Lords Sitting of 23 June 1977

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

AIRLINES AND PASSENGER OVERBOOKING
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the Civil Aeronautics Board of America now requires air carriers to post notices at every ticket counter and on every passenger ticket, warning passengers of the overbooking practice and the potential risk of being oversold and that "stuffers" to this effect are included in airline tickets; and whether they will ask the Civil Aviation Authority to recommend the adoption of such a procedure in this country.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am aware that, as from 3rd April, the United States Civil Aeronautics Board has required all air carriers selling tickets in the United States of America to display notices warning passengers that airline flights may be overbooked and that a similar notice be issued with each ticket sold. The Government, however, do not propose to ask the Civil Aviation Authority to recommend the adoption of a similar procedure in this country.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether that means that the Government have not the authority to ask the CAA to make such a recommendation, or whether it means that the Government do not approve of the recommendation which is suggested? Secondly, does the Minister realise—and I think he does from what he has just said—that all British airlines issuing tickets in the United States have to follow these regulations and make the
752
position of passengers' rights clear to passengers? Could the Minister tell the House why he feels that similar rights should not be accorded to passengers in this country?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, in reply to the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question, this is essentially a matter for the CAA, as I sought to make clear on 19th May. The Government do not see any reason strongly to dissent from the judgment reached by the CAA. Indeed, in reply to a further point which the noble Baroness made, the Government would not have the power to give a direction, but my noble friend has put down a Question for Thursday of next week about the relationship between the Government and the CAA. As to the situation in the United States which my noble friend describes, may I point out that the conditions there are not the same as those in this country. For example, the Civil Aeronautics Board has the power to impose this scheme on all airlines in the United States. The Civil Aviation Authority in this country is reluctant to press changes on the participants in our voluntary scheme, which appears to be working well, and it does not wish to try to impose conditions on British airlines alone.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I first ask the Minister whether he is aware that I did not ask the Government to issue a directive? I asked them to request the CAA to recommend a procedure. Moving on from there, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that I am greatly disturbed that our own Government in particular should take this attitude towards consumers, an attitude which I hope will be deplored by the House? Reverting to the reply which the Minister gave me on Tuesday at col. 532, does he wonder that I feel strongly about the independence of consumer committees? What does he propose that the Airline Users' Committee should do when it is answerable to the CAA, when the CAA will consider consumer requests only in relation to what the airlines are likely to decide and when the Government, as the Minister has just stated, refuse to intervene?
Several Noble Lords: Hear, Hear!
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I recognise, of course, as I said on Tuesday, the very strong views that my noble friend has about the need for independent consumer voices in these matters; but, as I stated earlier, it is clear that for a matter of this kind the responsibility rests clearly with the CAA. As I said on 19th May, I have gone a long way—and my noble friend acknowledges this—in conveying her views to the CAA. But again, as I said on that occasion, I have had, perhaps reluctantly, to reach the conclusion that I have done all that I personally can within the powers that I have. I am sorry that that is the situation we have reached, but it is so.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the voluntary scheme to which he referred a moment ago is working tolerably well? Can he say what would be the cost to British Airways, for example, if they were obliged overnight to withdraw all the tickets presently in the world, reprint them with the caveat mentioned by the noble Baroness and reissue them to all their stations around the world?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I echo what the noble Lord has said about the voluntary scheme working well, but he is a little unfair in suggesting that such a change would have to take place overnight. As I have indicated, I am not proposing that such a change should take place; but, if that should be decided, it would be possible to phase in the new situation. However, I agree that the cost of these changes is an important consideration which British Airways and others have to take into account.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, would it not be anomalous, even if the tickets did not have to be changed overnight, if one aspect of the scheme were voluntary and another aspect were compulsory?
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords. Indeed, I very much doubt whether the voluntary scheme would survive a compulsory attitude on the part of the CAA and British airlines.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, despite what was said by the spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench, does the Minister realise that the cheers which
754
were given to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, indicate very wide support in this House for her point of view? Will he convey to the CAA the Question which she has put, and the discussions in this House, so as to influence it in that direction?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the cheers which came when my noble friend was asking her second supplementary question were, I thought, more in relation to her vigorous defence of consumers in general, and those are sentiments which I personally very much share and I wish I could have joined in the cheers. But the particular point of this Question is a distinctly narrower one which I have answered on several occasions and I would prefer not to continue repeating the Answer.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the cheers will be as nothing compared with the day when we eventually succeed? As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is not likely to be speaking for the consumers in the near future, can the Minister answer the question which I asked him: what does he now propose that the Airline Users' Committee, which represents the users of airlines in this country, should now do, as they can get nothing from the Civil Aviation Authority and nothing apparently from the Government?
A noble Lord: Change the Government !
Lord ORAM: My Lords, offhand I do not know what I would do if I were a member of the Airline Users' Committee, but I indicated that I had given favourable consideration to this matter and consider that I have reached the end of the road. It may be that the Airline Users' Committee will have reached the end of the road on this particular point, given their particular powers; but that does not mean that there is not wide scope for discussion as to what the Committee's powers should be and whether they have the right degree of independence and so forth. The wider question is certainly one for fruitful examination, but I am suggesting that, given the present situation, there is little further that can be done on this question of publicity in relation to compensation for overbooking.
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, may I ask what "stuffers" means in this connection?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I think it means a piece of paper that is stuffed in the ticket.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, is it still the case that both these organisations share the same chairman?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I think technically, Yes, this is so, but there may be changes in that respect.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think we should proceed to the next Question.

OFFSHORE PROTECTION SHIPS
3.16 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to build for the Royal Navy ships designed for the protection of oil rigs in the North Sea.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, five new ships of the "Island" Class are being provided to the Royal Navy for offshore protection tasks, including protection of oil installations in the North Sea. Three have already been accepted for service with the Royal Navy and the remaining two are due to be accepted later this year.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that these ships have been very much criticised for their lack of speed, and is he satisfied that in these circumstances they can perform adequately the very serious increasing commitment, referred to in the Defence White Paper, to defend these installations?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, their 16 knots is adequate for the job in this limited area. The qualities they must have are good sea-keeping and good communications, and these they have. If higher speed is required, or a greater force, they only have to communicate
756
with the headquarters and others of the Armed Forces could be sent to assist them.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, is the report correct that none the less the Government are considering bringing into operation at least one hydrofoil which would have the speed required to make arrests, not only with a view to the defence of our oil platforms but also from the point of view of fishery patrol?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot answer that question at the moment, but if the noble Lord will table another Question I will try to answer it. In fact, if speed is required frigates are used, and arrests have been made by frigates which have been summoned by a ship of the type of the "Island" Class.

RHODESIA: THE FRONT LINE PRESIDENTS
3.18 p.m.
The Marquess of DONEGALL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what qualifications have been taken into account in deciding the selection of front line Presidents for consultations regarding Rhodesia.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the question of selection did not arise. The five Governments of the front line States—Zambia, Tanzania, Botswana, Mozambique and Angola—have been co-ordinating their own policies on Rhodesia for some time and it is appropriate, in view of their close and direct involvement with the problems of the area, that Her Majesty's Government should consult with them.
The Marquess of DONEGALL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, arising out of which I should like to ask whether it does not seem strange to Her Majesty's Government that the Governments of Angola and Tanzania are consulted at every point although their

757
borders are further from Rhodesia than those of Malawi, which so far as I can make out is never consulted at all?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Marquess, but contiguity is not the conclusive factor in these matters: it is the involvement and the interests of countries in the future of Rhodesia. These five countries and their Governments are very closely involved. I am glad to say that they have co-operated with the Consultative Group so far and there is every prospect that they will continue to co-operate with them when the Group return to Africa.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the people of Rhodesia are also concerned in their own fate? What do the Government intend to do about hearing the wishes of all the people of Rhodesia with regard to their fate, as opposed to listening only to the front line Presidents?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness will wish to look at her supplementary question in print in the cold light of the morning. We are already of course, and have been, consulting the peoples of Rhodesia, and indeed in contact with the illegal régime, as is perfectly proper and necessary; we are consulting interests in Rhodesia via the Consultative Group, and we shall continue to do so. We are in contact with a wide range of countries and interests who may be able to assist in the pursuit of a peaceful and lasting solution, not least, of course, the United States of America, who completely approve of the British Government's approach to this question.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister's reply. Would he at some stage be prepared to expand on the results of the consultations he is having with the peoples of Rhodesia, and indicate which groups in Rhodesia the Government are in fact consulting with?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, of course, in due course, as we do from time to time, we shall report to Parliament about the progress of these consultations. I do not want to put too high the expectations arising from the latest attempt we have, with our American
758
friends, set in train—I am referring to the Consultative Group—but so far it gives reason for cautious optimism, very cautious optimism, knowing the difficulties of this matter. I expect that when the Group return to Africa, as they most likely will, for a second round of talks, all the elements of consultation that the noble Baroness has mentioned will again be consulted.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, would the Minister agree that Malawi also has very close interest with Rhodesia? Certainly in the past a lot of Malawians used to work in Rhodesia, and I think quite a few still do today. Would not the Minister agree that it might be helpful to us if we had one of the front line Presidents on our side? I am quite sure that Malawi is pro-British and pro-West generally. If the Minister will allow me to put another supplementary question, would he not agree that it seems extraordinary that the President of Malawi, which, after all, is nearer to Rhodesia than Tanzania geographically, is not included as one of the front-line Presidents?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we have excellent relations with Malawi, and indeed I would say with practically all the countries of the region. Indeed there is no lack of contact with Malawi. I personally, and I am sure the Government, would agree with the noble Viscount that to the extent that the Government and the leaders of Malawi wish to contribute to these consultations we shall be delighted to engage in them, and that applies to other countries as well. There is no question of appointing any country to the ranks of the five Presidents. They came together over the years, since about 1971. We recognised that fact, and therefore acted practically to consult them.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Tanzanian border is no less than 470 miles from Rhodesia at the nearest point? How then can it be seriously maintained that Tanzania has a neighbourly interest in the matter?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, clearly they have an interest. They have expressed an interest, with the other five. We accept that. Whoever expresses an interest, and certainly an interest in

759
helping to reach a solution, we accept as being worthy of consultation. As I said before, it is not contiguity that is the test here; otherwise we would not be working with our friends and allies the United States of America.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, surely all the black peoples on the Continent of Africa have an interest in eliminating a white minority racist régime?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord puts in philosophical terms what I prefer to put in practical terms.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, remembering the definitions given to the House yesterday in very generous measure by the Minister, does he not realise the perplexity that is widespread as to why there should be such strong leaning on Tanzania, which seems to be a centre—particularly Dar-es-Salaam—for subversive elements in Southern Africa, while it is not even contiguous with, and does not march with, Rhodesia? Further, would the noble Lord not agree that in the tribal trust areas wherein live the largest proportion of the African population of Rhodesia there is a strong desire that there should be an internal settlement of the problem?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure the desire for an internal settlement in Rhodesia is shared by a very large number of people indeed, and in Rhodesia. It must be our task to mobilise, over as wide an area as possible, without regard for simplistic questions of contiguity, support for a peaceful and lasting settlement. We are far from reaching this, but the approach which, with the United States, we are now pursuing offers the best hope for it.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the case that Tanzania has helped us greatly in our policy of sanctions against Rhodesia by its co-operation in building the railway from Zambia to Dar-es-Salaam, which has enabled Zambian products not to go to Rhodesia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is so, and looking beyond sanctions we would hope that a solution
760
is reached which will bring together all African States, as the noble Lord reminded us is necessary, in a new situation of co-operation for the good of the entire continent. Tanzania and others have a contribution to make—we hope it will be by consultation and negotiation—to settle this matter, and to move on to a safer and saner future for Africa as a whole.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I hope we can now proceed to the next Question.

BRACKEN: UTILISATION OR DESTRUCTION
3.28 p.m.
Lord KILMANY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has recently been made into possible utilisation or, alternatively, destruction of bracken; and whether they are satisfied that research on this subject is receiving sufficient priority.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the presence of persistent toxins in bracken militates against its use for agricultural purposes. There are established methods of suppressing bracken by chemical and other means. Present research is concentrated on evaluating new forms of chemical treatment and related questions of management.
Lord KILMANY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it would be correct to assume from his reply that, apart from a single letter to The Times, which was very quickly contradicted, there is really no spark of hope of bracken being used as food for man or beast or even for bedding for animals, and that, that being so, the Government are faced with the need to concentrate upon elimination of bracken? Is the noble Lord satisfied that the methods of eliminating bracken, which are still so costly and so laborious, have really been sufficiently explored?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, all the remarks the noble Lord has made are absolutely true. With regard to Government policy, successful chemical suppres-

761
sion depends upon application during the short period when the weed is most vulnerable, and it normally makes dormant the underground parts of the plant rather than killing them. If you kill the plant, of course, there are risks of injuring the soil as well. With regard to the objectives of present research, these are to evaluate new chemicals as they become available, in the hope of finding an agent which kills the underground parts of the bracken, and, secondly, to define more closely the management practices which prevent its recolonisation.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, as this Question refers to the destruction of bracken, would my noble friend care to advise the Government to seek the assistance of our noble friend Lord Kilbracken?
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, in view of the damage done by bracken, through ticks and so on, to sheep flocks, could the noble Lord look into the question of grants for its elimination? At present a grant is available for elimination of bracken provided that afterwards a very severe treatment for grass is introduced. Will he look into the position of grants simply for eliminating bracken so that sheep flocks may thrive on the ensuing heather, and thus avoid the necessity completely to grass over the whole area afterwards?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, grants at a rate of 50 per cent. of approved costs are available under the Farm Capital Grant Scheme and the Farm and Horticultural Development Scheme; and in Scotland also under the Crofting Counties Agricultural Grant (Scotland) Scheme.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that answer. Will he agree that that applies only if it is followed up by grassing, rather than simply elimination and allowing heather to grow?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, this is one of the directions in which research is going.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, on the question of control and elimination, as New Zealand is the other country
762
in the world which is most troubled in a similar way to the British Isles, is there the fullest knowledge here of theextent and character of the methods followed in New Zealand as regards the utilisation or destruction of bracken?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, so far as I know, there is a good deal of exchange of information between all countries which are affected. In Scotland, Government funding research is concentrated through the work of such organisations as the Hill Farming Research Organisation and the three Scottish agricultural colleges; and in England in the Investigation Unit at Thirsk.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD:My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in Scotland one can receive a 50 per cent. grant towards the eradication of bracken, and that one does not have to follow it up by any sowing of grass?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that that information is very useful.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, did I understand the noble Lord to say in reply to a question a short time ago that the research effort is based solely on evaluating the effect of various chemicals? Could the Minister suggest that more money should be spent on developing new chemicals, because those chemicals are badly needed for both forestry and farming?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, of course, my Lords. One of the objects of the research is to evaluate new forms of chemicals. A great deal of research—which I am sure will commend itself to noble Lords opposite—is done by commercial firms.
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the first Earl Lloyd-George bought some land at Churt in Surrey which was heavily infested with bracken and keeping a large number of pigs on it made it suitable for cultivation? Is the noble Lord further aware that if Her Majesty's Government made pig producing profitable, my noble friend and others in this predicament could eradicate their bracken and also usefully supply the country with pork and bacon?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I really cannot believe that Lloyd-George, who in addition to being a very distinguished statesman was a successful farmer, fed his pigs on a toxic weed like bracken.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, although I do not live in Scotland, I rid my farm in Sussex of bracken by the simple process of ploughing it up, without the aid of any chemicals, research or grant?

GRUNWICK LIMITED MAIL
3.34 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice and which is, I believe, identical to a Question being asked in another place. The Question is as follows:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that there are more than 80 sacks of mail at Cricklewood Post Office sorting office inward to and outward from the Grunwick Processing Laboratory which employees of the Post Office are wilfully detaining or delaying, and whether they will now take action to enforce Section 58 of the Post Office Act 1953".
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will answer that Question in the form of a Statement at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. This will be followed by a Statement, which will be repeated by my noble friend Lord Oram, on the air services between the United Kingdom and the United States.

