and leave the civil war to inflict its casualties. But if we do not have the nerve to do what is necessary, then I believe it would be better to pull out now.
4.54 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I shall not detain our Lordships for long, particularly as most of the time I had put aside for preparing for this afternoon's debate was necessarily occupied in clearing up after an unexpected and most unwelcome intruder. I sometimes feel that we need a London (Emergency Provisions) Bill to cope with the veritable flood of burglaries with which this city is plagued and which the police seem powerless to prevent.
Having got that off my chest, one appreciates that we must see these things in perspective and realise how much more fortunate we are on this side of the water, from the point of view of all crime and violence, than our fellow subjects in Northern Ireland. And it is the vastly greater suffering that is being inflicted on them that this Bill is designed to alleviate, if not entirely to eliminate. One welcomes in particular Clause 11, which relates to radio transmitters which may be used for illegal purposes, and also Clause 12, although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that its scope may not be wide enough; perhaps this can be examined in Committee. Similarly, Clause 13, which makes it an offence to monitor the movements of certain people at risk, such as the Security Forces, prison officers and the judiciary. It was suggested in another place that this clause might be widened to include civil servants employed in the prisons branch of the Northern Ireland Office and perhaps civil servants employed in the incidents centres. I do not think any reply was given to this in another place and perhaps the Minister, when he replies today, will give his opinion on the validity or merits of this suggestion.
Clause 14 is, I suppose, what one might call a liberalising clause, in that it recommends a reduced penalty for riotous and disorderly behaviour. This is entirely justified because one knows how easy it is for people to get caught up in a riot situation against their better judgment, and rioting is not one of the problems with which the Security Forces have to deal at present to any degree; the situation may be different in six months' time, but for the moment it seems right that the maximum sentence for this should be reduced. Clause 15 is extremely welcome and desirable also in so far as
934
it creates an offence of giving or receiving training in the use of firearms and explosives.
Before leaving this clause, may I draw attention to paragraph 70 of the Gardiner Report which recommends the creation of a new offence of being concerned in terrorism, with the suggestion of a maximum term of imprisonment on conviction of 15 years. This was discussed at some length in another place with a view to the recommendation being implemented either by a new clause as an amendment to Section 19 of the principal Act or possibly, if I have interpreted it correctly, by extending the scope of both Clauses 12 and 15 of this measure, and possibly increasing the maximum sentences applicable to these, though probably not to as much as 15 years' imprisonment. Again, this would seem worth while examining in Committee.
I echo entirely what other noble Lords have said about the Special Category prisoners. This has been criticised by all noble Lords, and it was criticised in every quarter in another place. I see the Government's problem about eliminating this in one fell swoop and I appreciate that it must be phased out, but there are certain things one would think could be dealt with almost immediately; for example, the humiliation inflicted on ordinary prisoners, some of whom may be guilty of very minor offences, by making them serve food and otherwise wait on Special Category prisoners. I do not see why this practice should not be stopped almost immediately.
I come to the question to which the noble Viscount Lord Brookeborough, particularly drew attention; that of the granting of bail to the police. I naturally take the point, made by the Secretary of State in another place and by the Front Bench Opposition spokesman, about the police having civilian status. Of course, the police want civilian status and would like to lead the normal life which the police lead in the rest of the United Kingdom and to have no privileges which are not accorded to other members of the community, but Northern Ireland is in an emergency situation—otherwise we would not be discussing this Bill—and the police are very much in the front line. I do not know whether this is fully appreciated on this side of the water. I believe, though I have no definite figures,

935
that the fatalities among the police are proportionately higher than those suffered by the Armed Services. Certainly, 65 police, including two policewomen, have been murdered during the six years of the emergency. This may not sound like very many until it is translated into British terms. It is the equivalent of 2,290 policemen being murdered in England. Wales and Scotland.
I suggest that, if that number of policemen had been murdered in Great Britain over that period, the whole country would be in a turmoil and an uproar and the death penalty would almost certainly have been reintroduced as a result of the pressure of public opinion. I believe that the population of Northern Ireland and its police have in many ways been extraordinarily undemanding and patient. I feel that, in these circumstances, though not in the circumstances of normal civilian life, to refuse the police bail not only demoralises them but chips away at their prestige and status in the eyes of the community. As the noble Viscount Lord Brookeborough, said, it inflicts humiliation and indignity on them.
The Secretary of State emphasised on 27th June last that the police are the key to the security situation and that they must receive support. On Third Reading in another place, a Conservative Member emphasised that there is strong feeling in the RUC on this issue. He asked whether the Secretary of State would do something to maintain the confidence and the high standard of morale of the RUC. Most significantly, Mr. Gerry Fitt of the SDLP said on 27th June in reply to the Reverend Ian Paisley:
"I accept the honourable gentleman's point that if the police are to be treated in a special way, as opposed to the status given to the other members of the Security Forces, the UDR or the Army, there would seem to be a lack of justice."—[Official Report (Commons), 27/6/75; col. 928.]
With support from so many quarters for exceptional treatment of the police and, having read between the lines of the debates in another place on Second Reading, at Committee stage and on Third Reading, from which I infer that the Government may not in fact be adamantly opposed to special treatment for the police so far as bail is concerned, I
936
hope that we may be able to do something to help this very brave body of men.
5.5 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I am not at all sure what is my right function this afternoon. I remember a time when Governments used to say, when the Report of a Committee which they had appointed was published, that they could not decide what view to take of the recommendations until they knew what Parliament thought because, they would say, they attached the greatest importance to the views of Parliament. Later, I became slightly suspicious as to how far they really minded what Parliament said, though they still went on saying this. I suppose that it is not very often that a report of this kind is published but nothing happens for six months and no attempt is made by the Government to have a discussion on the report in either House. I was told nothing, then I was told that within 24 hours there was to be a Bill. The Government had made up their mind.
Of course I appreciate that this has been a very difficult Session for Parliamentary time, particularly in the other place. It may be said that Private Members could have introduced such a discussion, but we all know that adjournment debates in another place and short Wednesday debates in this House are not all that easy to arrange. As a result, the Bill comes before us with no discussion at all except that, on the Motion which my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved to extend the period of operation of the emergency legislation, I mentioned one or two points which had occurred to me on reading the legislation. I do not want to go further into those points.
As the House may remember, we expressed a very strong view about the lamentable absence of sufficient prison accommodation. It was some years ago that the Cunningham Committee pointed out the need for an additional ordinary prison with cellular accommodation. Nothing was done. As we said in our Report, no brick had been laid upon another. The same is true today because, rightly or wrongly, the Government have taken the view that instead of using one of their own sites like, an Army camp and starting to build on it the next day, they thought another site which they did not

937
own would be better, so they applied for planning permission. This has gone on for months and months. Now the planning inquiry is over but the Government cannot get the report out of the Inspector. What I should like to ask my noble friend is this: if the Government do not get planning permission, what will they do about building a prison and where do they plan to build it?
I am not sure that I understood the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, about certifying out. I do not know why the Government did not accept our recommendation about that. It was designed to ease the difficulty of the police. I do not recollect having been told.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I missed that point. Could my noble friend repeat it?
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, raised the question the powers of the Attorney General to certify out which could embrace the Armed Forces.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I was referring to a speech made on winding up the Second Reading in another place when, as I understood it—and if I am wrong, the noble and learned Lord, who is so distinguished a lawyer, will perhaps forgive me and correct me—the Attorney-General, who was speaking for the Government, accepted the noble and learned Lord's recommendation. I ventured to say that I welcomed that.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I believe that I misunderstood the noble Lord. I am not certain even now that the Government understand the point about Clause 3. It does not matter, because it is only a small point, but it is simply that all Parties, both in Government and in Opposition, have always agreed that one can justify emergency procedures—reducing the accused, altering the right of evidence, taking away trial by jury, and so on—only for terrorist offences. This was the origin of the distinction between scheduled offences—that is terrorist offences—which had to be tried by special one-judge courts on the recommendation of the Diplock Commission, and non-scheduled offences which had a right to trial by jury. This
938
works perfectly well, and if a man is charged with both scheduled and non-scheduled offences he is tried before a Diplock Court for the scheduled offences. If he is convicted, nobody bothers about the unscheduled offences, and he is sentenced. If he is acquitted, he is tried before a jury for the non-scheduled offences. This works perfectly well, except that we were told, mainly by the police, that sometimes the scheduled and non-scheduled offences were very closely involved together and that it would be neater for them to be tried by the same court.
We were asked whether there would really be any objection to saying that both types of offence could be taken by the Diplock Court judge, provided the accused agreed. We said, "If the accused agrees to give up his right to trial by jury, why not?" We pointed out that there might be a difficulty, with some people saying nothing but "Up the IRA!" in knowing whether or not the accused had consented, so we went as far as to say that it could be done provided he did not object. As I understand it the Government have said that this is very complicated and that it is difficult to tell whether he is consenting or objecting, and that therefore they will give the judge the power to deprive him of his right to trial by jury on a non-scheduled offence, if the judge thinks fit.
If there is all this difficulty in ascertaining whether or not someone is objecting I should have thought that the Government would have said that they would not accept that recommendation, but would leave things as they are, no real harm being done. But it may be that, inadvertently, the Government are now, for the first time, to deprive a citizen of Northern Ireland of the right he has always had to trial by jury for non-scheduled offences. Some of us feel more strongly than others about juries, but having heard 97 witnesses and read 157 memoranda I discovered that in Northern Ireland people generally feel even more strongly about the right to trial by jury than, I think, the National Council for Civil Liberties here.
Indeed, we had a great many applications to us to recommend the restoration of trial by jury for scheduled offences, but for the reasons given in our Report we did not think that that time had yet arrived.

939
The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, made an encouraging speech and, as he said, there is an atmosphere of cautious optimism. The only point I wish to touch on from those he raised is that concerning legal representation in relation to detention. In substance, putting it colloquially, we found—and it was quite well meant—that it looked as if the detainees were getting a trial when really it could not be regarded as what anybody would call a trial. It had the trappings; it had commissioners; it had counsel and so on. The difficulty about legal representation, for example, is that as set out in paragraph 131, that:
"The evidence given by these witnesses is, in the main, hearsay—first-hand, second-hand or even of remoter degree…Much of it is derived from information from paid Informers, who receive payment varying from beer money to weekly wages and even substantial lump sums; some of them have criminal records. They do not attend the hearings, either because it would be too dangerous for them to do so, or because they are afraid."
The Bar felt that in a sense it was taking money which it could not justify taking because it could not do anything for the detainees. In some cases the detainee cannot be told even what it is he is supposed to have done, because if he was, he would see at once that there could be only one informant, and the informant never appears, and his identity must, at all costs, be protected, as one can understand in the conditions existing in Northern Ireland. This is why we felt that legal representation sounded very well but was not a reality nor something which would do any good.
I had better leave to my noble friend the question of the police and the Army. So far as Section 3(5) was concerned, we simply felt that whatever it looks like on the face of it, it does not happen in practice, and therefore does not do any harm. I was not clear whether or not my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton had read the Committee's Report. I should welcome a discussion with him at some time, mainly on Vietnam, on the theory that if enough people are killed, brutally enough, quickly enough, it would be possible always to stop people who are under the delusion that they are fighting for their freedom. If enough of them fight for their freedom and if enough are prepared to
940
die for what they consider to be freedom, free they will be. But that is a debate which can perhaps take place on another occasion—
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: Of course I should entirely agree when this becomes a national movement. In the cases of EOKA, the IRA and the Mau-Mau one was dealing with very small groups indeed, and strong action, if taken early enough, could prove entirely successful.
Lord GARDINER: With great respect, the Catholics in Northern Ireland are not a small group—
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: But the IRA is.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, in conclusion I simply say this. There are, I think, hopeful signs. I was very grateful to my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge for what he told us about what is being done for Special Category prisoners, and in regard to the other fields he mentioned. In a personal capacity I am an admirer of the Secretary of State and of the policy of the present Government in relation to Northern Ireland. I think it has been very good that for so long, whatever Government have been in power in England, there has been no real quarrel between the Government and the main Opposition Party. I am quite sure that conditions in Northern Ireland would be very much worse today if in the past two or three years there had been violent disagreements between the two main political Parties.
Finally, I wish to say how much I welcome the Statement by the Secretary of State—I thought it a brave Statement—that it was possible that, dependent on events detention might end by Christmas. That obviously must depend entirely on events. We had a mass of evidence from all those bodies in Northern Ireland of all political persuasions who said that they did not like detention. We said, first, that detention as introduced—originally internment—was not a breach of the European Convention of Human Rights; secondly, that with the nature of terrorism today, detention without trial is a weapon which a State faced with terrorist conditions is entitled to use.