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL
3.35 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time. In moving this Motion may I make a Business Statement about the Bill. It has been agreed through the usual channels that this Bill should be taken through all its stages on Tuesday next. A Motion will be tabled tonight to suspend Standing Orders for that purpose.
764
To enable Members of the House to have as much notice as possible for any Amendment they may wish to table, arrangements have been made for the Public Bill Office to receive and circulate Amendments tomorrow, as soon as the Bill is available in print.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the reason for the speed with which the Bill has to be taken?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords. It is a matter of considerable importance in the financial world. It was taken through all its stages yesterday in another place and we hope to do the same thing in this House.
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

PRICE COMMISSION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
IMPORT OF LIVE FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Bill read 3a: an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

NATIONAL LAND FUND BILL [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. By way of preamble to what I have to say, may I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that it is not my intention to carry out a post mortem on Mentmore or even to conduct a memorial service. Nevertheless, inevitably there are inferences to be drawn from what happened on that occasion and, I hope, some lessons to be learnt.
I have not seen Mentmore, so I am not in a position to judge whether the disposal of the house and contents as an entity is or is not a loss to the national heritage. But I would say that at £2 million, or even £3 million, Lord Rosebery's offer was a

765
bargain and, if I may use vulgar parlance, a snip. Until the final balance is struck we shall not know by how much the Rosebery estate is advantaged and the nation disadvantaged by Her Majesty's Government's failure to take up Lord Rosebery's generous offer. I was abroad when the controversy raged and also when your Lordships on 9th March this year, in a memorable debate, debated the matter of the national heritage. But from all I have read and heard, the crux of the dispute is very largely concerned with the use or the non-use of the National Land Fund. Indeed, its very existence is questioned by some. The National Land Fund was described by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, as a piggy-bank, the keys to which were hidden in a whole series of Chinese boxes—a very telling metaphor. The purpose of this Bill is to provide her with the keys.
If you go back into the history of the National Land Fund, your Lordships will recall the very high hopes with which Dr. Dalton inaugurated the Fund. I do not think that Dr. Dalton will go down in history as one of the greatest of our Chancellors of the Exchequer. But whatever his standards were, I can hardly believe that he could have so allowed himself to have the wool pulled over his eyes by his officials as to the nature of the Fund. Whatever Dr. Dalton's dream may have been, the National Land Fund was in fact merely a book-keeping entry; a name for an account on which the Treasury alone had power to draw, and one that was outside the control of Parliament.
Very little was spent out of the Fund and it grew from the original £50 million to £59 million in 1957. In 1953, the Public Accounts Committee in another place reported:
"It is undesirable in principle that substantial amounts of public money for which there is no foreseeable need should be kept in special funds or accounts outside the direct control of Parliament".
Mr. Gladstone would have heartily approved of that sentiment. Accordingly, the Public Accounts Committee recommended the reduction of the Fund, and in 1957 the Fund was reduced from £59 million to £10 million.
There was a Division on that occasion in the House of Commons, and it may interest your Lordships to know that of
766
the 438 who voted in that Division, 50 are presently Members of this House. If it does not interest your Lordships, it might interest the Guinness Book of Records. Of those 50, 29 noble Lords voted "Aye"—that is, for the reduction of the Fund—including myself; 21 noble Lords on the other side then voted "No". I should like to ask any of those noble Lords, if they happen to be present, whether in the ensuing years they made any efforts to have the Fund restored to £50 million, or what they have done to maintain the value of the Fund. The Fund now stands at £17 million, which is worth far less than the £10 million in 1957, and in real terms it is less than the figure in 1974 when the present Government were returned to power.
May I go back to that Public Accounts Committee Report for a moment and quote two phrases. One was that they talked of "substantial sums". You have to see those "substantial sums" against the background of a present public sector borrowing requirement of £9,000 million, which means that the sums can hardly be described as "substantial" in the current day and age. Secondly, they referred to "no foreseeable need" for the Fund. Well, that comment seems incredible today, when we are all aware of the threat that looms over the whole of our national heritage for reasons which are painfully and palpably obvious to all of us.
Yet if one reads the 1957 debate, one is very conscious of the fact that there was no sense of urgency on any side. The most constructive suggestion, if rather remarkable one, made in that debate was that the National Land Fund should be spent on bringing electricity to the National Parks. The most surprising remark was made at col. 790 by a Member of the Labour Party, who said:
"Is it not the fact that in all the years during which the Fund has been in existence there has been no danger…".
I do not think that anyone should have believed those words then or would believe them today. But now the argument rages as to whether or not the Fund exists, and it almost smacks of mediaeval theology. I suppose it really depends on what you mean by "exist". In search of wisdom, I went to the dictionary, where I was told that "existence" means a state of being. So I then looked up

767
"being", which means "existence", so you come back to where you started. But of course the Funds exists. It holds securities. It exists in the sense that a banking account exists. It is a book-keeping entry, as I have said, by which Parliament voted certain monies into an earmarked account outside Parliament's control but under the control of the Treasury to be spent on purposes of the validity and merit of which the Treasury alone is the judge.
The real issue now has become that if the money is spent from the National Land Fund, is it or is it not part of the public sector borrowing requirement. The answer in my view is, Yes, in strict orthodox terms. It is also Yes if the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that it is and treats it as such. But the real question is whether or not it should be treated as part of the public sector borrowing requirement, for what we have now is a Fund the use of which is restricted by controls on public expenditure so that it is least available at the time of greatest need, when the economic and political pressures on Government and governed alike are most likely to result in crises which can only be resolved by use of the Fund. In other words, the Fund is not a contingency fund such as seems to have been Dr. Dalton's intention.
It is this situation which has led to current difficulties such as Mentmore. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in her frank and fair speech on 9th March, said at col. 1138 of the Official Report:
"…the expenditure involved, even though reimbursed from the Fund, is still public expenditure. Therefore, it is treated no differently from money spent on schools, housing, hospitals, and the case for it has to be balanced against other claims on the public purse".
Then:
"Mentmore could be purchased only at the price of an equivalent cut in housing and other programmes, and this is the rub".
It certainly is. But should it be regarded as such, or should not an exception be made?
The whole National Land Fund, if it was spent in one go tomorrow, must still be seen against the background of the current PSBR of £9,000 million. Would the International Monetary Fund really have jibbed at another £3 million? Of course not. The truth is that it is a
768
matter of political judgment—or, to be more accurate, political pressure. Is it not the inevitable contrast drawn between spending £3 million on a Victorian mansion in Buckinghamshire and the needs of a hospital in someone's constituency? Anyone who has been a Parliamentary candidate or a Member of Parliament knows the kind of questions that are posed and the invidious comparisons which are sometimes, and often, drawn. But anyone who has done that also knows that there are times when these pressures must sometimes be resisted, and it is more easy to do so if the expenditure criticised is done and carried out by an independent authority.
There seems to me also to be a degree of inconsistency in the Government's argument. Her Majesty's Government offered £1 million towards Mentmore, yet last year I understand that no less than £2 million were spent out of the National Land Fund. For the first time in history it spent more than its income. Does this expenditure not equally rank against the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement, and have countervailing economies been exacted from the Department's other expenditure to make room for that £2 million?
Is there not another aspect: what is the purpose of restricting the PSBR and public expenditure generally? Surely it is in order to release funds for investment in the private sector, yet after offering £1 million, the noble Baroness appealed to industry and commerce to put up the rest of the money, which in turn of course means funds diverted from investment in industry. There seems a certain confusion of thought.
The truth, in my opinion, is that the present Government machine is not equipped to deal with recurrent crises of this kind. There are two snags. The first is the political and economic pressure on available resources, with which I have tried to deal, and the second is the question of the timing and speed of decision. I do not assign the blame to anyone; the chronology of events concerning Mentmore was too complicated to do that. However, the total delay over reaching a final decision was nothing short of scandalous, but it was also inevitable. We must recognise that Government Departments are handicapped in reaching decisions

769
quickly on such matters; there are so many people to be consulted and so many people involved. How many Departments were involved in the issue of Mentmore? I reckon at least four. We know what happens in Whitehall—the minutes go round and round in a stately minuet while in the outside world time passes very quickly, so we lose these opportunities.
I turn to the Bill itself. The noble Baroness said that the Fund seemed to be rather mythical. This is an attempt to convert myth into reality. I recognise that the Bill is not perfect; it is incomplete and inadequate, but I think its purposes are clear. What I propose is that trustees should be appointed to take over the Fund as it was established in 1946. Clause 2 empowers the trustees, therefore, to acquire and dispose of various properties. I emphasise the word "dispose" because I visualise that we might have a situation, which of course is entirely hypothetical, in which the Government might, in satisfaction of death duties, he offered a house and its contents for, say, £2 million or £3 million. If my Bill became an Act the trustees could without more ado, if they thought fit, acquire it and in due course dispose of furniture and chattels of no great merit. One might even have an auction on the spot with a great auction house promoting it. Who knows—if the word and the thought are not too shocking—they might eventually make a profit, and what a good cause it would be in; to find more funds for helping the national heritage.
Clause 3 deals with the administration of the Fund and here I have offered one or two sops to Cerberus, if I may so describe the Treasury. It limits the amount of capital which the trustees can spend in any one year and the trustees can he ordered to make good any invasion of capital. This would accord over a short period with the general Public Sector Borrowing Requirement of the Treasury.
Clause 4 deals with the appointment and dismissal of trustees. On further consideration, I would make certain changes; I would have had the trustees appointed by the Prime Minister and not by the Secretary of State. I would also have sought to widen the expert knowledge which trustees would have to possess to be appointed to their task; I would have
770
included, for instance, the question of the Nature Conservancy and so on. I am particularly keen on Clause 4(4) which empowers Her Majesty in Council to dismiss the trustees, and I call this the "off with his head" provision.
There it is, a Bill which is short and, I admit, very imperfect. It needs much more expert knowledge than I have to be made adequate. It would be my hope that the Bill would go to a Select Committee which could build on this modest foundation. I appreciate that the Bill is no solution to the problem of preserving our national heritage—only money or lower taxation can do that—but it is I think a step forward which would provide an authority which could act swiftly and which would be immune from pressure. The House should realise that this matter of the preservation of the national heritage remains a very live issue. Even if this Bill does not find favour in the Government's eyes, they should know that another Bill in almost identical terms is being presented in another place backed by Members of all Parties.
This Bill cannot make progress without the help of the Government. If it is not acceptable and if the Government have no alternative proposals, they should face the facts and abolish the National Land Fund, which seems to serve no useful purpose except to mislead and confuse people who cherish the national heritage. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved that the Bill be read 2ª.—(Lord Reigate.)
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

GRUNWICK LIMITED MAIL
3.57 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement, which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Attorney-General, in answer to a Private Notice Question on mail for Grunwick which was identical with a Question raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. It may be for the convenience of the House if I read that

771
Question again so that the Statement which follows can more easily be followed. The Question was:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that there are more than 80 sacks of mail at Cricklewood Post Office sorting office inward to and outward from the Grunwick Processing Laboratory which employees of the Post Office are wilfully detaining or delaying, and whether they will now take action to enforce Section 58 of the Post Office Act 1953."
The Statement of the Attorney-General was as follows:
"In answer to the first part of the Question, the best information which I can obtain is that the outward mail which reached the Cricklewood sorting office from Grunwick on Wednesday, 15th June and which consists of approximately 65 sacks has not been handled by the Post Office employees at the sorting office and remains there. No other outward mail is there. That sorting office does not handle inward packages for Grunwick but I understand that a number of letters are there and are not being handled. The action by the employees at the Cricklewood sorting office is, according to my information, contrary to the instructions of their Union's Executive Committee and General Secretary. I understand that those instructions are being followed at other sorting offices and that Grunwick is receiving its inward packages for processing in the normal way.
"The Post Office has a responsibility to deliver the mail and I have to consider whether I should take action to enforce the provisions of the Post Office Act, having regard to the facts which I have stated. I explained in answer to questions on 13th December that responsibility for taking whatever action is necessary to ensure compliance with the law is normally for the Post Office for very good reasons which I gave. I said that it was of the greatest importance that the Post Office, which is best placed to establish the facts and has to take decisions affecting delivery of the mail to the public generally, should be left to carry out its responsibilities and that only in the most exceptional circumstances should the Law Officers step in so as to take the matter out of the hands of the Post Office. On the information available it would appear likely that there
772
are, prima facie, continuing breaches of the Post Office Act.
"In deciding whether those most exceptional circumstances exist I have to take into account the damage caused by a failure to ensure that the law is complied with on the one side and on the other the risk of grave damage to the public as a whole if action taken is likely to provoke far more widespread repercussions. In making this balance it is plainly necessary for me to do so with the best possible information as to the intentions of all those concerned and in particular of the Post Office itself.
"I have therefore formally written to the chairman of the Post Office asking him to inform me of the steps which he has taken or proposes in the immediate future to take in accordance with the responsibilities of the Post Office."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement
4.3 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack for having repeated that extremely serious Statement to the House. Speaking generally, I think it desirable that we should be kept abreast, stage by stage, of matters that are discussed in the other place. We should not get out of step and we should be kept in touch.
The Post Office Act 1953, which is the subject matter of this Question, is perfectly explicit in its provisions and I believe that the House should realise how plain it is. I shall read the relevant words of Section 58:
"If any officer of the Post Office, contrary to his duty … wilfully detains or delays—
I am leaving out irrelevant words—
"or procures or suffers to be detained or delayed, any … postal packet, [in course of transmission by post] he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and be liable to imprisonment or to a fine, or to both".
That is a consolidation Act that has been accepted by both sides of the House and has been in force for more than 20 years.
I note with pleasure—and it is, I think, the only thing I do note with pleasure—that the Executive Committee and the General Secretary of the union have

773
issued instructions to their members to abide by the law, and Section 58 in particular, so that what is happening is not only against the law but against the instructions of the union concerned. I therefore do not have to criticise either the union or the Government for what is happening at the moment, but I want to ask one or two questions about it. In the first place, how many members of the public does this collection of 65 sacks represent? How many members of the public are having their holiday snaps or whatever it may be illegally detained contrary to the criminal law of this country?
Secondly, while I agree—as I believe we all agree—that, as we handed over responsibility to the Post Office for the handling of the Act, the Attorney-General should enter into the matter only in, as he describes it, "exceptional circumstances", I wonder whether these circumstances are not exceptional, with 65 bags of mail illegally detained contrary to the law and to the instructions of the union? I wonder whether those who are responsible have asked themselves, or whether the Government have ever brought it to their attention, directly or by other means, that they should ask themselves, where they are taking the trade union movement of this country and where they are taking civil law and respect for law? There may or there may not be a case for altering Section 58 of the Post Office Act, but is it really to be said that people can make up their own mind whether or not to abide by a law so long as it is in force; and, if it is done on this scale, is it not a matter of exceptional importance in the light of what we read in the newspapers every day?
I hope that the Government will take my concern most seriously. I am anxious not to embarrass them, but many of us on this side of the House and, I doubt not, on other sides of the House too, are deeply concerned at the deliberate defiance of the law and the apparent ability of certain members of the Post Office to get away with it when they defy the law to the great damage of the public, the great damage of those whose mail is being detained, the great damage of the reputation of their union, which has given them instructions to act differently, and the great damage of respect for the law and the rule of law in this country.
4.7 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, this is clearly not an occasion upon which to make emotive observations about the merits of an industrial dispute, parts of which are sub judice and in many of which there is no clear evidence as to the precise facts. But, in thanking the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for repeating the Statement, I am bound to say that my noble friends on these Benches view some of its contents with considerable perturbation.
We view with particular alarm the paragraph in which the Attorney-General is saying in terms—when one clears away the obfuscation of the surrounding language—that, in deciding whether to proceed when there is clear evidence of a breach of the criminal law, the Attorney-General is prepared to bear in mind how many people are opposed on political grounds to the law in question. In our view, this is a dangerous path down which to proceed, and I would ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would not agree that it is the Government's duty to amend the law if it is unsatisfactory and that, until they do that, it is their clear duty to enforce it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with regard to the questions asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, clearly, I am not in a position to say how many members of the public are involved with the 65 sacks of mail now in the Post Office. That is not a question that I am presently able to answer.
On the matter of the taking of criminal proceedings, which is a matter for the decision of the Attorney-General, that decision he alone can and must make. He does it himself. He has a duty as the protector of the public interest to make that decision, and when he does so what he will consider will be the public interest in the matter. No Minister can require or compel him as to what he shall do. Indeed, your Lordships, sitting judicially, are considering that matter in another context; therefore, I shall make no comment upon it. However, that is the clear position under our Constitution The decision must be that of the Attorney-General.

775
I need not say that of course the intention and wish of Her Majesty's Government is to see that the law is complied with. That is our approach to this matter.
I cannot help thinking that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has not read the Statement of the Attorney-General with sufficient care. If I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, the Statement did not seem to justify the anxiety to which it gave rise. What the Attorney-General said was:
"In deciding whether those most exceptional circumstances exist I have to take into account the damage caused by a failure to ensure that the law is complied with on the one side and on the other the risk of grave damage to the public as a whole if action taken is likely to provoke far more widespread repercussions".
The next sentence of the Statement related to the announcement of the Attorney-General that he desires to learn from the Chairman of the Post Office the steps which he has taken or proposes to take in the immediate future. It is obviously right that the Attorney-General should properly inform himself. He will do so; he will make a decision and that decision will be his in the light of his judgment of the public interest in this matter.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I ask another question. I was very careful in what I said neither to cast into doubt that the Attorney-General's role as a prosecuting authority in the criminal law is a quasi-judicial one, nor one in which the noble and learned Lord, or his colleagues, have the smallest right to bring pressure to bear on him in either direction. I was very careful to press that. But I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether the Attorney-General is fully aware of the very great urgency of his coming to a conclusion in this matter. Let us suppose that the firm were to disappear completely as a result of the illegal action which the Attorney-General is investigating with the Post Office. Does he realise that a great number of people will wish to investigate the length of time that he has taken in arriving at a decision, with regard to whether it was not possible to arrive at the decision a little earlier?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I feel sure that the Attorney-
776
General has been watching the progress of this unhappy matter most carefully, and that he is acting as he thinks right in the circumstances. But I will certainly draw to his attention the anxiety which the noble and learned Lord has just expressed about the urgency of the situation, although, with respect, I do not think it is necessary to do so. I think that the Attorney-General understands it, but I will certainly communicate it to him.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether the Statement which he has read out implies that if there are a sufficient number of people who threaten to make sufficient serious repercussions— I think that that was the word—then the law will not be enforced?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Attorney-General has identified what balance he has to strike in his coming to a decision in this case. I would rather leave the matter in the proper way in which it stands constitutionally. It is his decision, and his decision alone. I cannot command him, and I would be acting unconstitutionally if I were to do so.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack say whether it is legally possible for individual members of the public to go in person to the sorting office in question in order to collect the property which is rightly theirs?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that raises an interesting question, to which I am afraid I have no immediate answer. I will seek to find information and communicate with the noble Lord.

AIR SERVICES AGREEMENT
4.14 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade. The Statement is as follows:
"Agreement was reached yesterday on the main provisions of a new Air

777
Services Agreement. Final texts still have to be completed before the new Agreement can be formally signed and come into effect. This will probably be at the end of next month. The Agreement will then be laid before Parliament as a Command Paper. Meanwhile services will continue as at present.
"The most important and novel feature of the new Agreement is the mechanism to control capacity on North Atlantic routes. This is designed to reduce the waste of fuel and other resources that results from flying too many empty seats, while preserving competition and benefiting the travelling public. This has from the outset been one of our most important objectives.
"Moreover our airlines will be able to open up new routes to the United States. The new points are Houston, Atlanta, Seattle and Dallas/Forth Worth, and a non-stop route to San Francisco. These routes will enable us to increase our penetration of the North Atlantic market. We have also got a better route across the Pacific for future passenger and cargo services from Hong Kong to the West Coast of the United States.
"We have also secured agreement to single designation by both sides on all the North Atlantic routes, except two. This means that with these exceptions the British carrier will face competition from only one American airline. The Americans will be putting two airlines on New York and Los Angeles. My intention is to designate Laker as our second carrier to New York. We will retain the option to designate a second carrier on some other route. I intend to keep this open.
"We have obtained substantial reductions in the rights of United States airlines to carry 5th Freedom traffic beyond London and Hong Kong to other destinations, although some important 5th Freedom rights will continue. A number of these rights will disappear immediately, others after three and five years.
"There will also be greater flexibility for the airlines, our own as well as the American, to carry passengers on the same aircraft to more than one destination, but without the right to pick up
778
passengers from one destination point and take them to another. This is a new concept which should contribute to more economic use of resources. But we have given notice to the US Authorities that, if it turns out to our disadvantage, we would want to review it.
"A new Tariffs Article has been agreed which removes the ambiguities of the old Tariffs Article and should avoid the disputes that have occurred in the past.
"It has also been agreed that, in accordance with my airports policy Statement of 5th April, the new routes to Houston and Atlanta will from the start come into Gatwick. This will also apply to the Dallas route provided the British carrier uses Gatwick.
"New routes have also been agreed linking Bermuda and our dependencies in the Caribbean to the United States.
"Finally, the Americans have agreed to work with us towards a new multilateral arrangement on charter services between North America and Europe. We already have a bilateral arrangement with the United States which is working well. This will now become part of the new air services agreement. The development of charter services, which both sides desire to foster, will offer further benefits to the travelling public.
"I believe this Agreement will open a new and expanding era. It will provide significant new opportunities for the airlines of both sides, and promises real benefits to the consumer. It will give British airlines a fairer opportunity to fight for a bigger share of a growing market."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
4.20 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement to us. I think I should say at the outset that my noble friends, my right honourable friends and I are not over-enthusiastic about the Statement and about the outcome of the negotiations. I think that the timing of the abrogation of the original Bermuda Agreement was really most unfortunate. Your Lordships will recall that the American Bicentennial celebrations were in progress, so they were not able to proceed immediately

779
with the new negotiations; the question of the landing rights of Concorde in New York was then, as it is now, unresolved; and the Presidential elections—most important of all—were pending in the United States, and it was clear from the outset that meaningful negotiations on the new agreement could not begin until President Carter's team had taken office in January of this year. So from the very day that we abrogated the agreement we must have known that there were going to be only six months instead of 12, as we might have thought, to negotiate a new one. I should like to ask the noble Lord, in that context, whether the decision to abrogate the Bermuda Agreement, and particularly the decision on the timing of it, was taken with the concurrence of the Civil Aviation Authority. Presumably they were consulted. What was their view?
With regard to the content of the new agreement, I believe that the balance of advantage is very fine, and I do not think it is possible for the Government to say that the new agreement is clearly better than the old one. The details are very technical, and it will take a little while to evaluate the results of the new agreement and to decide whether, indeed, we have achieved any advantage. In any event, my Lords, I personally believe that such small advantage as we may have gained could easily have been achieved within the context of the old agreement without the drama and trauma of abrogating it at a totally inappropriate time.
To turn to what the noble Lord has announced as being contained in the new agreement, I should like to ask him, in particular, what provision there is to be for the regulation of charter flights, which for my own part, at any rate, I welcome as being included in the new agreement. When I asked the noble Lord some months ago whether charter flights were to be included, my recollection is that he was not clear, and it may be that that point had not then been decided. But I welcome their inclusion, and I think that the fact that 50 per cent. or so of the traffic across the North Atlantic, which is carried in charter flights, is now to come under the protection of a formal agreement as distinct from the old memorandum of understanding is a good step forward.
780
The other major point is the question of 5th Freedom rights. We gather that American carriers are to be progressively denied certain of the rights that they presently enjoy from the United Kingdom, but that in return they will be granted certain additional rights in the Far East. I wonder whether the noble Lord can give us an indication of how the balance of the value of business is seen to lie; whether the loss of business in Europe will be offset or not offset by the additional business that these American carriers will be granted out of Hong Kong.
One final point I should like to ask the noble Lord about is related to the 5th Freedom point, which applies in the Far East, and concerns the item in the fourth paragraph of the Statement, which refers to the better route for British carriers across the Pacific for certain passenger and cargo services between Hong Kong and the West Coast of the United States. As the noble Lord may know, there is already a very strong American presence on that route, in particular with North-West Orient Airlines, and there are, indeed, certain other Far Eastern airlines which possess rights to operate on that route even if they are not doing so. I hope that the noble Lord feels that the great advantage claimed for that point is really worth having.
4.25 p.m.
Earl AMHERST: My Lords, from these Benches we, too, should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating this Statement, which seems, on the face of it, to have gone quite a long way towards what we wanted, even if we have not got 100 per cent. of what we wanted. I think we ought to congratulate the British team of negotiators who have got through this very long, difficult and, if we are to believe our Press, at times acrimonious negotiation without any breakdown of the services. We should like to reserve any further comment on this matter until we have seen the vital details concerning 5th Freedom traffic rights through London, the charter arrangements across the Atlantic and the fare arrangements. All these details have not yet been resolved, and they are all vital to the agreement. Until we have seen those, which presumably we shall when we get this Command Paper in which they will be fully set out, we do not think we can say further than, "So far, so good.".
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, would the noble Lord clarify a little the effect of this agreement on British Caledonian Airways? He will no doubt have observed that the chairman of that airline is reported in this morning's Press as having expressed extreme disappointment. Indeed, he is said to have used the strong expression that he had been "sold down the river". Can the noble Lord make it clear whether or not it is true, as alleged in the Press, that British Caledonian will not be allowed to operate on Atlanta immediately but only after an interval of some years? Can he also confirm the position of services into Dallas/Fort Worth? Is he aware that Dallas/Fort Worth serves broadly the same traffic areas as Houston, and that if another airline is operating out of Dallas/Fort Worth then the value of Houston is of course very much diminished? Can the noble Lord in fact confirm that British Caledonian have been given what the Government themselves promised to them in paragraph 9 of Future Aviation Policy, issued as recently as last year?
4.28 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I should like to thank the three noble Lords who have asked their various questions, even though the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, prefaced his remarks with expressions of lack of enthusiasm. I do not think that his lack of enthusiasm is generally reflected in the comments that we have received so far. I believe, as I indicated yesterday, that this is a new agreement which will be advantageous to British interests. The noble Lord raised the question of the timing of our notice to terminate the old agreement. This was a matter for the Government. The Civil Aviation Authority were in support of our objectives, but the timing had to be decided by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who took careful account of the points that have been made, quite rightly, by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, this afternoon. But it is so often the case with important decisions of this kind that no particular point of time is ideal, and one has to make a choice, sometimes in difficult circumstances.
The noble Lord asked about the balance of advantages, and doubted whether the claims which have been made by myself
782
and others can be substantiated. I have again this afternoon said that I believe it will work out to our advantage, and I think it is worth quoting the view on this matter of the chairman of Pan-Am, who said:
"The new agreement transfers net economic benefit from the United States flag system to the British flag. That was the purpose of the British denunciation of the old agreement".
So there is, I think, an expert view that we should take into account.
On charter flights, I am glad that the noble Lord raised this point because it is important and there have been some misunderstandings about it. I think I should, therefore—I am sure the noble Lord would wish it—spell the situation out a little. The Americans had a restriction on the carriage of their charter traffic by foreign operators, and this imposed severe restrictions on the accession of our independent airlines to the US charter market.
We were able to obtain the lifting of these restrictions as a result of very hard bargaining in a Memorandum of Understanding which we negotiated in the spring of 1976. This Memorandum was renewed for a further year in April 1977. As a result of this Memorandum, our airlines are now carrying at least half the total UK-US charter traffic. Without that agreement, we could not compete effectively. This Memorandum has been caught up in the new air services agreement. It obliges both sides, subject to certain conditions, to renew that Memorandum annually until a permanent bilateral agreement covering charters takes its place. The Americans have also undertaken a formal commitment to work with us and our fellow members of ECAC towards a multilateral arrangement on charter services between North America and Europe. I apologise to the House for taking so long, but it is an important elem wenthich, perhaps, has not been spelled out sufficiently.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, asked about the freedoms. He correctly said that some will be phased out but that others will continue. This, as the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, has said, is a very detailed and complex question. A full statement on this is being prepared and copies will be placed in the Library. I would say by way of general answer to

783
the noble Lord, since he asked me to quantify, that these things really are not easily capable of being quantified. They are points on which judgments have to be reached and the actual effect on quantities can be seen only after a period of operation.
I welcomed what the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, said in his statement. I welcomed, also, the fact that he prefers to defer comment or question until the details are available. It is, as I have indicated yesterday and today, a most complex question and informed comment must await sight of the complex documents. These will be available, in the form that the noble Earl mentioned, in a Command Paper. I should indicate that there are already in the Library copies of the two Press statements issued yesterday, one by the Department of Trade and one by the American Embassy; but they were in only rather general terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked me about the situation of British Caledonian since, as lie said, the chairman of that organisation has expressed disappointment. I can confirm the point that he asked specifically: that British Caledonian will not be able to operate London to Atlanta until three years have elapsed; solo operation rights will be for the Americans on that route. But the important point which has, perhaps, not been stressed is that British Caledonian will have solo rights on the London-Houston leg. That should be a very important asset for them. Indeed, they will be able to get going on that operation, I believe, well before the Americans begin their operations on the London-Atlanta route, because they have not yet decided which carrier should be used and I believe that a considerable process will necessarily have to be gone through before that decision can be reached. So I think that British Caledonian will have, in practice, an advantage of that kind. British Caledonian have not only that advantage which I have mentioned, but they will derive considerable advantage from the capacity mechanism which was referred to in my right honourable friend's Statement when there are the two carriers operating on the London-Atlanta route.
My Lords, a further point which is of some significance, although I would accept that it is not perhaps the major point, is
784
that British Caledonian now have established freedom rights beyond Houston into certain Latin American countries; namely, Venezuela, Peru and Colombia, and one airport, I think Manaus, in Brazil. I should emphasise here that only as far as the agreement between the Americans and ourselves is concerned has that been agreed. The negotiations have yet to take place with the authorities in Venezuela, Peru and Colombia; but we see no ultimate difficulty about that. It is a matter of time and of going through the correct procedures.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: And Dallas?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the noble Lord means it is nearer to Houston. Yes, this I accept. This is part of a competitive situation between the Americans and ourselves. In terms of jet aircraft there is only a comparatively small distance between Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston. That, I accept, would be a hard competitive situation that British Caledonian will have to face.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, may I make a brief comment, and also ask a question on a point of information? The brief comment is that I regretted, and I hope the House regretted, the unmitigated gloom that came from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on this particular matter. A great deal of work has gone into this matter and I think that every credit is due to the people who brought about this result. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, may be better informed than I am, but my understanding is that this agreement will bring considerable benefit to this country. I know, as the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, has said, that we must wait and see the exact results; but I think it would have been nice if the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, had exchanged the unmitigated gloom which took up at least half of his statement for some measure of congratulation.
The point of information is this. It may be that I should know the answer, but I do not. What happens now regarding the negotiations concerning Concorde? I understood my noble friend to say that this agreement provides for double designation from London to New York. We have British Airways and

785
Laker as the two airlines from here; and we have the two from America. Does this mean that if—and, certainly, as I am sure we all hope, when—Concorde is given landing rights in New York, there would have to be designation of three airlines? Or am I wrong in assuming that any of this comes under the terms of the Bermuda Agreement?
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness has been scarcely fair to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne who was not gloomy but, I think, was accurate in his analysis; because this agreement gives no great cause for rejoicing. Whether the concessions which we make offset the advantages we are supposed to get, as the Minister himself has said, only time and experience will show. I think the Minister was slightly contradictory in that he lauded this agreement as being something of tremendous value and of great benefit and then, in almost the next sentence, he, himself, said that only experience will show where the margin of advantage lies.
My fear is that restriction of capacity growth in order to match the demands will not be to the advantage of a consuming public and, indeed, the Airline Users' Committee—in which the noble Baroness played such a prominent and distinguished part—may in due course have to play its part if restriction of growth to match capacity is found to be penalising the consumers who wish to travel across the Atlantic. We shall have to watch that.
My other worry is the 5th Freedom position. The Americans are going to be allowed to continue indefinitely the 5th Freedom to take traffic from London to West Berlin, and 5th Freedom rights will continue to exist for three years to Belgium and Holland, and five years to Norway and Spain. We all know that once somebody has practised something for a period of years with some success they have dug themselves in, so in fact in this agreement we are giving away 5th Freedom rights indefinitely to those particular countries, and the question is: What are we getting in return? Only time will show and we await the White Paper which the Government have promised, setting out the full agreement, to make our judgment. Until then, I do not think that this agreement is worthy of great rejoicing and great praise.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I will leave aside the question of whether I was too optimistic and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was too pessimistic. Let us all agree that we all hope—I would say expect—that this will provide an agreement wherein, if we take our chances, we can have an increased share of the North Atlantic business. I believe that that will prove to be the case. My noble friend Lady Burton asked about Concorde. British Airways are already designated to operate Concorde and any other aircraft to New York, and all our rights for Concorde will be continued in the new agreement. The provisions of the new agreement concerning Concorde are basically the same as in Bermuda. There has been some useful tightening up in the text, but basically the situation about Concorde remains unaltered.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, was too apprehensive about the capacity mechanism. It is complicated and I will not delay your Lordships by spelling it out, even if I thought I could with great success do so. But there is a minimum growth which is assured, and there is full opportunity for airlines and Governments to make proper comment on the way in which airlines' plans match demand. When the noble Lord comes to study the details, his fears will prove groundless. The same is true about his fears over the 5th Freedom. Serious reductions are planned in the Americans' 5th Freedom rights. It is not that they are being given new ones; they are being phased out. I accept the statement that the noble Lord made in outline as to how this will operate. Here again, as I indicated in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, this is a lengthy part of the subject and we all ought to await the full statement and study it.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, may I for the Record say that I made one stupid mistake when I said we were giving away our 5th Feeedom rights. Of course I meant to say that we are giving away our restriction rights of 5th Freedom which the Germans enjoy.