941
Thirdly, we set out all the arguments for continuing detention and all the arguments for ending detention, and we then said this in the Committee's conclusions:
"After long and anxious consideration, we are of the opinion that detention cannot remain as a long-term policy. In the short term, it may be an effective means of containing violence, but the prolonged effects of the use of detention are ultimately inimical to community life, fan a widespread sense of grievance and injustice, and obstruct those elements in Northern Ireland society which could lead to reconciliation. Detention can only be tolerated in a democratic society in the most extreme circumstances; it must be used with the utmost restraint and retained only as long as it is strictly necessary. We would like to be able to recommend that the time has come to abolish detention; but the present level of violence, the risks of increased violence, and the difficulty of predicting events even a few months ahead make it impossible for us to put forward a precise recommendation on the timing.
We think that this grave decision can only be made by the Government."
My Lords, I still think that that is so. It was quite clear to anyone looking at the history of terrorism and detention without trial that every country which has imposed detention without trial has found it extremely difficult to get rid of. I do not believe that in any of these countries there is a single Security Force which has ever said, "Yes, the time has come to end it." Once we have detention it is so convenient, it is so liable to go on. That is why, bearing in mind what my Committee has said, I particularly welcome the observation of the Secretary of State, and I greatly hope that the much better conditions which exist in Northern Ireland at present may continue until we reach that result.
5.19 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord the former Lord Chancellor, whom I have often previously followed. I am a great admirer of his intellect. I wish to intervene for a moment in this little argument between the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, who is sitting behind him. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, said quite rightly that if people are fighting for their freedom it does not matter how many of them are shot. If they are fighting for their freedom, to shoot them will be counter-productive. But are these assassins, these terrorists,
942
fighting for their freedom? I understand that a great number of them are hired assassins. I do not think the average terrorist in the North of Ireland who commits these appalling crimes is convinced that he is fighting for his freedom for he has complete democratic rights, and he has religious freedom. So what freedom is he fighting for? No one is a greater admirer than I of the law—in fact, I am overawed by it. I am frequently pursued by the law—for parking. But the terrorist, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, will agree, is very difficult to control by the law because he has no respect for it.
Having said that, I should like to say how much I welcome this Bill. I think it goes further than previous Bills, in that it realises that the innocent individuals and the weak have to be protected, even if by so doing it has to a certain extent to overrule our concept of the law. I believe that it is quite right so to do, and of course it is right that the Secretary of State, whom I admire, should have a certain freedom of action; because conditions in Northern Ireland are such that they change from day to day and it would be absurd for the Secretary of State to be bound too strongly by Parliament.
My Lords, I particularly welcome Clause 9, a clause with which the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, found fault. I think that it should speed up the procedure regarding detainees. I was pleased to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, say that his Committee did not advise legal representation for detainees in that initial period. Perhaps I might now go on to Clauses 11, 12, 13 and 15. I think that these are a great step forward—and Clause 15, in particular, by making it an offence to train others in the use of arms or explosives or to receive such training. There is no doubt that some offenders may slip through this net in spite of subsection (2). It will be difficult to prove that someone does not require a firearm for, say, shooting rabbits on his farm. I think that some people will certainly slip through the net. The only way in which a great blow could be struck at the terrorists would be to ban all forms of arms to anyone, except the police and the Armed Forces. This, of course, would be tantamount to martial law; but this, I

943
feel, is what would be necessary if we wanted to make security absolutely watertight.
The other clause that I like very much is Clause 11, which deals with radio transmitters. The sophisticated weapons that can now be imported into Northern Ireland are quite extraordinary—paid for, presumably, with money stolen from banks by the IRA, or perhaps money from international Communism. Certainly, the IRA and the Provisional IRA now possess some very expensive material. Clause 11 is a step forward and it is a pity that we cannot do the same with radio receivers; but, of course, that would be impossible for nobody could then possess a wireless receiver.
The other clause I like is that dealing with the ban on wearing hoods or masks or anything to conceal the features. It is a pity, too, that we cannot have this provision covering the whole of the United Kingdom. My noble friend on the Cross-Benches said that he had recently been burgled. I have been burgled several times and I feel that these provisions banning concealment of features would be of great help, not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom. May I say a few words about the Secretary of State's announcement that it is his intention, so we understand to end, detention by Christmas? I hope that he acts with the utmost caution. It is true that if there is no evidence to prove that the terrorist organisations have the power to embark on their acts of destruction after Christmas, that is all very well. So, too, if there is evidence that these terrorist organisations are dying out; but if the Secretary of State releases all the detainees by Christmas without information that the terrorist organisations are defunct, but they are capable of launching renewed attacks, then that would be a dangerous thing to do and I do not think it would be fair to the people of Northern Ireland. I have heard the most extraordinary rumour, which I cannot believe, that the IRA and the Provisional IRA really do not want detention to end, because it provides an excuse for them to continue their acts of violence. I really think that must be complete nonsense.
My Lords, perhaps I might refer to a letter which the noble Lord, Lord
944
Donaldson, wrote me following my intervention the other day. I was pleased to hear from him that since 10th February, since the ceasefire arrangements, no former detainees have been arrested for, or, at least, charged with, scheduled offences. I do not know whether I am in order in referring to the noble Lord's letter. It was a very nice letter. There were no secrets in it, but the noble Lord also told me—and this was a bit more worrying—that, in fact, since the emergency three former detainees had been charged with scheduled offences. There was something which the noble Lord said which cheered me up. It was that the Government have evidence, apparently, of a number of former detainees whose families, after their release, had brought influence upon them to mend their ways. I understand from reading the noble Lord's letter that they apparently have given up any idea of embarking on any more political violence.
Might I now turn to something mentioned by my noble friend on my right and also by the noble Lord, Lord Monson; that is, the subject of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? I have always been of the opinion that one of the splendid things about this country is that in it all men are equal before the law. As I see it, the RUC are denied this. They do just as dangerous a job as Her Majesty's Forces; but I should hardly think they have the same protection as have Her Majesty's Forces, because they do not have the force of armament. Why is it that the Royal Ulster Constabulary cannot have this automatic right of bail? My noble friend Lord Brookeborough told me something that I did not realise, though I have been in the Army. I thought it was a fact that, under the Army Act, the Army can take any soldier into custody. Therefore, if there is a legal case, the case of the RUC might not be so strong in practice.
But the point is not so much the complete 100 per cent. meaning of the law, but if the RUC—and this is a very brave body of dedicated men—feel in an inferior position to Her Majesty's Forces, it is bad for their morale. If they have arrested an IRA man and he charges them with assault, they may feel that they are not going to get the same treatment as a member of Her Majesty's Forces. The Government ought not to split hairs over

945
this; they should not quibble. The RUC should have an automatic right to bail during a state of emergency. I hope that one or two of us here may put down an Amendment on that subject at Committee stage. I suppose that there is bad in every organisation. There may have been instances where an RUC man might have been too tough with an IRA man, but I find that hard to believe. If so, perhaps the RUC man was rightly accused of assault by the IRA man. I feel—
Lord KILBRACKEN: My Lords, as the noble Viscount has referred six or seven times to the IRA, I wonder whether he is aware that there are terrorist forces on the other side who are causing as much violence and as many deaths, and perhaps he might also take cognisance of their existence.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: I was aware of that, my Lords. They did not start it originally.
Lord KILBRACKEN: My Lords, what started the present troubles was when there were belligerent actions by the Unionist community against the Civil Rights marchers in 1969.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I do not think we should pursue this major issue any further.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has said. I do not agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down. I will not keep your Lordships any longer. I should like to ask the noble Lord to look with sympathy on the RUC regarding this matter. Before I end I should like to say that I admire Mr. Merlyn Rees who has an appallingly difficult task, and wish him the best of luck. I should like him to remember that I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who said that the dangers are immense, and that even if you get an agreed policy in the North of Ireland it will not necessarily content many of the terrorists and they will embark on further acts of violence, so in the end the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, may be right. But I suppose, in the days in which we live, what he said is not practicable. I am sure that if Soviet Russia was in our shoes, this trouble
946
would not have lasted more than six weeks. Having said that, my Lords, I will sit down.
5.35 p.m.
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, I apologise for not having put down my name to speak this evening; I did not think that it would be possible for me to be here owing to two previous engagements. I am sorry to have missed the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and also my noble friend Lord Belstead, both of whom know a very great deal about Northern Ireland, and therefore their views are obviously of the utmost importance to the consideration of this Bill. As one who has been critical in the past from time to time of the Administration in Northern Ireland, I should like to make some remarks pointing to the difficulties with which they are faced.
I sometimes wonder whether the British people realise how difficult it would he to find the person who could pursue policies which were acceptable to both sections of the community in Northern Ireland. People in England are apt to imagine that Northern Ireland is like England; it is not at all like England, and it would be almost impossible to find a person who was acceptable to both sections of the community. On the plus side, we must remember that at the moment, by and large, it is true that British soldiers are not being killed, bombs are not going off in London, Manchester and Birmingham. Is there not a British dimension in Northern Ireland affairs? Should the rights and conveniences of the British not be considered when they are willing to provide sometimes up to 20,000 British soldiers to deal with the appalling problems which exist in Northern Ireland? I think that these pluses must be remembered at a time when we are considering the minuses which undoubtedly exist and would exist whoever was trying to administer this Province at the present time.
For me it has been extremely interesting to see how, in a matter of 10 months, Mr. Enoch Powell has discovered the realities which exist in Northern Ireland. He assumed that it was so easy to walk into the Province and accept the slogans which he had heard so often on his daily visits to Northern Ireland platforms. He has now suddenly discovered that there

947
are many people in Northern Ireland who are in favour of UDI, and he is now a frightened man. I admire him for the two speeches which he has made in the past three weeks drawing attention to the great dangers which will exist if extreme Protestants decide to declare UDI.
In my day there were two streams in the old Unionist Party. There were those who were in favour of United Kingdom citizenship. That was the stream to which I belonged because of its manifest advantages to all the people of Northern Ireland, such as a higher standard of living than at that time existed in the Republic of Ireland. I must admit that since the Republic of Ireland joined the EEC—and, indeed, long before that owing to the economic plan of Dr. Kenneth Whitaker—they have forged ahead. At that time—this is 20 years ago—there was that moderate stream which valued United Kingdom citizenship for the manifest advantages which it conferred on all citizens in Northern Ireland. There was the other stream which was purely and simply anti-Catholic. The first stream is no longer represented in the present so-called Unionist Party. It consists almost entirely—there are some exceptions—of the second stream.
In August 1971, rightly or wrongly, internment was introduced in Northern Ireland. Nobody who studies Irish history will ever be allowed to forget that date. I remember saying to one or two senior Ministers in the Conservative Government shortly after Direct Rule was introduced six months later, "Had you realised six months earlier that you yourselves would have to take over responsibility for Northern Ireland, would you have agreed to the policy of internment?" The reply was, "No, we did not know at that time what we were doing. We knew nothing about Northern Ireland affairs". That has completely changed. As I said at the beginning of my remarks today, on both Front Benches there are two experts on Northern Ireland. As I say, this question of detention is a very complicated problem. We cannot forget that when detention was introduced the extreme Protestants protested against it. We do not hear any of their protests today because all the Protestants are now out of Long Kesh. In those days the extreme Protestants were in favour of total integration.
948
Today the only person I know of who is in favour of total integration in Northern Ireland is Mr. Enoch Powell.
I mention these facts because it is so easy for any intelligent observer to visit Northern Ireland and come to certain conclusions. But those conclusions will be rendered null and void six months later because in that unhappy Province opinion constantly changes. So, my Lords, if there is anybody in this House who imagines that there is some paragon who can somehow or other satisfy all the people of Northern Ireland—and I have no idea who may be listening to my words—that person does not exist. There is no person in Britain today who can satisfy the two streams which exist in Northern Ireland.
All we can say is that the present Government are doing their best in extremely difficult circumstances, and that any British person who forgets the British dimension in the affairs of Northern Ireland will live to regret it. In the last analysis, if the British are to stay in Northern Ireland it will be because the British want to stay, and if people in Northern Ireland make it impossible for them to want to stay they will rue that day and they will regret it. The British people have put up with quite a lot during the last five or six years.
5.44 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, has an agreeable habit of coming it at the end and, if I may say so, raising the tone of our debate. He made a very interesting speech and I am not going to say much about it because obviously I agree with the general line that he was putting forward. But I think one should be fair where fairness is required. Dr. Paisley still objects to detention; he said so the other day, but otherwise, as the noble Lord said, opinions change. Thank goodness they do! There has been a major shift of opinion even in the 18 months since I have been there and if they ever harden that is when we will run into explosion. We must keep things moving.
My Lords, we have had a very varied and interesting debate. I should like to begin at the most extreme end with my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton. My noble and learned friend Lord

949
Gardiner put the first half of the argument. All I would say is this: there is a good deal to be said for the "shoot the lot" school if you can get out if it fails. This is not the position of most people who are governing. For example, in Germany and occupied France the "shoot the lot" school ruled supreme and did a good deal more than shoot, which it seemed to me my noble friend thought might be acceptable. In any case they suppressed opposition during the war or it was kept down to a very limited amount. But the war ended, as things do end, and the people who supported them had their hair cut off and were driven round the square. They had done absolutely nothing to change public opinion. If my noble friend really thinks that that is the right way to govern these two very disparate and troublesome groups in Ireland, I think that he must think again. Obviously it is not something that can possibly be done. We can say with certainty that if it was to be done, it ought to have been done a long time ago and not now.
So I think my noble friend will forgive me if I do not discuss his extremism any further. We might perhaps have a drink over it some time later! I should like to take two major subjects which have come up during the discussion. First, most noble Lords have talked about detention, and we want to get the facts clear. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who said that we should have to be quick about it. It would mean a very much increased release if we were to get the detainees out by Christmas. Let me repeat what my right honourable friend said. It is rather important not to be confused about this. He said:
"I cannot commit myself at this stage to a specific date, but I hope the situation will progress sufficiently to enable all the detainees to be out by Christmas."
May I point out that during the worst part of 1974—that is, between June and December—the Secretary of State released 71 and the Commissioners released 117, making 188 in all. So all through the very bad times—Birmingham and all the rest of it—releases were going on.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brooke-borough, spoke as if we were being inconsistent in first shutting people up and then releasing them. What does he
950
expect us to do, keep them in for ever? This is not a very constructive remark. It is like loading a wagon; if you put something in to it you have to be able to get it out. If you put people into prison either you have to hang them or get them out at some time. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, made clear in his Report—and he told us something of it today—that the philosophical objection to this (there cannot be many people who do not agree with him) is that there is nothing inconsistent in arresting people who are dangerous and shutting them up and then saying after a certain time, "Enough is enough; you have been in for two years. We have no reason to know whether you are less or more dangerous, but we are not going to keep you there for ever" This is the policy which Her Majesty's Government have perforce pursued.
If we kept them all in, at the speed we were putting them in until Demember, there would have been standing room only. You have to be reasonable about this. These are human beings and they change. It was also said by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, that I suggested in my letter to him that there was some influence from the family on released detainees. This is something on which one must not put too much; it is not something which is statistically demonstrable. It is the kind of impression we get from people who are moving among them. It is very important to realise that, whether or not my right honourable friend finishes with detention by Christmas, the thing which matters is whether or not he has to start it again. As things are, we are having so much greater success in bringing criminals to justice through the courts that one hopes that once one has got rid of it one might be able to survive quite bad periods ii Northern Ireland without reversing it.
That is the background to detention. The other matter which has been raised by several speakers is a rather smaller point but in a sense it is particularly difficult. That is the question of bail for the RUC. No one who is in any way responsible for administrative affairs in Northern Ireland would wish to do anything but shout "Hooray for the RUC!" We have all told them what a marvellous job they have done and I think they know that we all believe this.