NATIONAL LAND FUND BILL [H.L.]
4.45 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
The EARL of MANSFIELD: My Lords, getting back to the National Land Fund Bill, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Reigate for giving us not only an opportunity to debate his Bill, but possibly a continuing opportunity to keep our thoughts on this matter in the future. Whether the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will welcome this further opportunity to return to the subject is a matter of doubt. On a previous occasion I think she said that the name "Mentmore" was written on her heart. It may well be that before the hopefully short life of this Government comes to an end the words "Land Fund" may be marked on another portion of her anatomy.
It is not for me to go into the questions posed by the deplorable affair of Mentmore—if I may so call it—at this stage. I say that for two reasons: first of all, I opened at considerable length a debate on this subject in March. I spoke for longer than I have ever spoken before, or intend to again in this House. More especially, the Order Paper for this afternoon is crowded and it would not be justified to detain your Lordships for too long, although equally it must be said that this is an important subject, one which is going to be of continued and increasing importance in the future.
When we debated Mentmore, I criticised the Government—gently, I hope—for what I considered to be their dilatory behaviour over this affair. There is no doubt about it, a great deal of time was spent in discussing what form the Land Fund actually takes; what use can be made of it, and in what circumstances. A great deal of ignorance was shown, not least by me. But it is a complicated subject and I hesitate to ask the question, but one wonders whether all the Government advisers were totally sure of what advice they were giving at any particular time. I can justify that comment if necessary.
We were all more or less convinced at the end of the day that the National Land Fund was a notional, almost fictitious, sum of money. If ever it had existed in the mind of Dr. Dalton, it pretty soon vanished into thin air. Since then, it has been a mere paper exercise, in effect to provide the Government with a means of spending money without at that stage having to have a Vote in Parliament, but which would have to be justified on a later
788
occasion. That was the sum total of how the matter came to be understood.
I was "re-perplexed"—if such a word exists—on looking through the Official Report for the Commons of 12th June, at column 293, when I saw an answer to a Question put by my honourable friend Mr. Cormack to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He asked, in effect, if the Chancellor would state whether during the 20 years since 1957, any of the investments held from time to time by the National Land Fund had been purchased on the open market and, if so, whether he would specify the total sum expended on the acquisition of such investments. The Answer was:
"During the past 20 years stocks totalling £44,120,269 were purchased on the open market through the Government Broker on behalf of the National Land Fund. In addition Treasury Bills totalling £79,869,935 were purchased in the same period".
Whatever the transactions regarding Treasury bills, to me the effect of that Answer seems that cash was used to buy securities on the open market. If that be the case, the whole artificiality—if that is the word—of the National Land Fund is once more thrown into question, if not doubt.
Since this is a debate which is ranging over the whole subject of the National Land Fund, may I ask the noble Baroness, when she comes to reply, whether, if these figures are right—and of course they must be, since they came from no less a person than the Chancellor of the Exchequer—public expenditure has already taken place in respect of the investments now held by the Land Fund. If that is the case, when we come to what I might call, "a Mentmore situation", surely it is then wrong to say that the Fund cannot now be used to meet such a situation, because that would imply new public expenditure in the future. That is how the situation seems to me, my Lords. It may be that I have got hold of the wrong end of the stick—if I have it will not be for the first time—but I just wonder. This is important, because it throws into question the Fund and its use and also, of course, my noble friend's Bill, which seeks to place the matter beyond doubt.
I know that my noble friend will not take it amiss if I say that I am not going to comment in any great detail upon his

789
Bill because, as he himself said, it is perhaps deficient in one or two instances, excellent though it may be as a vehicle for its purpose. However, there are one or two matters I should like to take up, because it seems to me to be important that if this matter is going before a Select Committee in the future, no false premises should be laid either now or in the future.
Clause 2 of the Bill says:
"The Trustees may in their discretion acquire any land, buildings, property or chattels which may be in the market at any time, or which shall have been offered to the Treasury in lieu of tax, duty or for any other reason,".
Pausing there, it seems to me that Clause 2 lumps under the same heading that form of property, either in the form of chattels or of real property, which is offered by a tax debtor in satisfaction of a capital debt (imposed of course by tax) which has existed since, I think, the 1959 Finance Act and which is something which falls completely outside the National Land Fund.
I know it may be said that, when such chattels, or whatever it is, have been offered and accepted in satisfaction of a debt, it has been the practice of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to be reimbursed in effect from the Land Fund in respect of that expenditure. If that is so—and I believe it to be correct—that reimbursement is a practice which has grown up. It is not mandatory; not only is it not mandatory but it is not compulsory. Therefore, in those circumstances, in my submission, it would be wrong necessarily to equate the acceptance of works of art or real property as a part or whole discharge of a capital tax debt as something which inevitably is going to fall on the Land Fund, because it does not need to. Therefore, if I quarrel with my noble friend in the drafting of his Bill, it is over that.
A second matter worthy of comment is the fact that under this clause the trustees, according to subsection (2), seem to be treated as principals, because it says that they:
"…shall be empowered to dispose by sale or otherwise of any fond, buildings,".
and so on through the subsection. My quarrel with that is that in such an instance trustees of this nature should never be principals. They should be
790
monitors; they should review the situation; they should hold the cash and advise the Minister how, when and in what circumstances it shall be used. If anything, they should be advisers of the Secretary of State, but they certainly should not be creatures of the Secretary of State; nor should they be principals acting on their own behalf. That is something which I hope will be considered in the future, but otherwise I think that the Bill is a good vehicle for further discussion, as I have said.
I think we have to take in the lessons of Mentmore, because future consideration of a Land Fund, or whatever sum of money is going to be devoted to this purpose, must get straight what the sum is to be used for. To my mind, the whole purpose of a Land Fund should be to act as a safety net to save properties in certain instances when otherwise either they or their contents would be dissipated by sale, by virtue of the inability of the former owner to meet his commitments one way or another. They do not have necessarily to be concerned with tax.
When the noble Baroness replied to the Mentmore debate, if I may so call it, she said that she intended to prepare what she was pleased to call "a league table" of properties which would be designated as worthy of salvation in some kind of order. I was horrified by the whole idea and I hope it has been quietly put in some pigeon-hole, where if ideas can gather dust it is gathering it. The effort, expertise and judgment required to put items of our national heritage in some kind of league order would defy the wisdom of Solomon, in my respectful submission. The Land Fund, I repeat, should be used when all else has failed to save a property in circumstances which should be conveyed to the Minister by a body of responsible people who are there to give advice. The real way in which the historic houses, and indeed our heritage in general, can be preserved for the future is to devise a tax policy which will ensure that as few as possible of them come on to the market, unless their owners are either extravagant or foolish, so that they can no longer keep up their commitments.
The Times today contains word of an Amendment which apparently the Liberals or the Government—they are more or less synonymous these days—are tabling

791
in another place during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. That will, as I understand it, lower the penal tax rate to be paid by the trustees of a maintenance fund for the upkeep of an historic house. Due to some dispute, I have not been able to get the Official Report. However, that is the kind of change of policy and consideration which we on these Benches will continue to urge upon the Government and, in particular, upon the unfortunate noble Baroness, Lady Birk, while the Government remain in Office, because we are convinced that unless and until the Government realise that the future of historic houses lies in putting them in a position where they do not need to be saved, then the Mentmore situation will recur, all too frequently. However, taking the Bill as we find it, it is one which I am sure your Lordships will unhesitatingly welcome. I very much hope that the House will, at a later stage, decide to send it to a Select Committee.
4.59 p.m.
Viscount NORWICH: My Lords, I think all Members of this House will agree that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, for having once again called to our attention this vitally important question of the future of the artistic and architectural heritage of this country and for having produced such an admirable vehicle, at least at this stage, in the form of this admirably simple yet at the same time most promising and potentially effective Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, have already spoken at length about the problems of our heritage. I do not think there is any reason for me to repeat what they said, except to point out once again that the historic houseowners of this country are, in greater and greater numbers, finding themselves unable to keep up their properties. I am not just talking about the great stately homes; I am also talking about the little village manor houses and almost every other historic building between the two. There are more and more who are now forced by the increasing weight of taxation and the financial situation—having struggled heroically and valiantly for many years—to give up. What can be done to save what remains of the heritage and, above all, to see that Mentmore does not occur again?
792
Until a few years ago, we could point to the National Trust which, in the first 20 or 25 years after the end of the Second World War, certainly let very few important houses of architectural value slip through its fingers when there was no other way to save them. Here I should perhaps declare an interest, as I have done so frequently, and say that I am a member of the Executive Committee of the National Trust. I should also say, in the same breath, that here I am speaking personally for myself, and for the Party from whose Benches I am speaking, and not in any sense for the Trust. But the Trust, I am afraid, much as it grieves me to say it, can no longer be looked upon as a lifeline, except possibly in very few cases.
We have always had to ask for a very substantial endowment in order to keep up a house, but the endowments which we are now forced to request from donors are such that it is extremely unlikely that any donor will be able to contribute anything like enough. Indeed, we are having appalling trouble with the endowments of houses which are already in our possession, endowments which were very carefully calculated only a few years ago, but which now, thanks to galloping inflation, are wholly insufficient to keep the houses going.
What else is there, failing the National Trust? Fortunately, there is the Land Fund. Unfortunately, in recent months the Land Fund does not seem to have been working any too well. So what can we do to make it more effective, to give it power, to give it teeth? Even before we get on to that question, it is important to say that the Land Fund is not the answer, nor can it ever be the answer. There is only one possible answer; that is, to alter the whole climate of taxation in this country in such a way that historic house-owners do not feel themselves impelled to give up the fight. Until that happens, problems of this kind will continue to plague us all. But, obviously, that can be achieved only in the longer term and there is no time to lose. Therefore, the Land Fund, representing as it does a fire brigade, must be put into the best order that is possible. It seems to me that this is what the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, does extremely well.
So far as I can make out—and I know that this is an over-simplification—there

793
were two principal problems that bugged the whole unhappy saga of Mentmore. The first was the extremely cumbrous machinery by which the whole Land Fund could be brought into operation, involving correspondence and endless very long, slow communications between the Treasury the Department of Education and Science, the Department of the Environment, the Inland Revenue and possibly, at certain moments, several other Government Departments as well. That was one problem. The other was the problem which has already been discussed in some detail this afternoon, and which I shall not go into again at length, of public expenditure.
It seems to me that the present Bill admirably manages to get rid of these two stumbling blocks. First, it streamlines the administration of the Land Fund, taking it away from heaven knows how many hundreds of civil servants, in heaven knows how many Government Departments, and putting the whole thing in the hands of just half a dozen highly trained and highly experienced people. Secondly—and I confess that here I am not an expert, and certain doubts hang over my mind, just as they do over the mind of the noble Earl who has just sat down—so far as I can see, the question of public expenditure has also been solved. But I think that we should all like a little more information about that, because it is difficult to know whether arty future expenditure from the Land Fund will be so treated. For the rest, it seems to me that it works very well.
At the same time, there are one or two points which I, too, should like to bring into slightly greater relief and ask for further elucidation about. I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, about the Trustees of the Land Fund. My view is that they should be principals. If they are to be only creatures of the Treasury, if they are to be only advisers to the Treasury, then we are in very serious danger of getting back into the same position as we started from. The whole of this glorious streamlining will not do anything, and we shall have to start all over again. I think that they should be principals, and I see no reason why they should not be.
I would even go a little further than that, and express some slight doubt about
794
subsection (3) of Clause 3, which states:
"In any given financial year the Trustees shall not spend more than one-sixth of the capital sum standing to the credit of the Fund at the commencement of that financial year".
If I am not mistaken, that would not have enabled the Land Fund to solve the Mentmore crisis. The Land Fund at present standing at, I believe, £17 million, the sum of £3 million having been asked for Mentmore, the Government offering £1 million on their own and asking for £2 million more, the Land Fund would presumably have been asked to pay the full £3 million, which is more than one-sixth of its present total. I should have preferred that clause to say,
"…shall not spend more than one-sixth of the capital sum without prior authority from the Treasury,"
or something like that. There should, at least, be some kind of let-out clause, which could be used under given controls at a given time. But these are obviously points for Committee stage if, as I very much hope, your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading this afternoon.
There is one other point which I am not suggesting should be written into the Bill, for the very good reason that I do not see how it possibly could be. I was extremely surprised to learn recently that there is no machinery at all, even with the subject's consent, by which the Treasury can be informed of the tax position of an individual who may or may not be a potential vendor of his property. I understand that even Treasury Ministers may not be confidentially informed of the tax position of an individual, even if that individual is perfectly prepared that they should be. This problem also caused endless delays and unnecessary complications over the whole Mentmore trouble. How lovely it will be when we do not have to talk any more about Mentmore!
Anyhow, if this is so—and I am open to correction—could there be some directive by which people, who find themselves in a position very roughly akin to that in which the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, found himself some time back, could at least be asked whether they would give authority to the Inland Revenue to send copies of relevant documentation about their tax problems to the Treasury? After all, they have nothing to hide since

795
the Inland Revenue knows it already. Probably it would be very much in their interests, as well as everybody else's, if this information could be transferred.
Having said that, I do not think that I need to detain your Lordships any further—there is a great deal more business to be done this afternoon—except to repeat once more what I have already said: that this is only a holding operation and that until the general question of the taxation of historic houseowners can be changed in such a way as to allow them to keep their houses for themselves, and for the general public to whom they should by all means be obliged to give reasonable access, then our historic heritage will continue, alas! to be in danger.
5.10 p.m.
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, if I may come hack to the Bill, let me say at once that I strongly support it and that I very much hope—although I have fears that it is not very probable—that the Government will give it their blessing. It is not very probable, because, having succeeded in stultifying the purposes of Dr. Dalton in setting aside the National Land Fund to help in preserving our national heritage as a memorial to those killed in the First World War, a purpose that was endorsed by Parliament, it is evident that the Treasury will fight tooth and nail to keep the National Land Fund sterilised in their own hands.
No one can study the history of the Fund objectively without becoming aware that the behaviour of the Treasury in this matter has been monstrous and disgraceful. I cannot use any other words, although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will think I am using terms that are too strong. The Fund, established by Parliament at Dr. Dalton's instance in 1946, was originally a sum of £50 million, raised from the sale of surplus war stores. It was not part of the general revenue. Since that time, although grants have occasionally been made from it, in every year but one the interest has been underspent. In fact, in each of 30 years, it has been underspent. There has never been recourse to the capital, and the accumulated interest has grown and goes on growing.
The Treasury have somehow managed to establish the picture, first of an unnecessary Fund, with the result that
796
Parliament agreed in 1957, under a Conservative Government, to their eternal shame, to the Fund being raided to the tune of £50 million. And ever since that time the facade has been put up that it is not merely an unnecessary Fund but that it can hardly be said to exist—that it is a mere book entry. So far from that being the fact, it is now clearly established by the Written Answer to a Question asked in another place on 17th June last by Mr. Patrick Cormack, the Answer to which was quoted by my noble friend Lord Mansfield, that during the past 20 years stocks totalling more than £44 million were purchased on the open market on behalf of the National Land Fund; in addition, Treasury bills totalling nearly £80 million had been purchased. I am bound to say that I find it difficult to understand those figures, and when she comes to reply I shall be grateful if the Minister can enlighten us on how they are made up. But however that may be, so much for the myth, sedulously propagated, that the Fund does not exist or, if it does exist, it exists only as a book entry. Of course it exists and we have all—Parliament and the public—been shamelessly hoodwinked.
The question then arises, what can be done to enable the Fund to be applied for the purposes for which it was established by Parliament, the preservation of our heritage: historic houses and their surroundings and their contents, and our most beautiful countryside. Funds for that purpose are more urgently needed now than ever before. Mentmore is only the tip of an iceberg, the main bulk of which, forced to the surface by penal rates of taxation, will become more and more disastrously evident in the next few years.
It is perfectly clear that if the Fund is ever to be applied for the purpose for which it exists it must be taken out of Treasury control. The purpose of the Bill is to remove the Fund from Treasury control and to place it in the hands of independent trustees. Only in that way can we hope that the Fund will be used, and used for its proper purpose. That is why I strongly support the Bill and I hope that the House will agree to refer it to a Select Committee.
5.15 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, this question seems to have come round again to me fairly quickly, although answering on behalf of the Government I have changed my Department of the Environment hat for a Treasury hat, which is filled with thorns at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Reigate, will not be surprised to learn that I cannot accept all that he has said, or agree with it. Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity which is afforded by this Second Reading to make the Government's position clear, and in particular to clarify the various misconceptions about the National Land Fund itself which, possibly with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, seem to be shared by everybody who has spoken. I think the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, was rather hard on it; but he was hard because, if I may say so with great respect, he has got it wrong.
I shall not go into the history of the Fund because the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, did so most succinctly and admirably, and time is getting on. My only quarrel with him about its history is that I thought he was unduly harsh about Hugh Dalton, who was a most distinguished and able man. Perhaps I may explain what the National Land Fund has done and some of its pluses, since we have heard so much about the minuses.
The National Land Fund accounts, published each year, provide an impressive inventory of what has been preserved with its help—for example, the Penrhyn Castle estate, Denbighshire, land in the Lake District and Cornwall, Ickworth House, Bury St. Edmunds, Hardwick Hall, Derbyshire, Brodick Castle, Tatton Park, Cheshire, Brownsea Island, Dorset, Sissinghurst Castle, Kent, works of art associated with such great houses as Chatsworth, Petworth and Knole and, most recently, Cragside in Northumberland which was acquired specifically through the National Land Fund. Quite recently, the Stackpole Estate in Pembrokeshire, parts of the Foxwold Estate in Kent, chattels associated with Cotehele House in Cornwall, Erdigg Hall in Denbighshire, Van Dyck portraits from Althorp and the Blenheim archives have been preserved. I am sorry to have gone into such a long list, but it seems to me that sometimes we should remember what has been achieved by the Fund,
798
which has been battered with words—including, I agree entirely, my own from time to time.
This means that disbursements from the National Land Fund have amounted to some £10½ million since 1957. During most of this period, the income earned on the investments held by the Fund has exceeded disbursements, so that the capital of the Fund has appreciated. This is despite the plundering of the Fund in 1957. I share the feelings of those who believe that this was a very bad and wrong step to take.
The Fund is still comparatively sizable and amounted to £18·3 million at the end of March this year. Nevertheless, recently expenditure has exceeded income and the Fund's capital started to run down during last year. If we continue to draw on the Fund at the rate of between £3 million and £4 million a year, we shall have preserved for the nation a very impressive list of buildings and works of art on a scale even greater than seen in the past, but the Fund will be extinguished in about five or six years. That is the answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate: how is it possible to have spent this money and for the Government to have been able to offer even £1 million towards Mentmore?
Any spending, whether as grants for repair of historic buildings, or capital taxes exemption, or special grants to the national galleries and museums is a direct cost to the Exchequer. I must remind noble Lords opposite that they, together with other Members of the Conservative Party, have been calling constantly for restriction of public expenditure. Although the Fund is a central Government Fund and payments from it either to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or to the Secretaries of State exercising their powers under the 1953 Act are internal transactions, they still count as public expenditure and as such are subject to the same constraints as apply to other public expenditure. In the case of expenditure by the Secretaries of State under the 1953 Act the position is easy to understand.
The Secretaries of State are acquiring property from the private sector, by using, in effect, the resources of the National Land Fund. The reimbursement to them from the Land Fund of the expenses they