951
They are actually asking for something which we do not think we can give them.
The first thing I should like to say is this. As I said to the noble Viscount earlier, there has been no single case where bail has been refused. There have been four cases where bail has been granted, so although your Lordships may say they should have it by right, at least they are getting it in the ordinary way through the High Court. Section 3 of the principal Act imposes a limitation of power to grant bail to all persons charged with scheduled offences, except those who are under 14 or who are serving members of Her Majesty's Regular Naval, Military or Air Forces. I shall not be tempted by the noble Viscount's exercise in barrack room law", if I may say so. He was most ingenious about this and I was spellbound while listening to his discussion of the various Army Acts, none of which I was familiar with—and indeed perhaps the noble Viscount was not familiar with them either until these particular matters arose. I shall have his speech photographed and sent immediately to the Secretary of State for Defence, and doubtless we shall get a satisfactory answer for him in that way—but he is not going to get one out of me!
The position is that at the moment the Armed Forces, whether or not the convention is a legal one, have the ability to say to the judge: "If you let us take this man, we promise to keep him safely and to return him to you when he comes up for trial." That is the convention. Whether it is one that is strictly legal under the Army Act, I shall not enter into. I see that we have with us an ex-Secretary of State for Defence who perhaps might be able to clear up this matter with the noble Viscount later. But the police have not these facilities. They have no organisation and they do not live in barracks but in their houses. Therefore this position does not arise. They are ordinary citizens, in the front line. We take the view that, however much we should like to do so, we cannot treat them differently from ordinary citizens. The fact that the Army can be treated differently is a very good thing and if there were some way in which the same thing could be done for the RUC I think
952
that some people would welcome it; but I do not think there is.
Lord BELSTEAD: May I interrupt the noble Lord very briefly? I am sorry to extend our debate but, as the noble Lord knows, for some reason it was not possible in another place for an Amendment to be put down on this point. Before my noble friend makes up his mind whether or not he would wish to put down an Amendment, I should like to make it clear that I personally agree with the Government's view and I should be very doubtful as to whether it is possible to put down an Amendment. May I ask this question. Is what the noble Lord has said agreed between the Northern Ireland Office and the RUC? Do the RUC accept in practical terms what the noble and learned Lord said in paragraph 37 is the fact; namely, that the police cannot usually arrange to keep somebody in custody in the same way as the Army?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I do not have the answer to that question, but I will write to the noble Lord. I am quite clear that a number of people in the RUC are not satisfied with this, but whether Sir James and the powers-at-the-top will accept this, I do not know.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again. I am not asking the noble Lord whether the RUC are dissatisfied, because I realise that they would like to have a different arrangement, and I am not pushing the noble Lord on that point. What I am asking him is this: do the RUC accept, as a practical matter, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for them to treat an RUC constable who comes into their custody in the same way as the Forces could? If the noble Lord could write to me on that matter I should be most grateful.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I can answer this point quickly. It is perfectly clear that it is impracticable because there are no premises. You cannot keep a man in a police cell for three weeks or three months. However, I will give the noble Lord a detailed answer on this. We have had a fairly long debate and I have a note of a good many points. I shall not

953
attempt to deal with them all, but I will write to noble Lords about many of them. However, I should like to make just one or two points.
First, the question of legal representation, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Kilbracken, is an important one. I think my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner gave a complete answer to it and perhaps I need not add anything more. But either you have a trial or you do not; and if you do not have a trial you probably make things worse by looking as though you were having a trial. Ultimately, the decision to detain somebody is an arbitrary one which is made by the Secretary of State on the best advice he can get. We think it would be a complication which would detract from the streamlined system we are proposing if solicitors, and so on, were brought in.
Lord KILBRACKEN: My Lords, may I take up one point about that, because I understood the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, to say that they have found that the majority of detainees did not want legal representation and if they did not want it, why should they have it? I thought that might apply in some cases, but that it would not apply in a great many others. If a detainee wants to have a lawyer or a solicitor to represent him, he should have the right to do so.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I take the point, without agreeing. My noble friend also asked about its taking seven days to prepare representations. As soon as the seven days are over, the Adviser can begin examining the case and can consider the representations at any time after the expiry of the seven-day period. But there is an overall limit of 49 days, so there must be a reasonable limit on the right of a detainee to make representations. I know my noble friend will not be here at the Committee stage, but one or two of the other questions were clearly Committee points and so I will leave them for the moment. If they do not come up at Committee stage I will write to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, wondered whether the new regulation which deals with the collecting of evidence against judges and similar people should
954
be extended to other civil servants. One has to draw the line somewhere, of course, because it could be extended to everybody if care is not taken, and as it is this might even have gone too far. We do not think it would be helpful to take it very much further. On Clause 14, which concerns paragraph 60 of the Gardiner Report, I think that the noble Lord has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The object of this clause is not to be more lenient with people engaged in riotous assembly but to get at them more quickly; that is the next morning. I think I am right in saying that because there was an 18-month maximum sentence they had to go on indictment. If that is removed, they can come up the next morning at Bow Street.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I entirely accept what the noble Lord has said. I was not able to get hold of a copy of the Gardiner Report until about 30 seconds before the debate.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord has had the Report long enough to do it justice. I have dealt with a number of points and I will undertake to write to noble Lords regarding other points. We have had a long debate on this matter and there is a good deal of other business to follow; but may I just say to my noble and learned friend that I am sorry he still has a slight sense of having been treated somewhat cavalierly by the Government. I must say to him that this was not meant. I have apologised before and I will do so again. We value this document enormously. We have spent hours trying to get a fairly watertight implementation of it and I should not like to finish the day without making it perfectly clear that the Government as a whole, and all of the people who have been concerned with considering it, admire the way it has been dealt with. As the noble Lord will agree, we have met the greater number of his points. He asked me one direct and particularly awkward question on a subject upon which he and I do not see eye to eye and I will answer him very obliquely. I hope very much that we shall obtain permission to build our new prison at Maghaberry. If we do not obtain permission, we shall have to do something else. We have ideas about

955
what that "something else" will be but I have no intention of disclosing them. I am grateful for the variety of the debate which we have had and I hope the House will now approve the Second Reading.
On Question. Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
6.1 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of ENERGY (Lord Balogh): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Balogh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (162) as first printed by the Lords. The Commons Reason is printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 1 and 2]
Clause 2, page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) Subject to the provisions of Schedule I to this Act, where damage to any land or to anything lawfully on that land whenever constructed or brought thereon arises from the exercise of the right to withdraw support conferred on the Board by this section, the Board shall either—

(a) pay proper compensation for the damage including such consequential loss as would be recoverable in an action of nuisance in respect of that withdrawal, or

(b) with the consent (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) of the person who would otherwise be entitled to the payment of compensation for the damage, make good the damage to the reasonable satisfaction of that person and without expense to him;

and, where appropriate, the Board shall pay such proper compensation in accordance with paragraph (a) above for damage not made good in accordance with paragraph (b) above.").
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following Reason:
Because the Commons consider that the Lords Amendment would introduce a basis of compensation for subsidence damage much wider than that which has worked satisfactorily for many years and on the basis of which the
956
National Coal Board have prepared their plans for mining operations, and believe that Parliament should await the recommendations of Her Majesty's Government on this subject.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree with another place. Once more, I shall have to spell out briefly the reasons why the Government advise it and give ample assurance to noble Lords opposite. I hope that my assurances will even put at rest the inquiring mind of the noble Baroness opposite. The present compensation régime—this Amendment deals entirely with compensation—has not been working too badly. This was acknowledged by noble Lords opposite in the debate. As problems arise, ways can be found of dealing with them pragmatically. For example, as noble Lords know, the Board have recently concluded an agreement with the National Farmers' Union in relation to Selby. Until recently there was no agitation for a change. Even now the complaints that have been evoked by the Bill speak mostly about the fears of new damage or hypothetical losses, and quote very few cases where people have actually been suffering because of any inadequacy in the compensation offered by the Board.
Admittedly, this is largely because the Board often went well beyond their strict statutory responsibilities, and I accept that. It has been said that people would prefer to have a legal right, rather than receive compensation at the discretion of the Board. I accept that, too. But the important point, at least for the time being, is that, by and large, people are getting their compensation one way or another and that in general there is no hardship to speak of. I submit, therefore, that it would be prudent to wait, and that by waiting no untoward harm would be caused to anybody. We have a working group of officials studying the whole problem and it would be better to wait and adopt a more comprehensive approach to the problem when their report has been completed and evaluated. Noble Lords have complained about this Working Party. Generally, it has come in for a great deal of criticism on both sides of the House. But noble Lords opposite were in power for most of the life of the working group, and they know

957
better than anybody why the report has taken so long to prepare. It is simply because they were not given any priority. Their work was crowded out by the pressure of other events in the mining industry. But now the working group have been told to complete their report as quickly as possible. After our debates, I shall take a close personal interest in their activities and I can assure your Lordships that I shall keep up the pressure.
Since the House last debated the matter, there have been intensive discussions with the Coal Board. The full working group have met twice and a third meeting, this time with the Coal Board, is to take place later this week. I understand that good progress is being made in the formulation of a possible new régime, taking into account the evidence and views that have come to light during the passage of the Bill. This will require extensive rewriting of the original report prepared by the group last summer and suspended. The first draft of the new report is already in course of preparation and is, indeed, almost completed.
It is the working group's intention, which I shall do my best to see that they fulfil, to finalise their report before the end of the Summer Recess. The Government will then not allow any avoidable delay in making up their mind and putting proposals before the House. In our view, therefore, this Amendment would not be suitable as an interim measure to bridge the gap until a more comprehensive solution can be found. However simple it may be as an Amendment, its practical effects would be complex. It would radically change the present régime and would cause uncertainty and confusion both for the Coal Board and the surface owners while they adapted to the new circumstances, which will again be changed by the new impending legislation. More than that, it would restrict coal production just at a time when the Coal Board and the unions are getting together to try to improve it. By reducing the incentive to take suitable precautions, it could serve to increase the damage that is caused and to divert skilled professional manpower onto its evaluation and arguing the cases—both wasteful of the nation's resources. For all these reasons, I very much hope
958
that my assurance will be accepted by noble Lords opposite and that they will not insist on their Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Balogh.)
6.8 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this Motion in this way. I am also gratified that he has been able to reassure us to some extent. We still find that it is rather disappointing, and I thought that the attitude in the other place was rather surprising. This House received a great many accolades from all sides for the work it had done on this Bill and for producing this Amendment.
As the noble Lord has said, this is not a Party matter—thank Heavens! The Amendment attracted support from the Government side. Indeed, the only speaker on the Government side who was not altogether happy about the Amendment was unhappy about it only because he thought this was an attempt by the Opposition to frustrate the work of the National Coal Board, simply because it is a nationalised industry. May I take this opportunity to say that this is certainly not the intention of the Opposition—in fact, quite the reverse.
We may not wholly agree about the best way to organise the coal industry, but we are definitely agreed that we have the National Coal Board, and that we have to get on with making it as effective as we can. We want the National Coal Board to produce as much coal as possible, as quickly as possible and as cheaply as possible. Indeed, it is fair to say that if one takes a slightly longer look at the energy scene as it is likely to be over the next decades, the coal industry will probably continue to be with us for a great deal longer than the fledgling oil industry in the North Sea. Therefore, I think we should be taking a long view of this matter.
I am bound to say that I do not find the Government's fundamental case on this issue very convincing. To some extent, the noble Lord is admitting that the Government's case is not very good when he says that they are doing their best to get on with it and sort it out. On the one hand, he says not to worry, and then he