799
incur is scored as public expenditure, instead of the payments the Secretaries of State make directly themselves to the private sector. In cases where the Land Fund meets the cost of Inland Revenue of accepting a property in lieu of tax this transaction is counted as public expenditure, to represent the purchase which is implied in this arrangement. If the arrangement were not treated as two simultaneous transactions, first the purchase of the property by Government and, secondly, the surrender of the proceeds of Government as tax, the transaction would be left out of the accounts completely, implying the writing-off of a tax liability for no consideration and acquisition of valuable property at no cost.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene there as I think it is a convenient moment. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, could answer the question—
Baroness BIRK: I am just coming to it.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: —which I postulated, where objects are taken in discharge of a capital debt. Perhaps the noble Baroness is coming on to it but I thought she had gone past it.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I was coming to the point made by the noble Earl when he raised the question of the National Land Fund investments and purchases on the open market, and—
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, that was not what I asked. My point was that if under the 1909 Finance Act objects are taken to satisfy a capital debt it may be the practice for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to be reimbursed from the National Land Fund but it is not a mandatory duty for such reimbursement to take place and therefore—and I am putting the position a little stronger now—it is idle to pretend that in effect that is a drain on the public sector borrowing requirement.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl will allow me to get through this part of my speech and come to that particular point at the end because I do not think it is as relevant to the Bill—or the context in which I am trying to
800
set it—as the other points and it will spoil my flow of argument. So perhaps I may deal with that as a "one off" at the end. The point put by the noble Earl during his speech was that of the investments and purchases on the open market and I think he particularly asked me to comment on that. This really demonstrates nothing more than that the fund is not a myth but that the Treasury is managing the Fund's portfolio. It has nothing to do with the main issues, but is a means of managing the Fund because it is still in Government securities, even if some are sold and some others are bought on the open market. Thus payments out of the National Land Fund are necessarily subject to the same disciplines and constraints as other items of public expenditure and, unless total public expenditure were to be increased, any payments from the Land Fund in excess of the provision made for them by the Government in their public expenditure programmes would have to be met by off-setting savings in expenditure elsewhere.
I agree that the whole subject is extremely complicated, but this is a point which I find one simply has to keep in mind. I do not think there is any need for me to stress the many competing claims and priorities that the Government are faced with in all areas of public spending, as the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, appreciated and acknowledged but which, on the other hand, the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, did not appreciate when he said that the public expenditure problem has been solved. If it had been solved there would have been no problem at all because the underlying problem is that of having a sufficient amount of money. Too rapid a rise in public expenditure not matched by increased revenue forces up the borrowing requirement; this in turn has its effect on interest rates and the rate of inflation. And it is this very rate of inflation which has been responsible for the sharply rising costs of the maintenance of our valuable historic heritage. This is the canker which has been competing with death watch beetle in destroying our national heritage.
It is quite impossible to discuss this without seeing it in the context of the economic climate and that is why it is essential for us to have the strongest all round support for the policies which are being pursued by my right honourable

801
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring down the rate of inflation, to control the growth of public expenditure and ensure that interest rates are brought down. It is only in these circumstances that we shall be able to develop a soundly based coherent policy and be in a better position to create the greater resources necessary to preserve our heritage, as we would all wish.
At that point, perhaps I should say that as far as preserving the heritage is concerned and the anxiety not to see it disappear, there is no difference between those who have spoken so far—and probably many who have not spoken—and myself and my colleagues. It is not a question of those who want to destroy the heritage and those who want to save it but the best way one can do it in the present very difficult economic circumstances.
In a situation of severe economic restraint where difficult choices have to be made, the question is which works of art and which buildings can we preserve? The only way to make this very difficult, and at times tightrope—balancing choice, is to seek the best advice and therefore we go to experts like the Director of the National Gallery, the Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum, the authorities in the British Museum and the Historic Buildings Council, which advises me in my capacity as a Minister at the Department for the Environment. These advisers have helped to direct and guide the Government's decisions since the Fund was set up over 30 years ago. But at the end of the day whatever system we have and whatever machinery we have the Government still have to decide what can be afforded.
Further, since the Government are not in a position to run historic buildings or to care for all the works of art, they have to ensure that before accepting property there are institutions—national and local galleries, the National Trust or local authorities—who are willing to take on the day-to-day task of preservation. The question of management and maintenance costs cannot be ignored and the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, quite rightly pointed to the problem of the National Trust at the present time. Given the size and value of our national heritage, together with all the other demands on
802
public expenditure which we really cannot forget, the Government cannot possibly agree to an open-ended commitment.
I will now turn to the noble Lord's Bill which is being given a Second Reading today. Understandably there are many technical deficiencies in the Bill and since the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, has said that he recognises them and as there is a great deal of business facing the House after this debate, I do not propose to go into them in detail. I would only point out that there is already one interesting dichotomy where the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, made the point that he considered the trustees should be in the position of being advisers, in the same way as the Historic Buildings Council are my statutory advisers, whereas on the other hand the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, felt they should be the principals, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, obviously does, because he put it in his Bill.
There are two legitimate and complete differences of opinion over that and one immediately sees within the Bill itself, even with its imperfections, how the problems will arise. But these imperfections—and some others which I will not go into at the moment—could be resolved and it is not really these that concern me. Unfortunately the noble Lord's Bill does not solve the basic problem. This really is the core of the Government's opposition to it. The noble Lord has, alas!, not produced the key to the national Land Fund which I was searching for in the last debate and which he promised me he had found today. He has not, I am afraid, been able to do so, although I must certainly give him top marks for trying extremely hard.
First, it does not deal with the difficulties about priorities. Second, it provides for less expenditure than we plan, which is currently £32½ million a year. The noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, pointed this out. Third, it does not consider what happens when the Fund capital is run down. Even with the one-sixth, with this type of revolving Fund at the end of the day you are going to have one-sixth of less and less.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, on that one point about the one-sixth, the next clause—and I do not defend either of these clauses because I put them in only to satisfy the

803
Treasury—says that the Treasury can instruct them to make that good.
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords, but you still have to find the money in order to make it good, and, alas!, the noble Lord does not seem to have satisfied the Treasury because he still does not deal with what happens when the Fund capital is run down; it would mean feeding it again, and, as I am now coming to it, it again involves public expenditure. If the Fund is transferred out of the public sector into the hands of trustees, as the Bill proposes, this amounts in the first instance to £18 million of public expenditure, and would lead to a call on the Contingency Fund, and it immediately would be a direct competitor with other claims on it.
What happened in the past, I am sure the noble Lord will agree, is water under the bridge. Whether it would have been possible in 1946 for it to be set up differently, one does not know. The noble Lord, Lord Reigate, feels that Hugh Dalton was, so to speak, done by the Treasury. I do not know. We had a very big debt at that time and it may have been very difficult to get support in other ways. As the noble Lord recognised, we are currently constrained by our undertaking in the Letter of Intent to the IMF. This undertaking is a crucial plank of the Government's economic strategy and cannot be undermined. The proposal in the Bill would seem to go straight against this.
I have very great sympathy with the noble Lord's view, when referring to Mentmore, that we could have spent £2 million, that it is very little out of a gross £9,000 million expenditure. I had that sort of feeling myself about it. But when you look across the board and realise that at the same time there are claims for housing, schools, hospitals, all sorts of things on which people may put different priorities, then you have to see it in that context and not just as what seems to be a comparatively small amount out of a very large total expenditure. Some form of planned disbursement is necessary. The Fund has also to be able to deal with contingencies, the special cases, the special work of art or properties offered unexpectedly. This is a fundamental problem which I cannot believe a Select Committee or a group of trustees can possibly get round.
804
The noble Lord has referred—he did not mention it here, but he has done so in conversations with me—to the Select Committee on which I believe he sat, on the Sex Discrimination Bill. One of the big differences between that and this situation today is that there was a general all-round agreement that there was need for some legislative action in that field, and there was no question of public expenditure being involved except to a very minor degree. But this is an entirely different situation. This is why I am convinced that a Select Committee, looking at this Bill, cannot come up with any answers to the perennial problems of expenditure priorities. The Committee cannot produce more money and could not make the Bill acceptable to the Government.
The Government's commitment to the saving and protection of the national heritage is not in doubt. Indeed, the noble Viscount spoke about the Historic Houses Association. I was this morning at Woburn, opening their conference, and my noble friend Lord Donaldson was speaking there at lunch. The acknowledgement by the members of the HHA of what this Government have done in order to help the historic house owners is appreciative; they are extremely frank about it and say that no other Government, certainly no Conservative Government, have done as much as this Government have. The noble Viscount also mentioned the further tax concession, to ease the burden of maintenance, which is now going to be introduced into the current Finance Bill.
Nevertheless, we shall have to face problems of the exhaustion of the National Land Fund, and this would come to the same thing, even without its other imperfections. If one is looking at the noble Lord's Bill, it would still have to be funded very much more, even putting into it what is in the National Land Fund at the moment, though that itself, as I have explained, would still be a public expenditure transfer. It is premature for us to take specific decisions now, but we are very aware of this problem of the future running down of the Land Fund itself and we are looking very hard at it.
In changing circumstances any element of administrative machinery, including the National Land Fund, which comes

805
under very considerable odium, has to be kept under review. I can assure noble Lords that the Treasury, in close consultation with their art advisers, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Education and Science, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Historic Buildings Council, are doing this. That is a lot of Departments, I agree, but there are a lot of people and many interests involved.
I am only too aware—and it has been stressed again this afternoon—that noble Lords and many others were concerned about the way in which Lord Rosebery's offer of Mentmore and its contents to the nation was handled. I will not go again into the Mentmore argument, arguing about whether what somebody said was right or wrong; but let us look forward and use some of the lessons of Mentmore to take a positive line towards the heritage in the future. It prompted what I said in an earlier debate about the need to establish which houses with their contents are of paramount importance to the nation. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, feels that this proposal should have been left to gather dust. I think it is extremely important. If we begin to discuss and see what is of great importance, this, I would submit, is taking a rather broader view than we were taking when I was replying to the Mentmore debate, when I referred, in shorthand, to a league of historic houses.
This is something I think we have to do, because, apart from anything else, it puts us on the alert; it brings these things constantly to our minds so that we are not taken by surprise with the eruption of a Mentmore situation, which did, quite frankly, at the time take everybody by surprise. Therefore, I am currently asking a group from the Historic Buildings Council—probably with additional experts to supply the expertise which they have not got on the Council—to advise quickly on this. I hope, too, that at the same time they will be able to offer advice on a generally acceptable interpretation of what we mean by the national heritage, which really is by no means crystal clear.
This came out very strongly in the whole Mentmore debate. I do not mean just in this House, but in the newspapers and in the country generally. There were the people who felt very strongly
806
pro-Mentmore. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, at least admitted that he had not been down to see the house and contents. Most of the people who spoke in the debate which I answered had not seen it either, although they spoke as though they knew every inch of the way and every object and picture there. What we have realised from that is that we have to try to find some sort of definition, because so many of the people who are not quite so articulate and vociferous about it, now that the sale is over, have said quietly, to me and many other people—and some of them are extremely distinguished people in the art world—that in their view Mentmore is not a part of the national heritage. I am not adjudicating either way. I am simply saying that there is a degree of disagreement over many of these places and we should start by saying that there are certain houses and contents together on which there is practically total agreement that they are part of our national heritage and then go on to find those which are more marginal. As I keep saying, this is a very complicated subject and naturally the Government are concerned about the misconceptions and confusions which appear in connection with it.
There was obviously a lack of understanding of the present system and the way in which it operated as regards Mentmore. I accept that the Government are not always very good at communicating. It is extremely difficult to communicate a very complicated subject, particularly when it is connected with finance. There was a great deal of misunderstanding of this complicated subject and not a great deal of appreciation of the need for a planned control of public expenditure was shown. Unfortunately, there was a disregard and a lack of appreciation of the agonising choices that had to he made when taxpayers' money and public expenditure was involved.
Before I conclude F shall try to answer the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. We are certainly not obliged to reimburse from the National Land Fund, but if we did not reimburse the Revenue from that Fund, we should have to raise the tax forgone by other means; namely, by increasing taxes generally or

807
increasing borrowing in the market. The money must be found somehow. In other words, the books must be balanced.
I would not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, that unless one is able to make a change—as he suggests in his Bill and which I hope I have proved is really not tenable—the National Land Fund should be abolished. Although it is part of public expenditure, it is hypothecated. If it did not exist, I am now convinced that it would be even more difficult to obtain money quickly for the heritage or to obtain that amount of money. At least one has it under that name. Although I agree that it is not the same thing as being ear-marked and outside the public sector—but it was not set up in that way—in spite of all the remarks that I have made about it in the past, difficult as it is and a nuisance as it can be at times, it has the advantage of being there and that is better than nothing. For those reasons and circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, will withdraw his Bill and save me asking noble Lords to reject it.
5.44 p.m.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken and particularly to those who have given me some support. My noble friend Lord Mansfield gave me one or two backhanders in the way of criticism. I was not sure that I quite understood his first point but I shall have to think about it. As to his second point, I certainly did not intend that the National Land Fund should not be principals. I am grateful for the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, that the Secretary of State and the Treasury have quite enough advisers already. We want someone who can act quickly and that would be the purpose of having trustees. After all, the National Land Fund is already a principal. At the moment I think I am right in saying that technically it owns Heveningham Hall in Suffolk.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, Yes.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the kind words that he said about it. I love his simile of the fire brigade. I have never thought of my modest Bill as being any
808
kind of a fire brigade or anything else. But it helps me greatly to clarify the purposes that I had in mind. I am deeply grateful to him for his support. My noble and old friend Lord Cottesloe quite rightly attacked the past, as I did, and I am grateful for his support. I turn to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I did not expect anything more than a dusty answer. I had hoped that she might conclude by giving me a little crumb of comfort, but I did not get even that. I do not wish to be critical. I cannot wait for her to get rid of her Treasury "crown of thorns and put on her much more becoming Department of the Environment hat, because she really is in a very sympathetic mood. I heard her make a speech that I cannot think she wrote with a full heart; in fact, I could have written it myself if I were in a hard-hearted Treasury mood. I am afraid that I found it very unconvincing. I am sorry that she thought I was unkind about Dr. Dalton. He thought that he had had the wool pulled over his eyes too. He said in that famous speech that there was a little man in the Treasury writing a brief to say that the National Land Fund really did not exist. Therefore, I think it is perfectly fair to say that Dr. Dalton had the wool pulled over his eyes.
The noble Baroness gave us a full list of the achievements of the National Land Fund. I refrained from doing so myself because it did not seem relevant to my Bill and I had read them in the various reports. Lastly I turn to the fact that the Bill is not considered to be practicable. I am sorry that the noble Baroness is against a Select Committee. I believe that her kind and polite words about the national heritage do not quite appreciate the extent to which there is continuing political concern about this matter. It is not an epoch-making decision whether to abolish the National Land Fund. However, there is a growing body of people who are concerned. I agree with the noble Baroness that the real problem is money. I am sorry, after criticising the reduction from £50 million to £10 million, that she was unable to say that she replaced it. It is one thing to criticise in 1957 and another thing to say 20 years later that it was wrong and do nothing about it. They have had plenty of time to do something about it meanwhile.

809
I still regard the whole subject as having been dealt with unsatisfactorily. The noble Baroness defended the Treasury and her own Department, but one always has the feeling of delay and the feeling that people could act quicker, and that more satisfactory decisions could be taken. My Lords, there it is. We are up against a brick wall, if I may so describe the Front Bench opposite. There is no point in pursuing this Bill unless it has Government support. I am sorry and disappointed that my modest suggestion has not received favour in the eyes of the noble Baroness. Under the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Second Reading, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

EDUCATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
5.49 p.m.
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. Both the principle and the purpose of the Bill are simple and in my view indisputable. The Bill itself is a lot of nonsense unless one makes continuous reference to the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, because although the principle is simple, the technicalities of it are fairly complicated. With your Lordships' permission, I shall not go into them today, but rather deal with the rationale and generalities of the Bill. Perhaps the Committee stage—if it gets that far—would be the right moment to deal with the technicalities of it.
While we were contemplating this measure, we realised that there were several ways in which we could go about it. After much deliberation, we decided that this fairly tightly drafted, and certainly not over-ambitious format, would be the best. But it is not the only one, and I shall welcome suggestions from noble Lords if there are better ways they feel we could go about it. In particular, I look forward to hearing the comments of my noble friend Lord Melchett, who I think undoubtedly has a deeper first-hand knowledge and more up-to-date first-hand knowledge of the education system and
810
the problems thereof in Northern Ireland than any other noble Lord in this House.
At the start—and I apologise if I repeat this later on in my speech—there are two things I ought to make absolutely clear. The first is that this is a purely enabling Bill. Any element of compulsion would be completely foreign to the spirit of it. Secondly, rather than in any way weakening parental choice it strengthens it. Rather than coercing parents into sending their children to a school that is not of their choice, it would involve them more in the decision-making process.
Perhaps I ought to explain at the start that in the main there are two principal systems of education in Northern Ireland. There is the State system which, in the 1972 order, is described as controlled. This is a State system but the schools were, in many instances, built originally by Protestant landowners or Protestant millowners. At the time of the 1930 Education Act, they were transferred to the State, but the transferors still have the right to at least 50 per cent. representation on the school management committee. For this reason, though they are technically non-denominational schools and no religious education of a denominational nature is allowed, their teacher and pupil affiliation is essentially Protestant and they are looked upon by the Roman Catholic community as being "Protestant schools".
The second category is the voluntary maintained school, which is almost completely Roman Catholic. Following an agreement arrived at by the then Ministry of Education in Stormont and the Roman Catholic Church, a four and two committee was set up whereby the Church was represented by four trustees, or their representatives, and the Ministry by two. Under this agreement, the schools receive 85 per cent. of capital grant and 100 per cent. of running expenditure. The trustees, or their representatives, are appointed by the bishop or parish priest, and those trustees, or their representatives, have complete control of appointment of teachers, unlike the situation which obtains in Scotland. Since 1968 it is a matter of some disappointment that more progress has not been made towards incorporating greater parental representation.

811
The purpose of the Bill before your Lordships' House today is to explore means whereby a measure of integration can gradually be introduced into the education system of Northern Ireland, hopefully with the good will of the Churches, when the desire so to do is expressed by parents of differing religious and cultural backgrounds. It would also create a legal framework to safeguard those schools where some integration is already taking place voluntarily. This is referred to in subsections (4) and (8) of the Bill. There are already some controlled schools which have a relatively high proportion of Roman Catholic pupils, but it is difficult at the moment for the management committee, in these circumstances, to reflect the integrated aspect of the school. I should add, perhaps, that at the moment I can see no reason why the proposals contained in this Bill should entail any further expenditure.
The Bill therefore suggests that, where such circumstances exist, if three-quarters of the transferors of a controlled school are in favour of its becoming a controlled integrated school, then it is up to them to make a request to the Area Board. An obligation would then be placed on the Area Board to ascertain the views of the parents. If at least 75 per cent. of the parents are not opposed to the school becoming controlled and integrated, then the management committee would be reformed as set out in Clause 2 of the Bill.
This, in a few words, means that there will be increased parental involvement in the management committee, because the parental proportion would be increased from a quarter to one-third; the Church representation would be decreased from a half to one-third; and the Area Board representation would be increased from a quarter to one-third. I should like to make it absolutely clear that by decreasing the Church representation from a half to one-third—and that third to be evenly split between Roman Catholic and Protestant, one-sixth each—there would be no intention whatever to sacrifice, or even dilute, the element of religious education. We certainly do not want to sacrifice that, a good thing, for another good thing which is integration. We want to have both things, both of which are good.
I strongly sympathise with the feelings that Roman Catholic parents have about
812
religious education. It would be our intention that denominational education should continue in controlled integrated schools for as long as this is desired. We would expect that the new management committees would ensure that religious education was given, if not by ordained priests or clergy, by teachers who are known to be committed Christians. We would certainly not want diluted religious education, but full-blooded religious education, which is what the parents desire. Unlike the circumstances in certain parts of Great Britain, there are many committed Christians competent to give such education.
Those who favour integration, such as the All Children Together Movement, who were responsible for initiating the drafting of this Bill, feel that another worthwhile measure would be to consult the parents in the area—not just the parents of the school itself, but the parents in the area—whenever a school is faced with a possibility of closure because of falling birthrate, because of movement of population, et cetera. It is a nonsense and a waste of resources to have a school about to close on one side of the road and another school, maybe a maintained school, bursting at the seams because it is in urgent need of extension. It is so much better to share the pupils between the two schools. Here again, if the parents were in agreement, machinery would be set up to bring it about.
It must be recognised that in recent surveys in Northern Ireland more than two-thirds of parents have declared that they are in favour of integration, yet at present 98 per cent. segregation still exists. The Bill is designed to provide a framework whereby integration can be brought about without treading on anybody's toes. I am not so naive as to think that a measure of this sort would be an instant solution to our tribal problems, but I sincerely believe that integrated education is an essential element in breaking down the social barriers which exist in our society.
The benefits which this measure would bring about could well take up to a generation to work through, but a start must be made at some stage, and I say the sooner the better. Indeed, it is fortuitous and appropriate that my noble

813
friend Lord Melchett made a full Statement on education last week which, on the whole, received a general welcome and I would like to think that the Bill might be complementary to some of the proposals made in his Statement.
A start should be made as soon as possible because communication is one of the biggest problems in Northern Ireland. Discussing the sad situation there with a Protestant friend of mine the other day, in a complete breakthrough of liberalism and ecumenism he said, "I once knew a Roman Catholic and, to be quite honest, he wasn't a bad chap at all." One side knows so little about the other; in my view it is the communication gap that we must bridge because lack of communication, lack of knowledge, provides a fertile breeding ground for misconception.
If Protestants and Roman Catholics knew more about each other they would realise that there was far more that they had in common than separated them. If you learn in the same classroom and play on the same sports ground as your neighbour, you cannot grow up thinking that he is some sort of foreign body. The myth, the shibboleth and the imagined stereotype never have a chance under those circumstances because you know that your friend is a fellow human being, and religious adherence is an irrelevance. Some very timely words were spoken by Dr. Doyle, a former Roman Catholic Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin. He said:
"I do not know of any measures which would prepare the way for a better feeling in Ireland than uniting children at an early age and bringing them up in the same school, leading them to commune one with another and to form those little intimacies and friendships which often subsist through life".
Unfortunately, that was not a recent statement of policy; it was delivered in 1826, when the climate seems to have been somewhat more liberal than it is today. In overcoming our problems we have a long, hard road in front of us, but if your Lordships would agree to give the Bill a Second Reading I believe that it would be a major, indeed perhaps an historic, step in the right direction. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—(Lord Dunleath.)
6.5 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett): My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Dunleath for giving us the opportunity to debate an important issue that has been attracting increasing public attention in Northern Ireland over the last few months. I wanted to intervene at an early stage in the debate so that I could give noble Lords a full statement on current Government thinking on integrated education.
During the time I have spent in Northern Ireland I have discussed integrated education with a very wide range of individuals and groups, including the main political Parties, teachers' organisations, education and library boards and, of course, the Churches. This is a sensitive issue and one which touches on deeply-held feelings not only, but perhaps especially, in Northern Ireland. Although we must at the outset face up to the fact that the Roman Catholic hierarchy remain opposed to integrated education, all the other organisations and groups I have consulted are, to some extent at least, in favour.
The Government's attitude to integrated education in Northern Ireland is clear and simple. We believe that in a divided community only good can come from greater contact and better understanding between people of different religions. A greater degree of integration in the education of school children is clearly one way of increasing this contact. The Government's policy is therefore to encourage integrated education where there is a local wish for it.
But the Government also believe—and believe very firmly—that they ought not, indeed cannot, enforce integration against the wishes of local communities. They must have regard to the genuine desires of those communities and of individual parents. Given the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church, any attempt to force integrated education on Northern Ireland could only be counter-productive. So there is no question of the Government attempting to force anyone to act against their will, nor any question of withdrawing public financial support from denominational schools.
There is one firm conclusion that I hope noble Lords will draw from what I

815
have said so far. If there are any barriers to integrated education in Northern Ireland that are of the Government's making, we would wish to see them removed. We wish to encourage integrated education, but we will not force it on people. I believe that that is the right policy and one that would be agreed by the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
It also follows from what I have said about the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church that it would not be realistic in the short-term to expect major changes in the existing pattern of largely segregated education in Northern Ireland. And it is important for those who comment on these matters, in particular from outside Northern Ireland, to remember both the deeply held religious views of many Roman Catholics on this subject and the genuine apprehensions of some of the minority community in Northern Ireland, that they would not play a sufficient part in the control of the institutional bodies involved.
There are two other important points I should like to make. First, while theoretical debate on this subject is reasonably easy, the issues involved are not academic but intensely practical. In practice, there are no easy solutions which Government can impose. The matter is one which is very much in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland themselves. Secondly, I think it is important for people to come to terms with the fact that there are no easy solutions to the problems that lead to communal conflict in Northern Ireland. We also need to remember, first, that in Northern Ireland possibly more than in Great Britain, the views of children tend to mirror those of their parents and, secondly, that schools alone cannot counteract the influences of the home and the community in which a child lives. Integrated education is not some sort of panacea that can solve all the problems overnight.
I stress that I am making these remarks in the context of the wider debate on integrated education, rather than about my noble friend's Bill. I readily acknowledge that all those in Northern Ireland who favour integrated education see it not as the immediate answer to all our
816
problems, but as an inevitably gradual but important means of bringing the two communities closer together.
As noble Lords will know, educational provision in Northern Ireland has its roots in the fact that, when the Government of Northern Ireland became responsible for education in 1921, the overwhelming majority of schools were under denominational control, even though they were financed chiefly by the State. When State schools were introduced, the right of any Church or group to maintain its own schools was not disputed. All were given the same choice, to continue to function as voluntary schools, assisted by the State, or to transfer the school to the State system and join with the State in the running of the school. Over a period of time, a clear pattern developed. The Roman Catholic community preferred to continue to maintain their own distinct and separate schools. On the other hand, the Protestant Churches more often opted to transfer their schools to the State while continuing to play a part in school management.
That extremely short account of educational developments in Northern Ireland is inevitably oversimplified, but I hope it will serve to explain how segregated education evolved. It is understandable that a school provided by Roman Catholics, emphasising Roman Catholic teaching, and largely staffed by Roman Catholics, should not prove attractive to the majority of Protestant parents. Conversely, the State schools, or the controlled schools as they are now called, seldom proved attractive to Roman Catholic parents. So a self-perpetuating pattern of attendance has developed.
This pattern has remained unaffected by the fact that in Northern Ireland there are specific statutory provisions which safeguard the right of parents in the religious education of their children. Any parent can withdraw his or her child from religious instruction in any school, and all schools must in law be open equally to children of all religious denominations.
I said earlier that integrated education could provide no quick and easy solution to Northern Ireland's problems. There are many cultural differences between the two sides of the community and I certainly

817
do not believe that it would be possible to obscure these by imposing a single system of education, even over many generations. However, people may wonder what the difficulties are, given, as I have said, and as my noble friend Lord Dunleath has indicated, widespread support for the principle amongst the people of Northern Ireland.
The problem is that, in spite of a degree of theoretical agreement, there remain considerable practical difficulties. For example, in many parts of Northern Ireland there has been a strong tendency for Protestants and Roman Catholics to live in separate areas. Historically, this was partly due to the desire of each group to be close to its own churches and schools. In recent years, as a result of communal conflict, this tendency has increased. In the more troubled areas, it is now common to find the population of entire districts clearly segregated along religious lines. Since schools are essentially local institutions reflecting the characteristics of the locality which they serve, this amounts to a substantial practical obstacle to integrated education. It is a perverse fact that integration is least practicable in those areas where community relations are most strained, and where many would therefore feel that the potential benefits of integrated education were most needed.
It is a fact that the Roman Catholic Church in Northern Ireland wishes Roman Catholic children to be educated in Roman Catholic schools; the three main Protestant Churches are not opposed to integrated schools as such, but are concerned that schools should not be secular and that the teaching of religion should be an integral part of the education of children. Different parents have different views, and it has to be said that there is no very reliable way of knowing exactly what people think about the practicalities as opposed to the theory. On the one hand, all the bodies and organisations, with the one major exception, and indeed all the surveys of public attitudes that are available, show a large majority in favour of integrated education. On the other hand, many parents undoubtedly want their children to be brought up in either the Protestant or the Roman Catholic ethos. I would also have to say that a theoretical acceptance of integration may in practice occasionally amount to the view that "they" are free
818
to come to "our" school if they wish, and, of course, to be taught in "our" way by "our" teachers.
However, while we have to be realistic, I would not wish to make too much of these practical difficulties, which I know are fully recognised by all those—including my noble friend—who have studied the problem in Northern Ireland. I have said that the Government's policy is to encourage integrated education wherever there is a demand for it, and to ensure that no barriers to integrated education exist. In pursuing such a policy, it has been suggested, as noble Lords may well know, that the Government should hold a conference on integration. I have carefully considered this suggestion during recent months. To be a success, such a conference would require a climate of opinion within which all concerned would come together for discussion in a co-operative and constructive spirit. There would be no point in a conference in which major interested parties would not take part and, in particular, such a conference would be meaningless without the involvement of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, to whom the vast majority of the voluntary school authorities would look for a lead. From my consultations, I am satisfied that the Roman Catholic hierarchy are not in favour of a conference and would be highly unlikely to participate in one.
Given the fact that integrated education cannot be imposed by Government and that Government cannot force changes in the attitudes of those who are opposed, and given the fact that the sort of general views of almost all the interested groups that might he expressed at a conference are already well known, I do not believe that such a conference would carry us very much further forward in practice. If there is to be progress—and I very much hope that there will be—it will be achieved only by facing the facts and by adopting a strategy that shows some promise of practical results.
As I have said, our strategy is based on two beliefs. The first is that it is not for the Government to seek to impose integration. The second is that the Government should not stand in the way where there is a wish for integrated schooling, either of an individual family or within a community. "Not standing in the way" means ensuring so far as

819
possible that there are no obstacles, either within the current legislation or arising from administrative practice to prevent the family or the community from fulfilling this wish.
As regards administrative arrangements, I can give a practical example of what is possible. It is a relatively small change in the arrangements for school transport. I recently reviewed these arrangements and was able to broaden the discretion which the education and library boards have to assist parents with school transport costs. In doing this, we were able to provide that in suitable cases it is now possible for school transport to be provided to help parents to exercise their free choice to support integration, a choice which I believe they have a right to make. For the future, we will, as in this case, bear in mind the implications for integration when considering changes in what are often long-standing arrangements, and we will make similar improvements where possible.
My noble friend's Bill is, as I understand it, primarily designed to deal with what is seen as a legislative obstacle to integrated schools; that is, the existing statutory provisions for school management. I believe that school management in Northern Ireland is a subject which now needs to be carefully studied. As noble Lords will know, school management in Great Britain has been under examination by the Taylor Committee, whose report is, I understand, about to be submitted. In Northern Ireland, the decision that I announced last week to proceed with the restructuring of secondary education has implications for school management, particularly for the comprehensive secondary school and the sixth form and tertiary college.
I therefore announced the setting up of a small independent Working Party to take a completely new look at the way schools should be managed in Northern Ireland. Noble Lords may be interested to know that this Working Party is to be chaired by a Pro-Vice-Chancellor of Queen's University, and has as its members the chairman of one of the education and library boards, the chief officer of another board, the Professor of Educational Studies at Queen's, and a leader writer for the Belfast Telegraph. I propose to
820
invite this Working Party, in considering the form of the new management structures that will be required, and, indeed, the management of all schools in Northern Ireland, to have special regard to the Government's policy to ensure that integration, where it is desired, should be facilitated and not impeded.
There are, I believe, particular opportunities for the future. To take one example, I should say that the Working Party will need to give thought to the management arrangements for any sixth-form colleges which may be created in Northern Ireland as part of a new comprehensive system. Because there are no existing sixth-form colleges, there is no current provision for their management, and we thus start with a clean slate. The sixth-form colleges are a particularly good example in the context of today's debate, because it is an inescapable fact that in many parts of Northern Ireland such colleges will be able to provide broader educational opportunities if they are catering for all appropriate pupils in the area they serve, irrespective of the religious denominations of their pupils. I am greatly encouraged by the fact that none of the interests which I have consulted has ruled out in principle the idea of an integrated sixth-form college in appropriate cases. Clearly, it is most important that there should be nothing in the management arrangements for these colleges which could stand in the way of integration.
I am very conscious that I have already spoken at some length without touching in any detail on the content of the Bill of my noble friend Lord Dunleath. I was anxious that before doing so I should explain as fully as possible the approach which the Government are now taking to the central issues with which the Bill deals. May I first of all congratulate my noble friend on the care with which the Bill has been drafted. The idea of using redundant school premises to broaden the range of choice of schools is certainly an interesting one, but I regret to say that the Government would see some snags in this provision, which I should like briefly to outline. The first and most obvious difficulty is that schools are closed only when there is good reason to do so. It may be that the premises are very old and in poor condition, long past being