959
goes on and says that of course the situation is so complicated that this Working Party has been having a difficult time. He then gives us the slightly less than reassuring news that the Working Party, which thought it had come to a conclusion when the work began on this Bill, suddenly had to start all over again, which does not suggest that they had done their work very thoroughly and well in the fast few years. However, we do not want to be awkward about it; we want to wish them well and we want them to get on with it.
What I think we can say is that the Government have quite sensibly used this Bill as an opportunity to tidy up the slightly messy situation which had arisen in connection with the right to withdraw lateral and vertical support, and one would have thought it would have been an ideal moment, therefore, to tidy up the compensation situation. I do not want to get into an argument as to whether or not we are conferring new powers on the National Coal Board, because we have gone through the whole argument and we thought we were merely confirming powers that they already have. The noble Lord has admitted very handsomely that in its early days the Working Party showed less than an enormous sense of urgency, and let me be the first to admit that his Government are obviously not alone in sharing the blame for that. This is why I say that this is genuinely not a Party question at all. Right from the start, he has been impeccable in saying that the Government accept the social cost of coal, and this has to do with that.
We took a great deal of advice in introducing this Amendment and we thought it would be a useful holding situation; I would still be of this view. The industry was very generous in giving us help. We had a number of lawyers who assisted us in drafting the Amendment, and I thought it would be a useful contribution to giving the Government a little extra incentive. I am not very happy to hear the noble Lord saying, "We fear this might remove the incentive on people to avoid getting damaged." That seems to be a slightly brutal way for a large juggernaut of a nationalised industry to be looking at people. As I have said before, we are talking about individuals or small businesses or big businesses who are getting
960
on with their own affairs, when somebody comes and burrows a dirty great hole under them and stops them getting on with their business. The argument is whether or not, when you do that, you should compensate them for the consequent damage—not just rectifying what you have done, but the consequential loss which can result from this kind of activity.
The noble Lord has given us a date for the report, and he has given us an undertaking to work without delay to produce the necessary legislation. I should like to ask whether this means that his intention is either to publish the report or, more likely and perhaps better, to produce a White Paper without delay, setting out the Government's intentions; unless he is able to do the best thing of all, which is to give an undertaking to introduce the necessary legislation to tidy up this complicated question. But it was suggested to me that the Bill required to do this could well be as long as the Coal Industry Bill itself, and this is not a wholly simple or short measure. Therefore, one hopes that he will be able to give us a totally firm undertaking that the Government will be introducing legislation to deal with this matter, and that we shall have time to consider this legislation in the next Session of Parliament.
In the meantime, we are faced with the fact that we have one or two instances; we have the vexed question of the M6 motorway service station, where something has actually happened, and we have also read in the Press in the last few weeks of what I can only describe as sinister rumblings at Stoke-on-Trent. We do not even know whether these were due to mining subsidence, but there is a good deal of supposition that they may well be. I suggest that people could be suffering now. I think I should end by saying that it is only fair to warn the Government that no doubt we in this House shall not press this Amendment on the other House. But I think it only fair to say that we must warn the Government that if they show the slightest delay in bringing in the kind of legislation which we all agree is needed, then they deserve to be—and unquestionably will be—harried unmercifully, I hope from all sides of the House.
6.15 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for having risen before he was able to reply. I will not detain the House long, but as the only member of the old Turner Committee sitting in this House—and I doubt whether there is anyone else left now—I spent some two years or more studying the problem of mining subsidence in Great Britain and visiting every coal field. After long discussions we arrived at the key point theory and we made it available for local authorities or anyone building a house, or anyone engaged in major engineering work, to have available as never before, for a small fee at the local council office or the Coal Board, maps showing the intention, whether it was horizon mining or any other type of mining, the direction in which they were going. This key point formula under the Turner Committee was very important. I will not go into the arguments and I do not want to make a Party speech, but we tried to work out the method of compensation. I was one of the few people who believed that there should be a little less compensation and a little more put aside for compensating old miners who had paid perhaps £100 or £150 for houses, 30, 40 or 50 years ago, and who had a right to good compensation.
I should like to pay a tribute to the Coal Board for the way in which they applied the findings of the Turner Committee, and to many Governments of both Parties since then in trying to solve this great problem of the mining industry. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord opposite say that maybe we shall need the coal more than the oil and there will be coal there when the oil has gone. At the rate mankind is frenetically wasting its oil resources, I am inclined to agree. I know pits that have been closed in South Wales and know pits in the Stoke-on-Trent area that now have hundreds of years of coal available, and if we were to bother to work them it would help us with our balance of payments policy.
But coming back to the nub of this, having studied this problem and having looked at the Amendment it is much more important than merely the lawyers finding a formula. The technicality contained in this is that mining engineers and others have a terrific responsibility in judging this formula and Amendment,
962
and will be able, despite Schedule 1, through the broadening of this Amendment to build a house or a structure on an area that was undermined, without putting in rafts. The raft building is absolutely essential. In some of these mining areas schools have collapsed. The man who lives outside the mining areas has no idea of the psychosomatic effect of coalmines, mining subsidence, coal tip,, and the social price that the Durham, Scottish, Welsh and all types of miners have paid for the energy that we have had since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
Consequently I am delighted that the Government intend to go into this in depth. I support the demand for an early inquiry into this, because it is my belief that whatever Government are in power next time Britain must mine its coal more effectively and better than we have ever done in the past. But let us realise what this Bill is intended to do. I do not want the House to get worried—I shall finish in about six minutes. What does this Bill intend to do? It intends to facilitate the production of coal by measures granting the Board—and I am paraphrasing—improved access to resources of deep mine coal, so that the demand for deep-mine coal could undermine the key points policy. So you could drive under a cathedral and it might be said, "People don't visit cathedrals like they used to. Let a little bit of the cathedral collapse, and let the Coal Board patch it up."
My Lords, I have an interest which I ought to declare. I have a house in the Stoke-on-Trent area and suffered from the earthquake—when a huge girder, fifteen feet long by six inches collapsed on my garage, or carport, last Friday. It was terrifying. I had to send for the builders, and it has cost me £150 of my own money to make that carport safe, because I did not want it to collapse on a child, or on my wife as she drove her car in. I could not wait to have an argument with the Coal Board. That was the result of those tremors. I have not vet approached the Coal Board—but I know how to do it!
Consequently, the Government are quite right here, with all due respect to the lawyers. Engineers come in on this, and others, and I think that the Government are right at this moment, because

963
this Amendment widens it, and destroys the key point theory put forward by the Turner Committee. It is of vital importance. Many of the beauties of the Northumberland coast have been preserved because pillars of coal were left in the deep-mining areas. I do not think there has been a Party difference here, but in support of the noble Lord who spoke from the other side, I hope the Government will give major attention to this matter, because it is connected with Britain winning more home energy, which will help our balance of payments problem.
6.22 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, because I do not find myself in disagreement with him at all. The key point formula with which he was associated on a Committee has provided exactly the type of compensation which—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balogh—has been satisfactorily used and operated in the past, either under that formula or under what has been known as the Robens-style Committee. I think the Government have laid worry and suspicion upon those who might be affected, and who, from time to time, are affected because their houses or farms are already over mines. A Committee has been sitting for three years; the present Government say it has been told to pursue its inquiries into this admittedly complicated question so far as possible, and perhaps we will have a report in a few months. People cannot understand why the basis of compensation is changed in this Bill before that inquiry reports, and before we have all the details of that inquiry.
Naturally this will spread suspicion and worry that the new statutory provisions in this Bill, by the stroke of a pen, can supersede the Robens agreements which have proved very fair and satisfactory. People are concerned because they cannot see why we cannot wait until the inquiry and the new basis. They cannot understand why we cannot stay on the present arrangement until the Committee reports. The noble Lord had quite a lot of fun at my expense last time in my references to consequential loss. This afternoon he talked about hypothetical losses. The
964
opening of the Corley Service Centre has been delayed perhaps for months—or, as has been forecast, for perhaps two years. The building is completed, staff taken on, and I have no doubt the electricity board, the gas board and the telephone people will be charging rentals for meters, telephones and so on; the building will have to be kept secure, and clean; its equipment will have to be kept in order until it is safe for thousands of people to go through it. To me, that is consequential loss.
In the same way, in North Stoke—and I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, in that he has been a victim—walls have cracked, chimneys have crashed down, and people have had to move out. These people may have neighbourly friends who will put them up, or they may have had to go to stay in hotels or boarding houses. They may even have to travel long distances to stay with other people. To me, that is consequential loss.
My Lords, I hope we shall see a very prompt rendering of this Report, and that recognition will be given to the reality of consequential loss. I believe very firmly that when that Report comes out, we shall have to amend those clauses in this Bill which we find unfair and not sufficiently comprehensive to meet what has previously been the policy of the Coal Board of fairly compensating not only for physical damage, but for genuine, established consequential loss.
6.27 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I should like to add one more thing. In my own part of the world, we had a very interesting experience which I think I should have spoken about when we were debating the original proposition. My local authority of Tyne-mouth built a lot of new council houses. All the proper investigations took place, the plans were passed, and the council houses built. Then, suddenly one day, a hole appeared and a pram went down it. Fortunately, the pram was empty. Of course, there was an investigation, and it was discovered that in the old days, when the Priory, which was part of the historic interest of Tynemouth, was occupied by monks many hundreds of years ago, the monks had done quite a lot of coal-mining. No records were kept in those

965
days; neither was there really any private enterprise, and certainly there was no Coal Board. The monks had been mining under the area where the Tynemouth local authority built the council houses. As you can imagine, there was great consternation as to the result.
As a result, my local authority made a thorough investigation. They put a new layer of concrete under the houses because, as there were no records of the monks mining in those days, there was no certainty that this kind of disaster could not happen again. I am putting this on the record only because it may be that the present Coal Board, as appears from the speech that was made this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, probably does not know about it. I am wondering whether, if any other incidents like this occur, the local authority will be able to get compensation for the extra opening up of the sites on which the council houses are built and the new concrete that has to be underlaid in order to make the houses safer. I wonder whether that is a matter that ought to be put on the record of the Coal Board, so that if in future we have any further difficulty we are able to go to the Coal Board and get compensation for any additional work with which we may have to deal.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend and indeed congratulate him on leading, I am sure the House would agree, a very thorough investigation into the Bill while it went through the House. I believe the Bill has produced two interesting aspects. One is the pace at which Government Working Parties apparently work—and in this case it seems an unacceptable pace—and, secondly, that a Government Department apparently drafts clauses in a Bill in an area on which the Working Party is working without, it seems, any reference to that Working Party, which is still working. It seems a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. I think that the Government deserve to be criticised on this issue, and I think the least the Minister can do is to give the undertaking that he has given this afternoon. It undoubtedly touches upon the very delicate subject of compensation, and is a matter which should be resolved and clarified, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, said, without any question.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for accepting my assurances. I am not going to pursue our differences, because there will be ample opportunity to do so when the Report of this Working Party comes out. On the whole I should have liked to have more sympathy and less rebuke for the work of the Working Party, of which I knew nothing at all for some time. Now I know, and the sort of things which have been criticised will, I think, be dealt with promptly, and I hope—we all agree that this is not a Party political issue—to the satisfaction of the other side. So far as the noble Baroness's monks are concerned, I am not absolutely sure, but I shall try to investigate whether the Coal Board has acquired the liabilities of monkeries probably destroyed by Henry VIII. If my historical researches produce some interesting additional knowledge, I shall communicate with the noble Baroness.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHILD BENEFIT BILL
6.33 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I wish to move one Amendment. This is a technical Amendment consequent on an Amendment to the Social Security Pensions Bill made in your Lordships' House. It is in relation to Schedule 5, where it is necessary, at page 31, line 6, column 3, to leave out the figures "47" and to insert the figures "48". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 6, column 3, leave out ("47") and insert ("48").—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Bill read 3a; with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SEX DISCRIMINATION BILL
6.36 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 3 [Discrimination against married persons in employment field]:
Viscount HANWORTH Viscount HANWORTH moved Amendment No. I:
Page 2, line 12, after ("married person") insert ("or parent").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, with the agreement of the House, I should like to speak to this Amendment and to Amendments Nos. 2, 5 and 7. The intention of these Amendments is simply to ensure that there is no discrimination against unmarried mothers, as the clause mentions only "married persons". I am sure that nearly all noble Lords will agree with this principle, something which we might have had reservations about some years ago but which today cannot possibly be logically sustained. I do not think it is necessary to elaborate this aspect in any more detail.
Before putting down this Amendment I had some doubts as to whether the Bill as it stands did not cover the point, but my legal advisors are of the opinion that it does not do so. Certainly unmarried mothers are at present discriminated agianst in some cases in the granting of maternity leave; for example, one institution for advanced education has recently made a distinction on this basis. There are other ways in which distinction and discrimination in fact occurs. If the Bill needs amendment to cover the point, then it follows that further Amendments should be made to Part III of the Bill so that housing and similar matters are also covered. I beg to move.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Hanworth. Whatever the marital status of a woman
968
may be, she should surely be treated in the same way in regard to having paid time off from her work, whether for pregnancy or sickness of a child. The way Clause 3 is worded, it seems to me to discriminate not only against single women who have a child but also divorcees. In either case, the welfare of the child is of paramount importance, and we have no reason to discriminate between children because of the status, marital or otherwise, of the mother.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, may I say a word on this, if the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will forgive me. It is a topic on which perhaps I may be allowed to speak, even if I am doing so from the Dispatch Box, because I was for quite some time the President of what used to be the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child. The noble Baroness, Lady Serota, has now taken that august position from me, and very rightly so. It is absolutely correct that an organisation like that should keep its eye upon legislation as it goes through Parliament and should seek every opportunity it gets to draw attention to the disabilities which are, by reason of attitude or of law, imposed upon one-parent families—and it does not matter whether it is the mother or the father looking after the children.
What I suggest to the noble Viscount, with very great deference to him—and, if I may say so, to his wife, who is now the Chairman of this organisation—is that one has sometimes to look at the scope of the legislation to see whether this reform fits into it. I am sympathetic to the sort of case which underlies the Amendment, but I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will tell us whether this is really within the scope of the mischief with which we are trying to deal under this Bill, or whether it might not be more appositely dealt with on another occasion in other legislation.
I do not wish to suggest that, meanwhile, persuasion should not be brought on those who discriminate in this way. But I wonder whether we are getting wide of the fairly narrow purpose of this Bill, and whether, if we let in this sort of discrimination which is not on the grounds of sex, or perhaps of marital status, we are also going to get ourselves

969
involved in a number of other discriminations, and shall have so unwieldy a vehicle that we shall not know at all how to handle it. It is worth while raising this point, but it is not one that fits easily within the fairly limited ambit of the Bill as discussed in this House and in another place.
6.42 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am sure there is no dispute between either side of the House, or between the Government and the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment, about the urgency of this problem. However, like the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, I find it difficult to accept that this problem can best be dealt with in terms of this Bill. The intended effect of the Amendments of the noble Viscount is to make it unlawful to discriminate either directly under Clause 3(1)(a) against a "parent", or indirectly under Clause 3(1)(b). I must make it clear at the outset that the object of the Bill, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, pointed out, is to deal with a particular kind of prejudice—that based on a person's sex. This is a major problem which requires complex treatment. I do not think there will be any doubt about that after the discussions we have had on the Bill.
Without, I hope, sounding unduly complacent, I think that the Government have done their best to tackle this problem with some energy, making this Bill, when it eventually reaches the Statute Book, one of the most far-reaching antidiscrimination measures which exist in any country of the Western world. But we have paid a price for this. As my noble friend Lady Gaitskell pointed out on the last occasion, the Bill is already lengthy and complex. As she said, it is not easy for members of the public to follow it. I agree with her and the noble Viscount too in saying that the Commission will have a major job in simply communicating to public opinion as a whole in this country what is in this Bill, when it eventually goes on to the Statute Book.
I believe that the problem facing the Commission will become intolerably difficult if we start at this late stage of the Bill in trying to widen it in this way. If business is conducted moderately expeditiously in this House and another
970
place, then with good fortune this Bill will be put on the Statute Book by the end of next week. That is our hope at the moment. But that will be greatly prejudiced if at this stage we attempt to widen the Bill in the way the noble Viscount has done today. I do not in any way doubt the admirable motives which have moved him, but the Amendment raises the most formidable problems, which it would be extremely difficult for us to resolve in the week or nine days between now and when the House rises for the Summer Recess. It would further complicate an already complicated Bill.
May I give some indications of the problems which would arise in terms of the Amendments moved by the noble Viscount, and deal with the whole clutch at the same time? First, if the intention is, as the noble Viscount said it was, to help the one-parent family in particular, I do not think it will succeed in that objective because the vast majority of cases covered by the Amendments would be married people and not simply the unmarried mother or the mother and father of the one-parent family. Unmarried mothers would not benefit unless less favourable treatment was also visited upon married mothers. That is the first problem.
Secondly, it is right to look at the problem facing mothers, married or not, covered by this Amendment. Many of the most daunting problems face the mothers of young children, be they married or unmarried mothers. The problem of illness is particularly difficult for a working mother with young children. The problem of school holidays is a great deal more difficult for a mother with young children than for a mother with older children. But if an intending employer, even if these Amendments were to reach the Statute Book, were to discriminate against a young mother who could be disadvantaged for exactly the reasons I have endeavoured to point out, and he did not discriminate against those with older families, then he would not be discriminating on the grounds of parental status, which is the mischief at which these Amendments are endeavouring to be directed.
Further, exactly who is a "parent" as defined by this Amendment? The problem is not defined, and this is another

971
difficulty that we should face. Is it intended that the protection would end when the child reached 18? The Amendment does not say so. If it does end at the age of 18, what about the woman with a handicapped son and daughter of 30, who could equally face difficult employment problems? All I am endeavouring to do is not to nit-pick but to point out that there are formidable difficulties which would emerge if these Amendments were carried today at a very late stage in the Bill's progress through the House.
As I indicated at the beginning of my speech, the insertion of Amendments at this late stage would cause serious damage to the cause of getting this Bill implemented speedily. In addition, it would make the job of the Commission in getting the Bill easily understood a great deal more difficult. This is a Bill to deal with one form of discrimination; it cannot conceivably cover every possible form of discrimination against any disadvantaged group, without making the job of the Commission totally impossible. I do not think that anyone on this side of the House would in any way wish to underestimate the grave difficulties facing unmarried mothers and other people responsible for one-parent families, but it is extremely difficult to deal with that problem within the confines of this Bill.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question? Could he say whether, as the Bill stands, one can discriminate between a married person and a married person with children? This seems to me to be the nub of the question. If the Bill does not prevent one from doing that, then I can accept the noble Lord's arguments, but if it does then I cannot. I am asking at this stage for clarification on that point before I decide what to do.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I have some points to put to the Minister and I am wondering whether he intends to speak again, in which case he will have to seek the leave of the House.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, this is the moment when it is worth while making a certain protest. One does not have anything except sympathy for the Ministers who are in charge of this Bill and my protest is addressed not to them but to the Government, whose ill control of their legislative programme—and, I may add, of the affairs of the country—have led us into a situation like the one we face tonight. I am bitterly resentful of the fact that this highly important and complex Bill will not get a separate Third Reading after a reasonable time following its Report stage to enable us to deal with the no doubt highly complex matters which will be raised tonight and possibly on another night. I am resentful that this Report stage should be occurring at the fag end of an evening after a lot of other business, and that we are promised that it will be continued after the long and no doubt extremely complex arguments on the Committee and other stages of the anti-inflation Bill on Thursday.
This is no way to treat this Bill. As a result of all this, we find ourselves in a position we often get with nice Bills which do a lot of good but which are not absolutely essential to the Government's programme; we have veiled threats held over us—that unless we are good little boys, do not divide and are not awkward in other ways, the whole thing will be delayed, it might be lost and then we would get nowhere. I always think that this is an unworthy situation, and it is no less unworthy when I appreciate that noble Ministers are not attempting to exercise blackmail but are simply telling the truth as it happens. This is the situation they find themselves up against, but nevertheless I do not feel that this Report stage should go by without somebody making this point.
Having registered that protest, I come to the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, which could and should be taken into account in this Bill without too much difficulty if we had the necessary time. Unfortunately, we do not have that time and I rather suspect that, because of this, the noble Viscount will have little alternative but to withdraw his Amendment. This is a pity, because this situation could have been avoided by the better management of the Bill and the

973
other business of the House. This is all part of a process which has been building up and it is a great pity that we shall not be able to deal with the very real problem to which the noble Viscount has drawn attention, and he has my sympathy in the efforts he has made to try to deal with it.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I quite understand the position in which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, finds himself, and in view of this I will simply ask him whether, in discussion with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education, he will raise one area where discrimination is caused by local education authorities. It might be helpful if the noble Lord could say something to them to make the situation easier. For example, one teacher was told that she must live outside the borough if she wished to teach there. In another case, a teacher was told at her interview that the staff must not be told the facts; the alternative was for her to wear a wedding ring and call herself "Mrs." Occurrences like that are an unfortunate start to any young teacher's career and I hone, if this Amendment cannot be accepted, that the noble Lord will discuss this issue with his right honourable friend to try to make the situation in this area easier.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I will, with the leave of the House, speak a second time. I will gladly take up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and, indeed, my noble friend the Minister of State is with us today and will have taken note of the point. I am aware that problems of this sort sometimes arise in the area which the noble Baroness has identified and I will certainly draw to the attention of my right honourable friend what she said.
In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, while I am certainly young in the service of the House. I think I am right in saying that complaints of this sort have been made in previous years. Governments of different political persuasions have found themselves in exactly the difficulties in which we find ourselves. I do not want to be unfair to my noble friend Lord Hanworth, because the point he
974
has raised is important, but it is exceedingly difficult to have raised at the very last stage of a Bill's progress through this House, the measure having gone through another place, a new issue of major significance and I hope that we can keep to the timetable which I outlined in my Second Reading speech in this House when I pointed out that we wished this Bill to be implemented at the same time as the Equal Pay Act, in December of this year.
We are working undoubtedly to a very tight timetable, but even if we had unlimited time available and could go into this matter in greater detail, I would still doubt very greatly whether we could hope to deal with every possible form of discrimination against anybody in this Bill. We must recognise that we cannot deal with everything in this Bill, and this is not in any way to underestimate the importance of this issue and the fact that many of the people, about whom my noble friend Lord Hanworth has been speaking, have the gravest difficulties in getting through life. I do not wish in any way to indicate that we are complacent about it because we are in no sense complacent. However, I do not think this Bill is the right way of tackling their problems.
I endeavoured to point out that the problem which my noble friend has identified is being raised by him under Clause 3, a clause which deals with what is in reality the marriage bar used against women to keep them out of certain types of job, and that is a provision which will be of some significance to some women in thic category. I also draw my noble friend's attention to Clause 1(1)(a) which says:
"A person discriminates against a woman in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act if…on the ground of her sex he treats her less favourably than he treats or would treat a man…"
They are two provisions which seem relevant in answer to his question. I recognise at once that they do not totally meet his point, but I hope, for the reasons I have indicated, that he will not press his Amendment.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, the Minister did not answer my last question. Does the Bill as drafted prevent discrimination as between a married woman and a married woman with

975
children? if it does, then I would consider myself justified in pressing the Amendment. If it does not, then I would accept that probably the Bill as a whole does not cover this kind of thing. I should like an absolute and clear answer to this question.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: As I have tried to point out, my Lords, the Bill deals with sex discrimination and sex discrimination only.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, in all the circumstances, remembering that this is the Report stage, I probably should withdraw the Amendment, though I must say I am not convinced by many of my noble friend's arguments and I am certainly not convinced of the importance of rushing the Bill through. In my view, its importance lies in its psychological effect rather than its legal effect, and hence so long as it is on the stocks and ready to be implemented, it will probably be as effective as if it had been an Act. But that is by the way, and I now beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Exception where sex is a genuine occupational qualification]:
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 28, after ("available") insert ("for persons holding that kind of job")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment relates to the interpretation of Clause 7(2)(c)(i) which, subject to subparagraph (ii), provides for exceptions where:
"…the only such premises which are available are lived in, or normally lived in, by men and are not equipped with separate sleeping accommodation for women and sanitary facilities which could be used by women in privacy from men".
A point of interpretation has arisen in connection with the employment of women in ships where the only available accommodation is communal. In many ships, there are several blocks of communal accommodation which are related to the duties of the crew members who occupy them and which are often situated conveniently near the part of the ship where the crew's duties are carried out. There are separate blocks for the crew members who are on watchkeeping duties
976
—that is a type of shift work—in order that they should not disturb the sleep of others who are not on such duties. There can be separate blocks of living accommodation for deck ratings, engine room ratings and catering ratings. Certainly, at the present time and probably for some years to come, each of these blocks will be lived in, or normally lived in, by men. Sub-paragraph (i) says that the exception applies where only such premises are available, but I am advised that these words do not cover the subdivision of accommodation into separate quarters. They relate to the totality of the living accommodation of a ship, and therefore the requirement of sub-paragraph (i) cannot be met by any ship which has more than one block of sleeping and sanitary accommodation for its crew. By definition, such a shin is equipped with separate sleeping and sanitary accommodation which could be used in privacy from men.
I take as an example a ship which has separate job-related blocks of accommodation and which is recruiting crew members before it sails. As sub-paragraph (i) is now drafted, if a woman applies to join the ship, it may not be possible to claim that Clause 7(2)(c) applies because the ship will fail to meet the requirement of sub-paragraph (i). This will be so whether the woman is the first or the last applicant. However, until such time as we have an abundance of women seafarers, it is likely that it will be necessary to recruit men to occupy the communal accommodation to ensure that there are sufficient crew members to run the ship efficiently and to enable it to sail on schedule.
The Amendment removes the difficulty. It will enable the exception to be applied where there are separate blocks of job-related accommodation but only as long as the requirements of sub-paragraph (ii) as well as those of sub-paragraph (i) have been met. It will be necessary for the employer to show that the provisions of sub-paragraph (ii) are satisfied. This would require the employer to show that it would not be reasonable to expect him to provide separate accommodation for women. I repeat that, for the exception to apply, both paragraphs of subsection (2)(c) must be satisfied, so that the Amendment does not provide that all ships with communal accommodation will