821
worth preserving; or it may be that the population in the area has declined, or moved away. In either case, retention of the premises would involve substantial additional expenditure, and we would often be duplicating provision.
The cost in itself might not be a prohibitive factor, but there are other practical difficulties. The Bill envisages a poll of parents in the area of such a school to see whether it should be kept open as an integrated school. However, it is not at all clear how the area of the school should be defined, or what would be the natural catchment area for such an integrated school. I have already mentioned that, because much housing is segregated, most schools in Northern Ireland draw their pupils from only one section of the community. More importantly, the procedure could lend itself to abuse. It is a fact that, however compelling the reasons for the closure of a school, local people are often inclined to regret and dispute the closure. There is, of course, already statutory machinery for allowing such views to be considered. However, I would be afraid that the proposals in this Bill could be used as a means of keeping open a school which properly should close. A school might in fact have absolutely no prospect of attracting an integrated enrolment, but parents in the area might well prefer to see it kept open as such—if only integrated in name—rather than see it closed.
I have one or two other problems to raise. One is the concept of a "controlled integrated school". This seems to imply that all other controlled schools are not to be expected to he integrated. This is not an assumption that I think we should accept, nor is it one supported by the degree of integration that already exists in some controlled schools in Northern Ireland. My own consultations about integration would also lead me to wonder whether there is any real prospect that the Roman Catholic Church would be prepared to be represented on the management committee of a controlled integrated school, as provided in the Bill.
I am afraid Government spokesmen at Second Readings of Private Member's Bills often have to register the sort of doubts, that I have about this Bill, but I certainly do not do so in any way as a criticism of the principle behind the Bill. As I said at the start of my speech, I
822
very much welcome this opportunity to discuss this vital issue, and I look forward to hearing the views of other noble Lords during the debate. I hope that noble Lords will agree that what I have said today about the Government's attitude to integration is entirely consistent with the spirit behind this Bill.
The Government fully support the general objectives that the Bill seeks to achieve. I have some doubts on the particular provisions for keeping open redundant schools, but the Government have, in the last few days, set up a highly qualified, independent Working Party to look in part at the main issue raised by this Bill—the need for school management structures in Northern Ireland that will enable integrated education to occur wherever there is a demand for it. I also hope that the approach to integration that the Government are now adopting will contribute to the continuing evolution of a climate of opinion within Northern Ireland that will enable that demand to continue to grow from local people of all denominations.
6.26 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, first, from this side of the House I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, for introducing this very important Bill on integrating schools in Northern Ireland. I also want to thank him for helping me in the past few days over some of the thoughts he had regarding his Bill, and for the way in which he presented the Bill to us this afternoon. I also wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who has just given us a very good account of what the Government are intending to do regarding education in Northern Ireland. I have heard from numerous quarters how kind and generous the noble Lord is in helping people, not only those in your Lordships' House, over Northern Ireland educational problems and so on, and how he throws himself into his job in Northern Ireland; and if I may say so, that is not easy. From these Benches we support the noble Lord's Bill, but obviously we have one or two reservations. In principle, it has everything which we are seeking in integrating schools in Northern Ireland.
For a number of years now crime and violence have persisted throughout the

823
Province of Northern Ireland without any let-up, and one of the tragedies, as I sec it is that children have become involved, believing that it is great fun to throw stones at soldiers or vehicles; or through either their parents or other adults holding religous or political beliefs which they have been unable to retract. Many of these children are growing up in a society full of hatred and bitterness, and it is, I understand, a fact that a whole generation has now grown up in this horrifying world of crime, violence, fear, bitterness and hatred. It can only have a lasting damage psychologically on these children later, when they grow up.
Therefore, we are bound to turn to education to help and to start to build a new generation of children for the future. I believe that it was in the early 1970s, in the Government of the late Lord Faulkner (I think it was about 1973 or 1974) that Mr. Basil McIvor brought out a plan to begin with shared schools at the nursery level, which would thus allow a new generation of schoolchildren to begin growing up together. I think his idea (and the noble Lord will probably remember) was to catch them young; to educate both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant children together, so that they could mix with each other without always fighting and throwing stones and be able to walk down the streets together instead of walking down on opposite sides. But, as we know, his plan fell through when the Assembly collapsed.
My Lords, 1973 again saw the creation of an organisation which the noble Lord has mentioned already this afternoon; that is, the All Children Together Movement. I understand that this movement, which was formed to press for voluntary integration in the Northern Ireland school system, has been working behind the scenes, slowly but surely, in order to bring about the idea which is contained in the Bill we are discussing today. The idea of this group, brave as they were, and are, was to bring all the political Parties and religious denominations together, and to try to form a basis on which to build the mixed school system. I congratulate that group. It has presented its Bill through the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, this afternoon, and this is, yet, a step forward. But I am afraid—and I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord
824
Melchett—there is always a slight streak of pessimism. It takes an enormous time to get the movements going, to arrange conferences and to get people round a table; and I believe that even if we pass this Bill this afternoon—and the noble Lord has made it only an enabling Bill, which is quite right—it will be manyyears before even the first steps can possibly be taken.
My Lords, I was born under the stars of Aquarius, my blood is Irish and I am not generally pessimistic; I am always optimistic. This afternoon, I have a fraction more optimism. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and to the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, I have that little bit more optimism this afternoon, even if the idea behind this Bill takes years to materialise. I understand that in a recent poll over 80 per cent. of the people, taking both Catholics and Protestants, were shown to be thinking now that integrated schools should come about. I do not say that they said that they will; they are thinking of it. I am trying to be careful, because every time I, the noble Lord or anyone else takes a step forward we might take four backwards. My Lords, 80 per cent. of the people are now thinking that integrated schools should come about, and as few as 13 per cent. of Protestants and Roman Catholics are against the idea. I am prepared to be corrected on these figures because, as we all know, percentages in Gallup polls move day by day. But it is interesting to note that there is a high percentage of people now thinking of trying to correct the problems of Northern Ireland through education and integrated schools.
There are, of course, barriers in the religious sector, and the Roman Catholics, especially those in the hierarchy, are bound to be suspicious, though one sometimes wonders why those in senior positions should be suspicious all the time. But I was interested to read that the Second Vatican Council had demanded—and I quote—that,
"parents should enjoy the freedom of their choice of school. Through it public authority will see to it that parents are genuinely free to follow their conscience".
It seems, if anything, a tragedy that there we have a message from the Vatican that they want this, and yet in Northern Ireland we find the Roman Catholic hierarchy still being a part of the stumbling block.

825
My Lords, these facts are a basis to go on and to continue arguing about; but while we have the Government now throwing their full weight into a new educational programme, which I shall come to in a moment; while we have the ACTM working along the lines of bringing about integrated schools; and while we have other private people, religious denominations or political Parties on the move, then I am sure that, slowly but surely, a further step is being taken. But I keep on emphasising, as did the noble Lord—and I listened to him carefully—that it is going to be very slow indeed.
My Lords, I turn now to the noble Lord's comments on the new comprehensive secondary modern educational programme, the abolition of the 11-plus and the forming of new Working Parties under the Pro-Vice-Chancellor of Queen's University—and I personally hope that they have every success. I wonder how long they are going to be able to take; and one wonders how much, at the end of the day, is going to be the cost of producing the new comprehensive schools on which they are to report. There were some figures given, but they were only approximate and are not worth suggesting at this stage. I am bound to feel at this moment that it is a little early to comment on this new programme of comprehensive schools, but I am wondering how it will eventually take place. I look at the mixed family first. At the moment, the Roman Catholics are not allowing their children to be integrated into all mixed schools. I look at the Protestants. They are fairly happy with comprehensive schools, I should think. But as to the Roman Catholics, I wonder.
My fear is that we may well have to build two comprehensive schools unless we get at the root of the evil, which starts in the nursery schools, and educate the children early on in life in order that, once they get to comprehensive schools, they can mix. It seems to me a massive and delicate programme, and I hope that the working teams will be able to come up with the answer. It probably will take a long time and by then other ideas might well come forward. But, as the noble Lord has spoken, I will not ask him—since it is not his Bill but that of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath—but I will cast a few ideas, So long as he keeps
826
smiling and working there must be an answer to some of it somewhere.
My Lords, I feel that I ought to finish now. I think I have said enough. The fact is that this Bill is a step forward. There could be larger steps taken later on: the parents on the management committees, the children being allowed eventually to integrate; but without force. No force! That is why I like this Bill. As the noble Lord said, if you once use the word "force" then up goes the balloon and nothing will get done. Suspicion will come into it.
Of course, there are other problems. There is the problem of housing: that if a school is in a Roman Catholic area it does not mean to say that Protestants are not going to use it. But, in theory, from these Benches—and I say "in theory"—and, I think, with a little practice, it can work. We from this side of the House support it. I feel it would be workable if the noble Lord did not press too hard with it; and I think the Government have set their sights on a Working Party to look into this. I think the thing to do is to tread carefully and let the Government work it out. I have nothing more to say about it. I congratulate the noble Lord. It is a step in the right direction and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for his help.
6.42 p.m.
Lord HAMPTON: My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, on this Bill and to pay tribute from these Benches to those of his Party, the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, who are working on this matter in conjunction with the All Children Together Movement. This Bill seeks not to compel, as has been said, but to facilitate integrated education in so far as a decided majority of parents wish it. The noble Lord also stated—and it is worth repeating, and the noble Viscount, Lord Long, supported this—that recent surveys in Northern Ireland have revealed that more than two-thirds of the parents would favour integrated education yet 98 per cent. segregation still exists. If these figures can be substantiated, as I believe they can, there are grounds for cautious optimism and, I submit, a need for early action.

827
Briefly, I will say why I believe such action to be essential. It is clear that many of the people in Northern Ireland are living in a situation of appalling stress. In wartime, there is a feeling of unity against a common enemy, a sense of camaraderie and a breaking down of barriers; in Northern Ireland today there is often hatred on the doorstep, division and agony in the streets. In the gheto areas one reads of the harrowing daily spectacle of files of youngsters, flanked by soldiers, going to and from school—the Catholics on one side of the street and the Protestants on the other.
The Protestant child and the Catholic child are taught to distrust each other even to hate. And these children have no opportunity to learn otherwise. What is more, my Lords, as Morris Fraser writes in his book Children in Conflict:
"It seems that a cut-off point exists after which age neither explanation nor real life contact with the feared group can modify the basic hostile stereotype".
If this view is accepted, as I believe it must be, then it makes it vital that the vicious line of bigotry and distrust passed from parent to child must be broken. No one can believe that it can be done overnight but that does not lessen the urgency to start. A directive passed to IRA members read:
"Youngsters and older children are ideal material for the work of planting bombs and rigging booby traps. They attract less attention and suspicion than adults, are more sensitive to rewards and ask no questions … British Army patrols can be lured into ambushes more easily when children, youngsters and women are the bait …".
My Lords, that was written a little time back, the Army have learned their lesson the hard way. An officer I know who has served in Belfast and Londonderry on a number of occasions tells me that he actually caught young children being taught how to riot by a member of the Provisional cadet force. Children of four and five are not too young to start. On one occasion, he was sworn at in the most vile language by a two-year old child who did not know what it was saying; but it was probably the first sentence it had been taught.
I am ashamed as a Christian to be reminded of the words used by a clergyman in a Protestant paper a little time back:
"With all the recent outrages…more bitterness and anti-Catholic feeling has been generated
828
than ever before…I thank the Provisional IRA. God will use it for good".
I will quote again from the book Children in Conflict. In his introduction the author, to whom I pay tribute as a man of understanding and compassion, uses these words:
"It isn't so easy to teach young people not only to bombard an army scout car with rocks, but also to jeer and stone the ambulance that carries away the body of the young driver. Yet it can be done…".
The appalling tragedy is that it not only can but still is being done four years after those words were written. I am sure that while we consider those children who become active participants in the struggle, we must not forget the large numbers of passive, involuntary spectators. One can find recorded all too many tragic cases.
My Lords, I am convinced that there will not be a real solution to the problems of Northern Ireland until children of different religious, ethnic and cultural groups are encouraged to go to school together. As has been said, I believe that "the common features in practice far outweigh those that are alien". It may be a slow process, particularly alas! in the ghetto areas where it is most necessary; but if children can learn to work and laugh together and to play the same games, then, I believe, the forces of evil will steadily lose power. The parents should be helped so far as possible, that is why we on these Benches support this Bill.
My Lords, I end by quoting the headline:
"Ulster at last gets green light to go comprehensive".
But the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has expressed no positive commitment to integrated schooling. I understand that he is not prepared to set up a Working Party on the issue. I am not convinced that the Government are facing this issue as it should be faced. I shall listen with the greatest interest to what the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, and subsequent speakers have to say.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question before he sits down. He quoted something from the paper about the statement last week on comprehensive reorganisation. It is true that at that stage that Statement did

829
not deal with the subject of integrated education. But I feel that what I have said at some length and with some considerable care to the House this afternoon amounted to a commitment to integrated education from the Government. It is true that that may not have been said last week, but it has, I hope, been said this afternoon.
Lord HAMPTON: My Lords, I understand also that the noble Lord was not prepared to set up a Working Party on this issue. That was the point that I meant to make.
6.50 p.m.
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, if I have stayed a little later than I usually do on a Thursday night, it is purely to support the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, in his continuing efforts to improve the situation in Northern Ireland. Tribute has rightly been paid to the great work which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is doing; and I should also like at the same time to pay tribute to the courage which the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, has always shown. The one bright spark from the local government elections was the increase in the power of the Alliance Party which all of us with any good sense must welcome.
This brings back many memories to me, and if people think I am in a nostalgic mood, I have always regarded it as my job and duty in your Lordships' House to try to educate your Lordships a little on the appalling problems, difficulties and extraordinary situations which arise in Northern Ireland. I just arrived at Stormont in time, very shortly after the war, to support the Government in the Education Bill, which was extremely controversial. If I remember rightly, at that time grants for voluntary schools in Britain stood at 50 per cent. and we were introducing a system where grants for voluntary schools would be brought in at 65 per cent. This led to tremendous extreme Protestant protest and eventually the Government got the Bill through, but only with the greatest difficulty. I made my maiden speech on the Committee stage, which was highly improper, but we got the Bill through.
Years later, I mentioned this in a little book that I produced. I received a furious letter from a Liberal Catholic in Ulster
830
saying: "You are one of the people who is responsible for separate education in Northern Ireland. If you had not given these large grants to the Catholic schools, they would not have been able to continue and we might have started on integrated education earlier.". I merely tell you this, my Lords, because this is an example of what happens in Northern Ireland.
May I move on to my next point. I was extremely gratified when I saw that Cardinal Hume had come out in favour of integrated education in Northern Ireland. May I tell another story of my own experiences to show how little effect I am afraid that will have. I remember that in one of my early speeches in Stormont I thought it my duty to try to strike a new note. I became slightly historical. I said, addressing the Nationalist Party opposite, that if only they could find some way to recognise the existence of Northern Ireland, then they would find themselves accepted and it would be far better for their community. I gave as an example the case of Lord Howard of Effingham, commanding the British Fleet at the time of the Armada, when he had to decide whether his loyalty was to his Church or Queen Elizabeth. He decided that his loyalty was to Queen Elizabeth. I was just working up to my peroration when a dear old Nationalist MP shouted from the other side of the House:
"Ah! sure, he was only a bloody Englishman, anyway".
That is why it is so difficult for British people to understand the situation. Sometimes my good Catholic friends in Britain feel that they themselves can help—and of course naturally they all try to help—but because they are not Irish they are not accepted, and this is something which it is very difficult for people to understand. While I welcomed Cardinal Hume's statement, I must tell your Lordships that fear it will have no effect whatsoever.
Now let us get on to opinion polls. How do opinion polls work in Northern Ireland? Usually, in my experience, the very opposite to the way they work in England. About two months before I was forced out of Office, in early 1969, an opinion poll was held by the Belfast Telegraph which showed that an overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland of both religions wanted me to stay on and carry out my policies. Within

831
two months I was out, and another two months later the whole of Northern Ireland went up in smoke. The British Army became involved and have been involved ever since. That is only one of my experiences of opinion polls. What the Northern Ireland people do when they are polled is that they give what they think is a respectable answer, the kind of answer which would be appreciated by middle class moderates. It is not the true answer. What they really feel, they keep to themselves and use at election time. This is one of the tragedies of the situation.
A little time ago—I am sure the noble Lords, Lord Melchett and Lord Dunleath, saw it—there was a very good article in the Belfast Telegraph explaining the difficulties—I am speaking as a person in favour of integration—of bringing about integration. If you come to think about it, it is a difficult problem. The State schools which, as the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, explained were originally Protestant schools and are regarded by Catholics today as Protestant schools, naturally are all in favour of Catholics coming to their schools.
I remember that one of the arguments put up in this article—I am sorry I do not have it with me tonight—was this: What happens after that? Are these Catholic children to be educated solely by Protestant schoolmasters? If Catholic schoolmasters are going to join these State schools, there will be endless arguments and rows as to which ones they should be, and so on. So while I am fully in support of integration, fully in support of this Bill, nevertheless the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is fully entitled to point out some of the problems which will arise.
May I therefore end by suggesting to your Lordships that while obviously immediate integration is totally impossible, I regard this Bill as an enabling step towards the slow beginning of integration. For that reason, I commend it to your Lordships' House and I hope that it will receive a Second Reading. I should like once again to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, for introducing the Bill.
Lord STONE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I hope he will
832
forgive me if I ask him one question, which is this. What would be the Catholic opinion, if perchance he was speaking on the Catholic cause in Northern Ireland at the moment, so far as the integration of education is concerned?
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, I do not entirely follow the noble Lord.
Lord STONE: My Lords, what I am trying to say is that I should like to know the opinion of the Catholics so far as integration is concerned, as opposed to what I gather is that of the Protestants, who are the Establishment over there.
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, the opinion poll showed that many Catholics are in favour of integration; but that does not mean to say that, if this were to be an issue at an election, the Catholics would vote for it. Unfortunately, fear is one of the dominant influences in Northern Ireland, and people do what they are told or what they feel they must do in case of the consequences. I can see already that I have failed tonight in trying to explain the problems which exist in Northern Ireland. It does not matter what views I hold, it is the views of the people that matter.
Lord STONE: My Lords, could that ever be overcome?
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: Not for a long time, my Lords.
6.59 p.m.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, in joining in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, for introducing and moving a Second Reading for this Bill, I notice that I am the only ecclesiastic whose name appears on the list of speakers. I can also imagine that some Members of your Lordships' House might think: "A very good job too", on the grounds that whatever view one may take of the details of this particular problem, it is very closely identified with religious issues. Those religious issues, if not the prime cause of the troubles from which Northern Ireland people and Irish people in general are suffering, are one of the dominant elements in any understanding of that problem. I noticed with interest that