977
be excepted from the Bill. The only effect of the Amendment is that such ships will not be excluded from Clause 7(2)(c) by the drafting of sub-paragraph (i) but will be available to attempt to claim that sub-paragraph (ii) applies. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.7 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 33, after ("reasonable") insert ("on grounds of cost").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will remember that this is an Amendment which we moved on Committee stage, but which, partly owing to defective drafting on my part, we withdrew. The position is that these subsections contain exceptions to the Bill and that it is the business of those who are putting forward the Bill, and particularly of the Government who are responsible for its drafting, to justify them. Where possible, we want to limit these exceptions as much as we can.
We challenged the point as to whether there were any grounds except those of cost on which it would not be reasonable to expect the employer to equip the premises or to provide other premises. At the time, this was in the nature of a probing Amendment, but it uncovered some rather murky ground because, in dealing with the Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, produced as a possible alternative reason why it should not be reasonable to expect an employer to provide accommodation or equip premises the case of a solitary female who wanted a job which would necessitate her being with, say, 10 or 11 men in a far distant area.
This seems to a number of us to go to the very heart of the Bill and to be exactly what we are trying to fight. This is a Bill to do away with discrimination against women because they are poor little things who are not capable of doing jobs or because they are likely to be raped if they find themselves in distant parts of the world with 11 strong men. We do not believe that this reflects the kind of situation in which working men and women find themselves in this century. Unless the noble Lord can, on behalf of the Government, produce arguments as to why accommodation should not be
978
equipped or premises provided other than that of cost and other than that which he provided during the Committee stage, I do not feel that the Bill as it stands is acceptable. I beg to move.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has twice said that this is a Bill which concerns discrimination against women. I should like to remind the noble Lord that it deals with discrimination on grounds of sex against men or women. It is important to remember that, because we are in danger of falling into the trap of dealing with the Bill from one angle only.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I accept the view that where there are exceptions of this kind it is for those who are putting forward the Bill to justify them. I also agree that in most cases to which Clause 7(2)(c)(ii) may be pleaded, the ultimate reason for any alterations being unreasonable will come back to cost in some sense of the word. Almost anything can be achieved by an employer who is prepared to wait long enough and to pay enough for it. Therefore, the questions of practicability, delay and so on can all eventually be brought back to that of cost. However, the Amendment might have the effect of limiting the defence only to the cost of making the actual physical alterations that would be necessary and excluding consideration of any indirect costs involved, particularly costs to some other person.
Previously, I gave examples involving a small ship on which a woman crew member could be accommodated in privacy only by taking up so much of the cargo space that the ship was no longer economically viable for its main purpose. It is quite true that the ultimate reason for the employer to resist doing this is what it will cost him in lost revenue and so on, but the cost of the alterations might be very low indeed. I should like to take another example involving ships. A crew may be recruited for a ship which must sail within a very short period. A woman may apply for a vacancy, but there is no accommodation for her at the time. The necessary alterations might he relatively cheap, but the materials might not be immediately available so that the voyage would be delayed, perhaps for some days. It is possible that many people, including passengers, would be

979
inconvenienced. In those circumstances, it would be very difficult to assess the whole of the inconvenience in money terms.
We think there should be no doubt that a tribunal may take into account indirect costs of this kind as well as direct costs of equipping the premises. Therefore, we prefer that the clause should remain as it is. I should make it clear that the clause ties the question of what it is reasonable to expect to the direct and indirect effects of making the necessary alterations. It would not be open for the tribunal to consider, for example, whether or not a job is suitable for a woman. All we are concerned to ensure is that the full consequences of making such alterations as would be necessary may be taken into account—and not merely the direct financial costs of the alterations themselves. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel that he can withdraw his Amendment.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his extremely full answer. I am delighted with the last assurance, that it is tied to the direct and indirect costs and the effect of providing accommodation, and nothing else. I am also pleased that the idea that this clause might, because of prejudice, be used against one woman having a job among 11 men in a different area, is merely a spectre. I am still not entirely certain about this mythical ship which, if one woman is put aboard it, automatically becomes unviable because of its reduced cargo-carrying capacity. I wish that my noble friend Lady Seear, who unfortunately is in Australia, was here, because she was even more sceptical than myself about whether such ships existed. But in the circumstances the explanation which the noble Lord has given so fully is very reasonable, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.13 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 6, line 14, leave out ("or could not effectively")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I should like, with the leave of the House, to speak to
980
another Amendment to line 19, because these two Amendments are tied together. I hope that is suitable to the noble Lord who is to reply. I wish to thank him for giving me such a very full letter containing details in reply to the Amendment which I moved on the previous occasion—
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I want to be as helpful as I can, but I think it would be to the advantage of everyone if we kept these two Amendments separate, because they are independent.
Baroness VICKERS: First, as I said, I wish to thank the noble Lord for the very long and detailed letter he sent to me. I was delighted to see that it was signed in red ink. That reminded me of that grand old lady Mrs. Braddock who always wrote everything in red ink. In this respect the letter gave me thoughts of the past. I am moving this Amendment because I am not satisfied with the letter, despite its detailed observations. During the debate on 14th July, the noble Lord mentioned at col. 1052 representations by the CBI and others. Therefore, before I received the noble Lord's letter I did a considerable amount of research and got in touch with the CBI. Interestingly enough, I phoned and got the exact examples given in the letter—and no more.
The letter also quotes cases. I shall not go into all the details but it mentions in particular the example of an American company employing women secretaries and typists at a site, which it was told it must leave. Clearly, they had not been included in the personnel when the curricula vitae was sent. It was said that this case is not unique. But as no other cases have been given, it may be unique. Therefore, I was not very satisfied with that part of the reply. It was stated that other types of cases could arise elsewhere in the world. Of course cases can always arise. I do not think that that point is very much of an argument in regard to my previous Amendment or my present one. It was stated in the letter that it was no use sending a woman geologist to be involved in taking samples in underground mines in a country where all employment for women underground is prohibited. The noble Lord mentioned France; surely it is prohibited in Britain as well? I do not regard that

981
argument as very convincing. This is cited as an example of where laws rather than customs could be involved. As I have said, it is the same in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord goes on to say that this exception must be retained.
I now wish to suggest that I have mitigated these ideas about putting a less strong Amendment and perhaps the noble Lord might consider this. I wish to ask him one other question concerning women in the Diplomatic Service. I understand that an unmarried woman is acceptable in the Diplomatic Service, but that a married woman is still not accepted by the Foreign Office for the Diplomatic Service. Perhaps the noble Lord can let me know whether this position has been changed recently. Certainly, it had not been changed when I last inquired. I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord may accept this Amendment, because it is what I call a qualifying Amendment. We are to have the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference, and as I am a delegate I saw a magnificent opportunity to get other examples. I am only sorry that the Conference has not taken place before this debate today; otherwise, I might have had even better arguments to put forward. I hope that in view of what I have said the noble Lord will consider my present Amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, perhaps someone will tell us what is the difference between "could not" and "could not effectively." I suppose there is a distinction. The Amendment proposes that the words "or could not effectively" should be left out. It seems to me that there is an attempt here to press some fastidious distinctions to the point of absurdity. There is no room left—or there will shortly be no room left—in this Bill for any common sense. If it is not in the Bill, it will not be anywhere; and if it is not in the Bill one need do nothing about it. I am an old campaigner for equality for women, but I feel that at present we are spending a good deal of effort in pressing points to find distinctions on theoretical situations, without troubling about the fundamental weaknesses of what we are doing namely, not giving the support to women to take the opportunities which this Bill is intended to provide.
982
We must consider the women with children. They are the majority of the people who will be going into employment and who will be taking advantage under the Bill, if there are advantages to be taken under it. Yet we are quite casual about this. Where is the family support? Where are the day nurseries? Where is the fundamental change in the relationship between husband and wife and the economic relationship between the two which is an indispensable condition of equality? This Bill is only tinkering with the opportunity for the limited number of women who can avail themselves of it. The great bulk of women are going to be in bondage still when this Bill is passed. I am sorry to lose my patience, but that is how I feel about pressing Amendments which try to distinguish between "could not" and "could not effectively".
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I agree with the last 90 per cent. of what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said. I could not agree with the first 10 per cent. because despite the absolute truth of the great majority of what he said our business is to get this Bill right as it is. This is a useful Amendment because I entirely agree with the question Lord Houghton asked: what is the difference between "could not" and "could not effectively"? That is why we think it is unnecessary to have the second part in the Bill. If this should unfortunately ever come to be a matter to be decided by an industrial tribunal or any court, I think it would be easier if they have to decide whether this is a job a woman could do because of the laws and customs of another country or whether it is one she could not do effectively. It seems to me to leave open areas which could be argued with the kind of minutiae and fine points that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, rightly, does not want to see. It is just an important, simplifying little clause; and the fact that we have not touched on a large number of the major matters on which I feel as passionately as does the noble Lord but do not feel this is the Amendment to speak about them, does not in any way stand against the benefits that we should get, small though they would be, through passing this Amendment.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like to support the noble Baroness who moved this Amendment. It is always a mistake to qualify things. I do not like "could not effectively" because that would lead to discussion as to whether or not they could or could not effectively do the job. Either the job can be done by a woman or a man—and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that we must think in terms of men and women—or it cannot. I would prefer to see the simple phrase and to leave out those words. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, mentioned countries where women are not by custom, law or tradition allowed to do certain jobs. These are exactly the kind of countries and women we want to support and help. This is one of the things which might start a kind of liberation in those countries. I do not disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in saying that there are many areas where women are severely handicapped by the laws of this land. This is, we hope, a big step to free women from those discriminatory laws. But it would be a better Bill if we were to take out these qualifying phrases. It is not a matter of splitting hairs. It would be much stronger and better to remove those words. And I hope the Government will see the effectiveness of removing this sentence.
Lord JACQUES: In view of what appeared to be the understanding on this issue in Committee, I should like to make two points. First, I want to make it quite clear that where the duties are wholly or mainly outside the United Kingdom this Bill does not apply. We are not dealing with that kind of situation. The situation we are dealing with is where some of the duties are outside the United Kingdom. The second point is that the exceptions are not exceptions to the prejudice of women. Whatever applies to women also applies to men. The interpretation clause makes that clear as well as this clause of the Bill. Later I will give examples applying to men as well as to women.
In our view by seeking to delete the words "or could not effectively" from paragraph (g) the noble Baroness is saying that the exception should be available only where laws and customs of the country are such that the duties of a job could not be performed by a woman at
984
all. Here I underline the words "at all". Furthermore, in effect she is saying that where a job of the kind we are considering could not effectively be done by a woman, an employer would nevertheless have to consider men and women equally for the job. One has only to put the proposition in this way to see that it could act in a way which is unreasonable.
I will give two examples. First, take a consultancy assignment on a site in Saudi Arabia which involved supervision of locally-employed staff. In such a situation, there is no doubt that if a woman was given the job then, because of the attitude of the people in that country towards women, she would not be able to do the job effectively because her orders would not be carried out. If the noble Baroness's Amendment were accepted, the exception would not apply because the job could be done by a woman, in the sense that the duties could be carried out by a woman although not effectively. The second example is based on a statement made by the noble Baroness in Committee at col. 1053 of the Official Report where she said:
"I can assure your Lordships that I have been in harems where a man would not be allowed to go."
These women buy a lot of goods. I base my next example on that statement. Supposing that a cosmetics firm wants to appoint a representative. Presumably, cosmetics would be sold in places where men are not allowed to go and also in places where men would be allowed to go. It follows that a man could do the job but not effectively. In our view that employer would be right in saying that the man could not do that effectively and it is a job for a woman. I think that is a very fair case. I believe it shows there is a need for the clause as it stands. It is necessary for the employer to have that freedom which is to the prejudice of neither men nor women.
I should like to point out that any employer would tend to rely on the clause to convince a tribunal—if there were a complaint from a woman who was discriminated against—that the specific laws and customs in the country or countries where the job-holder would be required to work were such that the exception applied. This would put an onerous burden on the employer. With that explanation and the examples I have given I

985
hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her Amendment.
Baroness VICKERS: I am not very satisfied with the reply. I was astonished that Lord Houghton almost repeated his remarks when he attacked me previously at col. 1035 of the Official Report on July 14th when he said:
"Is it necessary to provide for situations which go further than people want to go?"—
and—
"We shall be unwise to pursue some of these points to four or five places of decimals in order to establish theoretical non-discrimination…".
Surely this is a non-discrimination Bill. I am astonished that he has taken two opportunities to repeat the same point. The examples given by the noble Lord are what he kindly gave in his letter to me—he has obviously nothing new. He has not answered my point about married women in the Diplomatic Service; perhaps he could do that before I decide what I am going to do about the Amendment.
Lord JACQUES: Since that is not a matter for my Department, my Lords, I will make inquiries and write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, that will leave it open to me to put down another Amendment at Third Reading. In view of what has been said, and the lateness of the hour, with great regret I will withdraw the Amendment and hope to get further knowledge at the Inter-Parliamentary Conference, and perhaps we will get another chance to make further progress in another Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 6, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) Paragraph (c) of subsection (2) shall not apply after the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the second part of the Amendment which I put forward at the Committee stage and which, because of my bad drafting, failed. I have put it forward now because I do not think that the answers we were given at that stage were very satisfactory. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has agreed, generously and
986
rightly, that it is for the proponents of the Bill to defend the exceptions. I do not think he will quarrel with the desire of a number of your Lordships to try to limit these exceptions in terms of time v; here it seemed reasonable to do so. I wonder whether there are and situations where, after five years from the passing of this Act, it would still be reasonable for an employer to say that he could not provide premises or alternative accommodation. Five years is a long time in which to write off costs; it is a long time in which to make alterations, and to do it in the cheapest and most economic way.
If there are such cases where, after five years, it seems likely that it would be thoroughly unreasonable to expect an employer to provide the accommodation, then—although I cannot speak for the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers—I should be happy to withdraw the Amendment. It is just a question of seeing whether this particular exception is justified after a period of five years. I suspect that it is not, and that to give a time limit like this would concentrate employers' minds massively on how to put into effect what this Bill is all about, and how to provide alternative accommodation in the best and cheapest possible way. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, even if it were realistic to expect that in the five years allowed employers would set about rebuilding their premises in case a woman or a man should for the first time apply for a job, an employer may find it impossible to estimate what proportions of men and women are going to apply for employment. He is therefore in a difficulty in providing the exact amount of accommodation for each sex. There will always be the marginal case where the only space left is accommodation already occupied by a person of one sex. Without Clause 7(2)(c), it would be unlawful for the employer to turn down a person of the other sex for that last job. That would apply particularly to ships.
I must also point out that we are not dealing only with the continuous situation; there is also the one-off situation where workers are, for example, sent to live in temporary buildings on a remote site. Whether it is reasonable to expect separate premises to be provided for women in such cases must be judged on

987
its merits; whether the Act has been in force for two years or ten years when the situation arises is hardly of any great relevance. It is the merits of the case at the time.
The exception, as it stands, is not a very wide one. To claim it, the employer will need to show that it is necessary, not merely expedient, because of the nature or location of the establishment, for the jobholder to live in the premises provided, and that he cannot reasonably make arrangements to accommodate an applicant of a particular sex without making men and women employees share the same sleeping quarters or the same non-private sanitary facilities. Unless those conditions are fulfilled, the exception will not apply, and the employer will be obliged to make the necessary alternative arrangements. I do not think we can assume that it is possible, with the best will in the world, to ensure that these conditions will not apply anywhere after 1981, and where they do, it is right that the exceptions should continue to be available. I hope that with this explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I cannot say that I am tremendously happy with that answer. There is an undertone in it, as there was in the answer to my Amendment No. 9, which I find disturbing. The noble Lord said something to the effect that employers could not be expected to see in advance what requirements they would need in five years. So long as they do not have to provide the accommodation because it is unreasonble now, they will not build accommodation for women, and then it would be equally unreasonable in five years to do so. There is a vicious circle element here which also came out in Amendment No. 9 when the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, talked about until the time when there are a large number of women seafarers. But there will not be a large number of them, of course, until the exceptions are removed, until it is fully accepted, and until there are no obstacles in the way of women becoming seafarers. I hope this is not going to be a factor which militates against the increase of equality of employment among women in these areas. Nevertheless, I entirely agree with the noble Lord,
988
Lord Houghton of Sowerby, when he says that we must rely to a very large extent on common sense being exercised by the tribunals. I do not think that this is a major matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.38 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause:
Employment exemption orders
".—(1) In the case of an establishment falling within paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Table in section 22 of the responsible body may submit to the Equal Opportunities Commission set up under Part VI an application for an order (an "employment exemption order") authorising sex discrimination against male applicants for employment for the period specified in the order.
(2) An application under this section shall specify the job descriptions in respect of which the responsible body wishes to discriminate, the transitional period proposed by the responsible body to be provided for in the order, the stages within which the body proposes to move to the position where section 6(1)(a) or (c) is complied with, and any other matter relevant to the terms and operation of the order applied for.
(3) The Commission shall not make an order on an application under this section unless they are satisfied that the terms of the application are reasonable having regard to the need to preserve and to increase the opportunities for employment in teaching and research available to women.
(4) The Commission may if they think fit by a further order made under this section vary or revoke a previous order so made.
(5) During the period specified in the employment exemption order section 6(1)(a) or (c) shall not apply in respect of sex discrimination to any employment of the descriptions and for the purposes of the establishment specified in the order.
(6) Subsection (5) does not apply if the responsible body contravenes any condition of the employment exemption order.
(7) Except as mentioned in subsection (5) an employment exemption order shall not afford any exemption from liability under this Act."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I must apologise to the House as I was not able to be present to move my original Amendment at the Committee stage. I read what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, in answer, and what was said regarding a similar subject moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. This new Amendment is intended both to

989
meet the original point and the subsequent criticisms made by the Government. It may be helpful if I explain briefly the original purpose of it. It is concerned with a small and specialised group of people, tutors of those colleges at Oxford and Cambridge which at present are single-sex but which are in the process of going co-residential. Above all, this is not a hypothetical case of the nature we have been discussing; it is happening now. Colleges at Oxford and Cambridge which were previously exclusively for men are now admitting women, one of the objects of this exercise being to help women, and for there to be more women undergraduates both at Oxford and Cambridge, the numbers previously being limited by the amount of residential accommodation which could be provided by the women's colleges. Not only is this entirely in line with the purpose of the Bill; not only will it help women undergraduates, but it is designed to provide more teaching posts for women in the universities.
The Amendment therefore is concerned only with this transitional period while the number of women who have been admitted to men's colleges becomes an increasing proportion of the total number of that college and that in this transitional period there will be a balance of tutors of men and women. It is therefore a relatively narrow point on a relatively narrow subject. I believe it not to be dissimilar in principle to other parts of the Bill which make special provisions for transitional periods in educational establishments, and therefore I hope that the principle at least is one which the Government will favour. Having said that, it is only fair to say that the Government have not been sympathetic to this Amendment at any stage during the passage of this Bill either in this House or in another place, but I hope now that the Amendment has been completely redrafted they will look favourably upon it. I have explained the purpose of the principle of the Amendment and now I should like to explain the detail.
It covers only universities, which term includes a college or a hall of a university. I hope this meets one of the main criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, when we were discussing this on Committee. He was worried that if the Amendment was agreed to it could
990
be extended to cover other situations. It retains the notion of a transitional period. Again it was a major concern that having got it into the Bill it would remain there in perpetuity. It does not. It is concerned only with the transitional period. I think it removes the actual wording or the concept of a reasonable balance which, although I think is intended in other parts of the Bill where it is desirable to have a reasonable balance between the sexes, was objected to by the noble Lord's honourable friend in another place as being a term which was impossible to define. So this concept has been left out of the drafting of the Amendment. It is strictly limited to applicants for employment and therefore it does not cover anything else but these particular groups of people. Finally, it is modelled on Schedule 2, and although I am advised that that Schedule covers univerisities, paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 relates only to the admission of pupils, and I hope that the point is fully covered.
So far as the argument on Clause 7(2) (e) is concerned, this is not very helpful to colleges in this transitional period; that is, those which are going co-residential. As has been stated, it is possible for men to tutor women and for women to tutor men, and indeed, for men to look after women in this welfare role as well as actually to teach them. But the Amendment would allow discrimination in favour of women in positions of teaching and research, which Clause 7(2)(e) does not cover at all. Therefore it is during this transitional period that I think this Amendment would enable the colleges to maintain and help women dons in universities as well as undergraduates.
I shall quite understand if the noble Lord says that it is not correctly drafted. It is not my drafting; it was drafted by a lawyer, but long experience has taught me that whatever Amendment one puts up is never correctly drafted. I shall quite understand if that is the criticism of it and I shall, of course, withdraw it if the Government say that they will look at it.
I hope that the noble Lord will understand that it is a matter of serious concern to a limited number of people for a transitional period. It is not intended to go against the principle of the Bill. The Amendment is so drafted that it could be

991
altered when the need for it has passed and this rests with the Equal Opportunities Commission. I therefore hope that the noble Lord feels that it meets the spirit of the Bill. It meets something which I think is a problem that will arise for only a small number of years and I hope that with this redrafting the Government will agree to consider it. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord KAHN: My Lords, admittedly this clause would apply only within a rather narrow field, but within that field it is a clause of great importance. I intend to be very brief, but it may help your Lordships and supplement what the noble Baroness has said if I quote some facts about particular instances. Not only do I have to declare an interest, but it is within the context of that interest that I make my speech. I am a Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, one of the three men's colleges in Cambridge which three years ago went co-residential. Their example is now to be followed by a number of other Cambridge colleges and some Oxford Colleges, and further colleges in Oxford and Cambridge will cone in at a later stage, but not the whole lot. I must make it clear that I have no mandate to speak on behalf of the Oxford and Cambridge colleges which are or may be affected, and even as regards my own college I can only express a view. I am not actually briefed.
This is the end of the third year since we began to be co-residential. Therefore, so far as undergraduates are concerned, we are now in balance. We have 331 undergraduates in their first three years and of these 116 are women (35 per cent.). We have 102 Fellows, and of these 7 are women (7 per cent.). Of those 102 Fellows, 24 are research Fellows and the number of women research Fellows is 4 (16 per cent.). We have a considerable teaching staff, but only one woman is a member of the college teaching staff. We have a considerable number of tutors. One woman is a tutor as a result of our advertising for a woman tutor. I am talking here about tutors in the Cambridge sense. I believe the equivalent in Oxford is a moral tutor, and not a tutor who teaches rather than gives moral help.
992
In my college, there is a reasonable balance between the sexes among the undergraduates but it still sadly lacking in our fellowship body. We are not influenced by the view that, so far as possible, it is desirable that women undergraduates should be cared for by a woman tutor and be taught by women Fellows. That is not at all our view. Indeed, our one woman tutor is responsible for quite a number of men as well as some women, and most of the responsibility for our women graduates lies with tutors who are men. We are therefore not helped by Clause 7(2)(e), even if no legal doubt arose as to the operation of that subsection. The considerations by which I believe we are influenced are well described in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause. We are also concerned to secure an improvement in the proportion of our research Fellows who are women, and the same consideration applies to those of our Fellows who hold their Fellowship by reason of being university teaching officers.
Until a few days ago we had no women who held a Fellowship by reason of being university teaching officers, but we elected one a few days ago. I must be careful not to exaggerate the figures I have quoted of my College, but the fact is that in British universities women constitute a low proportion of full-time academic staff. In the academic year 1972–73 there was a percentage of 10·7 in all British universities except Oxford and Cambridge, with 6·8 per cent. for Cambridge. I regret that I have not been able to find a similar figure for Oxford. The figures which are more relevant for my purpose are those for the Arts, which are much higher for women, for obvious reasons, than for the Sciences. The percentage of women in the Arts in all British universities other than Oxford and Cambridge is 15·3, with 10 per cent. for Cambridge. The corresponding figures for the Sciences are 4·5 and 8 per cent.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, it does not matter what the figures are, so far as I am concerned. I object to this clause in principle. Why should we attempt to create a preserve for women in the academic world of universities that we are not prepared to create in girls' schools lower down? I find this distinction unacceptable and I think it is also bad in principle, in a Bill

993
of this kind, to begin to seek statutory authority for discriminating against men, albeit for a limited period under the Order. I assume that when appointments are being made to these posts things will be going through the minds of those who are given this responsibility. They will exercise some judgment as to what they are doing and they will look at qualifications relatively—or will this whole task be given to the Equal Opportunities Commission? I would prefer to see them act as guide, philosopher and friend in areas where there may be some doubt, rather than try to lay down the matter in literal form in a clause of this kind.
So far as I can see, the Equal Opportunities Commission are going to be rather fully equipped. There has just been a trawl throughout the Civil Service to find staff for the Commission. The Director is to be of assistant secretary rank with a salary of between £8,000 and £11,500 a year. They are to be senior principals, principals, senior executive officers, higher executive officers, higher clerical officers, clerical officers, the lot; and they want a staff of 100 by Christmas. They want them to go to Manchester. It seems to me that they are going to start off rather well to look after appointments in the academic world and everywhere else as well. I do not myself believe that the Equal Opportunities Commission can do their job without staff, but this is a good beginning. I think they can keep their eyes on what is happening in university appointments, and probably elsewhere as well.
I hope we are not going to have this atmosphere—I do not like the word "fussy" in this context, but I hope that everybody will not be under a kind of non-discrimination vigilance everywhere at all times. Surely the appointments boards and those responsible for these kind of appointments in universities can do their job without this feeling. After all, it is equal opportunities we are after, not better opportunities for some than for others: not shutting out some people in order to make it easier for others to get there. I do not see the point of this and, if I may say so, I am surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, should have pursued this matter again.
We were both in Paris a few weeks ago and had the pleasure of meeting the headmaster of Roedean. I am glad that
994
nobody tried to keep out that gentleman, because he seemed to be a very desirable headmaster for a girls' school. It is this kind of "mixing-up" that we want to see. Do we have to create a kind of Indian reserve in the universities, to make sure that nobody else encroaches for a time? No; leave it alone, my Lords, and let us get on with the Bill. There is more in this Bill than in any comparable Bill in the world today. I would suggest that we should give it a chance to work and see how it goes. There can be amendments to it later on, if necessary, so again I would plead: Do not let us try to do too much before we have even started on the very big job of reform under the Bill.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I am against this Amendment because I cannot see any reason, however transitory, for a special provision to be applied to residential colleges which cannot be applied to non-residential colleges, such as University College, London, for example. Why do we need these special provisions?
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I should like to raise one very brief point. We are dealing with the tables in Clause 22. A point arises on Clause 22 which I am not happy about. All through this Bill it refers to "man" and "woman". Clause 5 says:
"…'man' includes a male of any age…"
and a
"'woman' includes a female of any age."
Clause 2 says that wherever in this Bill you read "man" or "woman", you can read "man". That is everywhere except at one point. In Clause 22 it suddenly says—and I paraphrase—"in future it will be unlawful to discriminate in the field of education against a female." There is no clause which says: "Where you read 'female' you can read male '". There seems no reason for the change. Students are young people, of course, but as Clause 5 already says that a woman is a female of any age, that is no bar to using the word "woman". I have mentioned this to my noble friend Lord Harris and he has written me a very courteous reply, but that is apparently the only answer the draftsman gives. I have not had any sleepless nights over this because, if I am right, all it means is that in the field of

995
education anybody can discriminate against men as much as they like in future. I cannot think this is really intended, but I thought it best to mention this point while we are discussing education.
7.58 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Crowther-Hunt): My Lords, may I begin by saying that I very much agree with the noble Baroness. Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Kahn, about the great importance of this clause. The Amendment proposed is a very serious matter though, as has been pointed out, it affects few people and is restricted in very many ways. During the Committee stage we discussed Amendments moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and by the noble Baroness. Lady Seear. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if, inevitably, I repeat some of the points made on behalf of the Government at the Committee stage.
I should like first to say a few words about the transitional arrangements for single-sex establishments turning coeducational in Clause 27 and in Schedule 2, because the wording of the present Amendment bears a family resemblance to the drafting of paragraph 5 of Schedule 2. The Government have welcomed the growing move towards co-education. But we recognise that certain single-sex educational institutions which wish to become co-educational—and we had in mind the Oxbridge colleges—would be faced with such formidable problems of reorganisation and accommodation if they were required, as from a certain date, to admit students without discrimination that they might decide in the event that staying single-sex was preferable to going co-educational.
We have therefore provided in Clause 27 and Schedule 2 for a transitional period during which the institution could discriminate in respect of admissions of pupils or students under arrangements approved either by the Secretary of State or, in the case of universities, by the Equal Opportunities Commission so as to move by a planned and reasonable progression to full co-education. Full co-education does not necessarily mean
996
exactly 50 per cent. women and 50 per cent. men, but clearly we are talking in terms of a student body which is roughly comprised of equal numbers of both sexes.
Then there is the question of the time-scale for an institution moving to full co-education in this sense. It is not uncommon for a girls' school which has decided to become a mixed school to admit boys into the first form in the first year, into the first and second forms in the second year, and so on. The school would then become fully co-educational over a period of about six or seven years. Such a period would not be unreasonable for other educational institutions.
Let us examine the Amendment against this background. As has been pointed out, the Amendment deals only with universities. It provides for discrimination in favour of women in making staff appointments and it lays down that:
"The Equal Opportunities Commission shall have regard to the need to preserve and to increase the opportunities for employment in teaching and research available to women".
When does the need to preserve and to increase the opportunities cease? Does it cease when 25 per cent. of the staff are women, even though the student body is made up half of men and half of women, or is it when half of the tutors, lecturers and fellows are women and the other half men? It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in whose name this Amendment also stands, have in mind is a quota, but their Amendment throws the burden of deciding what that quota should be on the Equal Opportunities Commission. I must repeat again that the concept of a quota is completely alien to the spirit of the Bill. We are concerned to ensure that in the field of employment a man or a woman should not be discriminated against because of his or her sex. A candidate for a post should be considered on his or her merits and the best candidate should get the post, irrespective of sex.
The Bill inevitably includes a number of exceptions, although the Government have tried to keep them to the absolute minimum. However, as a deliberate act of policy the Bill contains no provision—and I stress that it contains no provision—for reverse discrimination in

997
respect of recruitment to a field of employment. I must ask your Lordships to consider very seriously the precedent which this Amendment would create, because once we start down this reverse discrimination road where in logic do we stop? So far as universities are concerned, I know that we stop in this clause, but where in logic do we stop in terms of the principle that is involved? So far as reverse discrimination is concerned, why should we make it a principle to be applied to Oxbridge colleges and not to anywhere else? I emphasise that the essential concept upon which this Amendment is based is that in an institution there shall be a certain quota of women teachers and that this should he achieved during some period of time. However, the Bill as a whole is not based on the concept of a guaranteed quota. The Bill is based on the concept of equal opportunities for employment for men and women.
Let us consider the question of time-scale in relation to the Amendment. It has been said that we are concerned with a transitional period. While I do not wish to prejudge any decision of the Equal Opportunities Commission in issuing transitional exemption orders under Clause 27 and Schedule 2, it is perhaps not unreasonable to suppose that a college could move from single-sex status to full co-education over a period of three to five years. The noble Lord, Lord Kahn, thought that, so far as undergraduates are concerned, King's might be said in three years to have become a co-educational college.
Lord KAHN: My Lords, may I have your Lordships' leave to reply? So far as undergraduates are concerned, we had no difficulties at all. There was no accommodation problem. We simply wanted to get into phase in the course of three years. In the first year we admitted one-third of the women undergraduates that we now have; in the second year another third, and now we have the full complement. So far as senior fellows are concerned, there is no question of a quota. A transitional period as short as three or five years would mean that one would make very little use of this proposed clause because one could only then use it at the expense of a deterioration of standards which would be quite unacceptable. For my
998
own part, I had in mind a period of between ten and fifteen years.
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: I do not disagree with what the noble Lord has said. I was using King's as an example and was stressing that so far as the move to co-education of the student body is concerned—and I specifically emphasised the student body—the transitional period might be said to be three to five years, King's having completed the transition within that period of time. Presumably the noble Baroness and the noble Lord who have proposed this Amendment intend that there shall be a different time-scale for employment exemption orders—as, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Kahn, has just indicated.
If a college does not increase in size, even though it decides to admit students of the opposite sex, presumably appointments to the teaching staff can be made only as and when vacancies occur. Even if discrimination were permitted in the appointment of staff during a transitional period, we are talking of a time scale which is dictated by natural wastage. Is this to be ten years or fifteen years, as the noble Lord, Lord Kahn, was suggesting, twenty years, or even more? If it is less than that it is pointless. If it is not less than those kinds of period, this Amendment is intended to introduce reverse discrimination, not over a short transitional period only, but conceivably to the end of this century. What proportion will staff of the other sex have to reach before the transitional period in this reverse discrimination sense is deemed to be at an end?
In the debate in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, made the perfectly fair point that a woman who takes on a job and leaves to have a family may find herself at a disadvantage when she seeks further employment. It was partly to deal with this problem that the Government introduced the Amendment in Committee, which is now Clause 47 of the Bill, to provide for discriminatory training. But to attempt to deal with the problem by providing reverse discrimination in appointments would completely change the character of this Bill, and I stress that it is the character of the Bill that we should be changing.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said in Committee that he

999
believed that although positive discrimination in legislation is sometimes necessary, it is necessary only on behalf of the really powerless and the very inarticulate. I am sure that he would not include in that category the able and gifted women who teach in our universities, or who seek to teach in our universities. The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, also stressed that we are concerned with the education of voting persons in universities and colleges. He said that it must be recognised that where one has a preponderance of girls in a college it is important to have women in that college in the position of tutors, lecturers and professors. Then he went on to imply that unless this was the case, young women would not have the kind of education appropriate to them. I cannot accept that there is any educational justification whatsoever in such a claim. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, said at that time, what is important is that the tutors, lecturers and fellows should be of the highest quality, irrespective of sex, and this can be achieved only by providing equality of opportunity and by choosing candidates on the basis of their merits, irrespective of sex. I am not seeking to argue that it is right or desirable in a mixed college that tutors, lecturers and fellows should all be men or all be women.
In Committee I referred to the discrimination that would be permissible under Clause 7, and I should like to explain in a little more detail the way in which Clause 7 is helpful towards the concept of a "mixed team". Clause 7 provides that employers may discriminate on grounds of sex in making appointments where being of a particular sex is a genuine occupational qualification for the job. The clause also lays down criteria for establishing whether a particular job satisfies this exception. Subsection 2(e) of Clause 7 provides that being a man or a woman is a genuine occupational qualification for a job where "the holder of the job provides individuals with personal services promoting their welfare or education or similar personal services and those services can most effectively be provided by a man"—or woman Subsection (2) needs to be read in conjunction with subsection (3) of
1000
Clause 7. Subsection (3) says that the exception applies to a job where only some of the duties satisfy the criteria.
A college would therefore be able to discriminate in appointments if the posts fell within the provisions of subsections (2)(e) and (3) of Clause 7; that is, where all or some of the duties of the posts were concerned with the provision of personal services to individuals promoting their welfare or education, being services which can most effectively be provided by a man (or woman). This implies that the post involves an element of counselling or pastoral care. That the clause is relevant to tutorships in the Cambridge sense, though not in the Oxford sense, is accepted by the Cambridge colleges, with whose representatives the Department has discussed this question. It is interesting to note that the Amendment under discussion provides that an application made for an employment exemption order shall specify "the job descriptions in respect of which the responsible body wishes to discriminate". This implies that the responsible body itself would have to make a judgment about which posts in the college were ones where it was appropriate to discriminate. But whereas Clause 7 sets out clearly the criteria for the exception, the Amendment appears to leave it entirely to the responsible body to decide where discrimination should take place and where it should not.
I find rather depressing the assumption behind this Amendment that women candidates will obtain posts only if the universities are allowed to discriminate in their favour. Do women candidates for university posts really want to say, "I got the post not because I was the best or most suitable candidate, but because I was a woman"? The Bill w ill provide not only equality of opportunity but, in the field of university appointments, wider opportunities than ever before. Most colleges are still men's colleges. Under the Bill, it will be unlawful for them to discriminate against women in making appointments. This is the right way, to quote the words of the Amendment, "to increase the opportunities for employment in teaching and research available to men." It is not the right way to move into a closer situation and have positive discrimination in favour of women, and

1001
in the light of what I have said I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the Amendment.
8.13 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, that was a magnificent performance but I do not think it really convinces. During the Commitee stage, there was wide acknowledgment that positive discrimination in the long term was thoroughly undesirable and should not be in the Bill. It seemed to me there was a growing realisation that there were all sorts of difficult transitional problems created by the Bill, in regard to trade unions, teachers' unions, political Parties, pupils at co-educational schools, which are already in the Bill, where positive discrimination would be a good thing for a limited amount of time, and this Amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and myself falls into that area.
I agree with one or two of the criticisms that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, that it is illogical that we do not include more of these exceptions. It does not seem to me that that is an argument for rejecting this Amendment. I wish we had more exceptions in and, indeed, I have Amendments tabled later which would allow the Secretary of State rather more easily to make transitional arrangements for all sorts of bodies and I sincerely hope the Government will see their way to accepting some of them.
In the meantime, we have identified a particular problem and I suggest that we do something about it, and what we do about it should be what is done in this Amendment. I do not accept that it will either be useless or will last until the end of the century. I think it will be useful if it lasts only a very short time—the time that the Commission themselves regard as reasonable and will allow an exception order for. It is not as if there were not already arrangements for positive discrimination in the Bill, even though they may not be on the grounds of employment. It is not a quota system; there is no suggestion that it should be only until a certain proportion has been reached. It is merely a proposal to tide us over a rather difficult period of time which can be made—and, undoubtedly,
1002
the Commission will make it so—extremely short. I do not think the noble Lord's arguments really stand up and I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness will press this Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for his support, and also the noble Lord, Lord Kahn. Coming to the arguments that have been advanced against this Amendment, I see that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has now left the Chamber but I was rather surprised to hear his argument. I have listened to a great many of his speeches and one of the things which he has said over and over again is that the Bill is not perfect as it stands, that discrimination will not come to an end as a consequence of this Bill, that it can at best create the right atmosphere but that a lot of discrimination will remain. All this Amendment seeks to do is, for a given period of years, to try to make the Bill a little better. It is not against the principle of the Bill, and therefore I should have thought the noble Lord would have been glad of a constructive Amendment for a short period of time, which is meeting what is clearly a defect as it stands at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has rightly pointed out that there are a number of special provisions for this interim period while this is being worked out.
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, may I just ask the noble Baroness what she means by a "short period of time" in terms of years and what number or proportion of female staff in a co-educational institution there would have to be before she would regard the transitional period as being over?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, my Amendment does not answer this question but, in effect, leaves it to the Equal Opportunities Commission, who will of course have had experience—far more experience than I have had. I have not discussed this with the people who have an interest in both Oxford and Cambridge, because it seemed to me that it was a relatively hypothetical question as the Equal Opportunities Commission were being given the opportunity to look at it. If I were asked, I should be quite prepared, if the Government wanted to

1003
impose a limit, to accept one for a relatively shorter period of years than the noble Lord, Lord Kahn, has suggested. I think it would be quite wrong to say that a transitional period goes on to the end of the century or even for 20 years. This is not anybody's understanding of a transitional period, and it is certainly not mine. I am sure that those supporting this Amendment would agree to that.
Furthermore, I should think that, when the college had built up the number of women that it expected to take finally, that would be the conclusion of the transitional period. I do not quite know how long this would be in all colleges, but probably four or five years would be effective and I should be quite prepared to see that kind of time-scale. In regard to this Amendment, the difficulty I find myself in is that I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, has said and clearly the great trouble that he has taken about the Amendment. The difficulty is that the argument changes every time. One reads Hansard for the House of Commons and one reads it for this House; one tries to meet all the points and now yet another argument has been advanced, and that is that if this Amendment is agreed to we are suggesting a quota system. Certainly, I have

CONTENTS

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

Elton, L.

Sandys, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Strange, L.

Berkeley, B.

Kahn, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Byers, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Vickers, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Northchurch, B.

Wigoder, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Young, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Platt, L.

Blyton, L.

Hoy, L.

Raglan, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Rusholme, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.(L. Chancellor.)

Lovell-Davies, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Maelor, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Feather, L.

Monson, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Peddie, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Gardiner, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hanworth, V.

Resolved, in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
never suggested a quota system. I think this would be outside the terms of the Bill, I do not think it is desirable and it is not something I want to see. As I have tried to indicate, this is an Amendment designed for only a transitional period and I view a transitional period as being a limited period of years, not till the end of the century.
On the point about making appointments when vacancies occur I understand that it is not necessary to wait until vacancies occur; it is perfectly possible to add to the numbers of staff. It may be difficult in the present economic circumstances but it is not impossible and it is not ruled out by the Bill and, after all, a college might think it was worth doing in this transitional period. I do not take the view that it is a depressing assumption. I think that like a lot of law it is reality, and that is what we ought to be concerned with in a difficult situation. This is a matter of principle, and as I should like to test the feeling of the House, I will not withdraw my Amendment.
8.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Non-Contents, 33.

PETROLEUM AND SUBMARINE PIPE-LINES BILL
8.28 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Twenty-ninth and Thirtieth Reports from the Select Committee made, and to be printed pursuant to the Order of the House of 26th November 1974.