833
my noble friend Lord Melchett—and I do not accuse him of a Freudian error—used the phrase "different religions", as discriminating between Protestants and Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland. That is a terrible indictment of those who perforce claim to believe in our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ; and if it is possible to say this, it is an alarming comment on the way in which religious animosity has almost eroded the fundamental principles of the Christian faith.
I believe it is quite improper to regard the intransigence as entirely to be found on one side or the other. There is a convention in your Lordships' House that no one here should make an aspersion upon a Member of another place. That will shorten my speech, but it no way diminishes my enthusiasm for the proposition that any kind of totalitarian, ecclesiastical, hierarchical religion is not to be found only in one quarter, but that there are just as many intransigent representatives of a hateful kind of totalitarianism on the side of Protestantism as there are within the Roman Catholic camp. It is one of the most alarming and, I think, dispiriting of all the comments to which we have listened today that so many people, with a wealth of experience which I covet but do not possess, are convinced that it will be a very long time before this long and terrible period of misunderstanding, futility and violence is abated, let alone completely finished.
I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Long, was entirely on the ball when he represented to your Lordships the fact that no scholar of under 16 has known anything in Northern Ireland but violence, hatred and suspicion, and that these particular differences have been set in focal order and are represented, sometimes falsely but always categorically, in terms of, on the one hand, Roman Catholicism, and, on the other hand, Protestantism. I do not believe that fundamentally many of these issues are ecclesiastical or religious, though I believe that they have been exacerbated by churchmen. They are very often a mask for economic and political issues, and they are hitched to a particular matter of ecclesiastical importance, as if that completely diagnoses their condition. I do not believe that it does.
What I do believe is that if there are to be any resolutions of these differences
834
among young people, they must enjoy the controversy in fellowship—because it is a controversy which is not to be overcome merely by dogmatic assertions on either side, or intentions of godliness or of goodness on either side. They will be finally overcome only when those who have settled opinions, or have been exposed to settled convictions, are able to test them out in fellowship with others, and in particular, with those who may radically disagree with them. Therefore, the principle of an integrated educational system is, I think, inseparable from the possibility of the rising generation improving upon the failures of its fathers and mothers and being able to discriminate between that which is ecclesiastically unimportant and that which is morally imperative.
I may say that I am under the strongest injunction from all quarters to speak very briefly, and I do so—but having one thing to say, let me make it, as I believe, a penultimate or an ultimate conviction rather than just a contribution to a debate. I do not believe that this problem of education will be soluble in terms of a new spirit among youth today in Northern Ireland unless it is radically associated with that primary concept of Christianity, which is not metaphysics but moral and ethical behaviour. If, within the integrated schools—and I recognise the difficulties and am well aware of the hesitations—there can be the beginning of that which is already evident, if not at the hierarchical level, either Protestant or Roman Catholic, among an increasing number of Roman Catholics and Protestants, that is, the acknowledgement that they are sick to death of this ecclesiastical rancour, which is the midwife with all kinds of animosity, hatred and bitterness, whether or not their hierarchical superiors tell them so, they will eagerly welcome what, after all, Mr. McIvor was able to introduce into the power-sharing Executive of 1974, namely, an agreement to set about this particular task of which the Bill speaks—an agreement to which the Members of the Executive, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, agreed and of which they were enthusiastically in support.
I believe that at the grass roots there is a possibility of reversing the processes of the past. Therefore, though I am quite sensible of the difficulties that face us, I am a little more optimistic than

835
some, because I have noticed that within the last few years there has been a measurable transition from the acceptance which was so general in past days. There is a new spirit of adventure, to which I hope this Bill will give added acceleration.
7.5 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope that I can be as short and as succinct as the noble Lord, Lord Soper, but I come from the North of Ireland and feel that some of the remarks I have to make may be important, especially as some of them probably will contradict other remarks that have been made. Certain of the points which my noble friend Lord O'Neill mentioned are slightly out of date.
First, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, in bringing in this Bill. It was certainly time this was discussed in your Lordships' House. Also, before launching into matters concerning the Bill, I should like to welcome the statement by the Minister. I always find that I take a great deal of time to absorb these long Statements made from the Government Front Bench, but this one is clear to me. The noble Lord has made a very great step forward. But even if he had not done that, I should still like to pay personal tribute to him, because, by his energy, his patience and his frankness to ordinary people, he has really been a breath of fresh air to the people of Ulster. I have seen him working with groups of parents who have had problems. To those parents those problems were very important. To the noble Lord, with his huge Department, they may have been small, but he made them feel that to him they were important; and they left delighted after having spent time with him.
In the midst of violence, Governments quite often find that a proper course is not possible, because the violence makes the proper course undesirable in other ways. I believe that integrated education is one area where we can make progress. There is general agreement across the board: that is shown by opinion polls but, more than that, in my personal experience—and the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, has not had the experience that I have on that—parents are prepared to stand against intimidation of the worst
836
variety and still continue to send their children to mixed schools. So things are not as black as they have been painted in that way.
I can speak of the courage of parents who face these problems. I do not think anybody doubts that segregated education is a contributory factor to the problems of Northern Ireland. It is not the only factor, of course, and when I say that we may respect the Roman Catholic Church for its determination to preserve Roman Catholic Schools, I think we must remember that it is an enshrined part of our legislation that parental choice shall exist. That is supported by VaticanII. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, made the point that it does not lie only with one denomination. I would entirely agree with him about that; but still that is one area in which segregated education is a contributory factor and where there is one denomination which is not contributing at the moment towards its removal.
Even if it is right to have your own churches in one part of the world, surely, in the state of violence that Northern Ireland suffers at the present moment and considering the problems that exist and with the general agreement that segregated education is a contributory factor, some modification and some attention should be paid to public opinion. That would be a help. All my own children went to the local school in Brookeborough for some time. I would ask your Lordships to try to imagine what it is like for children who are walking up the street to their school while a stream of other children —Roman Catholics in this case—are going up the hill to the other school. Your Lordships can imagine what the language is like, because children of that age are extremely abusive and not slow in coming forward.
In July last year, the Government produced a consultative document which is known as the Cowan Report. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, widened the debate a little, and if I also do so I think that it will be in keeping with what he said, because we cannot isolate these matters. In many ways, this was an excellent report but, entirely due to its terms of reference, it did not deal with the problem which we are discussing tonight, which is the gradual voluntary integration of education. In Northern Ireland, plenty of people have said that

837
integration is a very sensitive subject, and I know as much about that as anybody. But the Cowan Report classified the schools into two completely different categories: first, denominational schools; and, secondly, Roman Catholic schools. The result was that it was made to look to the outside world—and I believe that some speakers today have made it look to this House—as if there is no integration of schooling in Northern Ireland. It looks as though all children are in totally opposed, irreconcilable camps, which is not so.
If the Cowan Report had been accepted and implemented, the rigid catchment areas which had been proposed would have made for totally segregated education. By not recognising the amount of integration that already exists, the Cowan Report upset a great many people who have been working for a very long time to maintain the integration that exists. What we are talking about is not only beginning integration, but maintaining integration that already exists over a large area of Northern Ireland. Belfast and Londonderry are not Northern Ireland. There is a vast area outside. Of course, the problems are centred there, and I do not deny that. But many of the so-called Protestant schools have very large intakes of Roman Catholics. To take but one, Methodist College has over 300 pupils who are Roman Catholics. The noble Lord, Lord Stone, asked about the introduction of Roman Catholics, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, said that he did not know what would happen if a Roman Catholic teacher was introduced. Quite honestly, my Lords, there are Roman Catholics in many Protestant-controlled schools, or State schools. Many State schools have Protestants. The Five Mile Town school, about which I shall speak later, has always had a high proportion of Roman Catholic teachers to pupils.
We ask for two things today: first, let us have some voluntary move towards integration; and, secondly, let us make sure that parental choice is exercisable and that no administrative device will be allowed to stand in its way, thereby making sure that the integration that exists today is not further eroded. Those are very important matters and, for my book, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has satisfied us on them. I think that at the end the noble Lord,
838
Lord Dunleath, might he advised to withdraw his Bill, because I believe that he will have made his point absolutely clear to Northern Ireland and to the rest of the world; the Government have accepted it and we shall see action at a later date.
I should just like to mention my own area. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, knows, County Fermanagh is the best part of the United Kingdom, not just of Northern Ireland. It is a country area, and I am not talking from experience of the cities where there are these interfaces, and where the situation is completely different. For over 100 years, education of the children has been at a mixed school, with teachers of mixed denominations. For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, I crossed out the word "religion", in order to make sure that I was right. This mixed education was further extended when the high school was built, as a result of the 1949 Act. In the neighbouring village of Lisnaskea, and throughout Fermanagh, the same thing was happening. At one time, the attendance at this high school, which is not a large one, was 160 Roman Catholics and just under 500 Protestants, which was roughly equivalent to the denominational practices of the area.
My community throughout the whole of these troubled years has been unaffected by sectarian violence from within itself. I do not like quoting too many figures, but I was interested in one survey which questioned children about their friendship with Roman Catholics, and asked whether Roman Catholics counted Protestants as their friends. The 28 per cent. who could not count other denominations among their friends were more inclined to accept violence as reasonable. What greater reason can one have for saying that there should be integration? I have asked as many questions as possible in my own area, and I can find no case where people educated in integrated schools have been convicted of crimes of violence.
In the last few years, we have seen a Roman Catholic comprehensive school being built 17 miles away, with a Roman Catholic primary school 200 yards from the gate of that high school. The attendance of Roman Catholic children at the high school has now dropped to 60. It is interesting that the head boy—this is quite coincidental, and has nothing to do with this debate—is a Roman Catholic, and it is

839
purely because he has the ability that he is there. This high school, or State comprehensive school, is first-class academically. Its past teachers have been very far-sighted and its present staff are brilliantly led by John Burrel, to whom I certainly owe a great deal.
I hear daily, from the lips of churchmen, pleas that we must all come together and be reconciled. If we do not come together as children, whenever can we come together? What a tragedy it would be for my own community if, for administrative or other reasons, the integration which exists at present were broken up. The noble Lord has covered the two points which I consider this debate has raised; but I should like to see whether or not he nods his head on this point. When the Roman Catholic pupils finish at the primary school, which is 200 yards from the gate of the high school, will they now be able to go to the high school if the parents exercise their parental choice, or will they have to bus 17 miles? That is a test which his Ministry will have to face.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, rather than nodding, may I put it on the record and say that I certainly do not see any reason at all why, if the parents so choose, and the high school is able to take the pupils, they should not go there. As the noble Lord knows, if there is a need for transport to be paid for by the State, that will now be available under the amended school transport arrangements.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much indeed for that absolutely clear statement. I can only repeat to the House that the noble Lord has already done an enormous amount for the cause of integration in Northern Ireland. I want to come to a slightly sour note now, because the problems of the opposition of the heirarchy, about which the noble Lord has spoken, were highlighted the other day by Bishop Philbin, who said that he would not confirm children in one school because they were attending a State school. The reason was not put quite like that, but the implication was that by attending a State school they had not reached a high enough religious standard. But he did not examine them
840
to see whether they had done so. This seems to me most inexcusable, because the first precept of Christianity is that children should obey their parents—at least, I keep on telling my children that. If they have obeyed their parents and gone to a State school, how can he punish them, because confirmation ought to be something that they value. I say this because I do not think that people realise what a quite extraordinary state of affairs we sometimes encounter when we meet really educated people and people who have this authority in the community.
May I end by once more paying a tribute to the Minister for his Statement on 15th July. This Statement altered the emphasis in the Cowan Report. This was a masterpiece which has broken away from the rigidity which was set by the 1976 document and pays a very warm tribute indeed to the achievements of the past. If this approach is continued, I believe that it should enable the best features of our grammar schools still to be retained in the State system. I can assure the Minister that my friends and I will remind him continually of the need to press forward on these lines, and also to push forward with integration so that we in Ulster can have the best education system in the world. Before I sit down, I should like to repeat that the noble Lord has gone such a long way towards meeting the situation that I believe the Bill should be withdrawn.
7.21 p.m.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I am sure we can all draw a great deal of encouragement from what my noble friend Lord Brookeborough has just said about what might otherwise appear to be a rather gloomy situation. May I make clear the standpoint from which I approach the debate. I speak as a Christian who was born and brought up in the Catholic community in England. However, all my school years were spent in what will be called Protestant schools, and I think that I derived at least some benefit from that. My eldest son goes to a Protestant preparatory school, while my younger son goes to a Church of England voluntary-aided primary school where I also have the privilege of serving as a manager. I fully take the warning that was given by my noble friend Lord O'Neill

841
of the Maine, that this does not make one acceptable in Ireland. One has to put up with that fact and do whatever one can.
May I go on to welcome the Bill and all that the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, has said, particularly concerning parental choice and the importance of consulting and involving parents. I so much agree with him that a start has to be made somewhere and that perhaps direct rule provides certain opportunities. Also I very much welcome the noble Lord's statement, that in future there should be no dilution or sacrifice of religious education. The noble Lord indicated that instruction in denominational points could and should continue in shared schools, and this is something which we should all welcome. He asked for full-blooded religious education, which is also important and ties in with much of what was said during the recent debate on religious education in England. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, for drawing from the Government such a major statement as we have heard today.
I should like to put it to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that the training of teachers will be very important. Many people will agree that teachers in training— and, indeed, later on during in-service training—should be prepared for their future roles in mixed and shared schools. In passing, perhaps one might also observe that there is a role to be played in education by those who are rather loosely known as the peace people, for they have made an impression and captured the imagination of many. I feel that they could help forward the work of integration.
I was very interested to hear my noble friend Lord Long use a very well-chosen quotation from the Second Vatican Council and emphasise again parents' freedom of choice. I agree with him. I feel that the fundamental influence is likely to be that of the home and the example set by parents and the family. Some parents in the Northern Irish situation may even see it as their duty to send their children to shared schools as their own personal contribution towards helping to heal ancient and longstanding communal wounds.
At this point may I appeal to the authorities within the Catholic Church in Northern Ireland to try to help such parents to ground their children in their own faith so that they can take a construc-
842
tive part in a shared or mixed school without in any way abandoning their principles. With that, may I wish the very greatest success to this Bill.
7.27 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I take part in this debate with considerable hesitancy, not only because I know that there is another quite long debate to follow—and I will therefore be brief—but also because there seems to be something slightly indecent in a comfortable Anglican in the South of England suggesting how religious education should develop in the fraught atmosphere of Northern Ireland. However, the courage of Lord Dunleath and the importance of the subject make me overcome the reluctance I feel about entering into this field.
I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, had to say. I can well understand that he could not go further than he did this evening, although I wish he could have said that he is able to give the Bill his wholehearted backing. I can understand, too, that he feels he has to adopt a very even-handed approach. I wonder, however, whether he could show slightly more bias, because I believe that he really does feel a very strong bias. The noble Lord said that the Government would not be prepared to enforce—and of course they could not enforce—integration; neither, he went on to say, would the Government stand in its way. Could not the Government be a little more positive than refusing to stand in its way? Could not the Government say that they would put their weight behind all voluntary effort to move in this direction?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, at one point in the speech that I made I said that the Government's policy was not to stand in the way, and I went on to say what I thought that meant in terms of administrative and legislative practice. However, at the beginning of my speech I said:
"The Government's policy is therefore to encourage integrated education where there is a local wish for it."
I hope that this is the kind of positive statement that the noble Baroness is after.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I was hoping—and I think I have been successful—to give the Minister the opportunity to modify the remark that the Government

843
would not stand in its way, which, taken out of context, surely would be seen as a more negative approach than I believe the Minister meant to indicate. While one is not speaking in the hope of getting the Government to agree to give their support to the Bill, I believe it is very important indeed that it should have a successful Second Reading in this House, for three reasons. The first is the obvious intrinsic merit of shared education. I am not going to speak on the subject; other people have made the point that, in the long run, surely it can only be through shared education that the bitter, deep-rooted problems of Northern Ireland will be overcome. None of us believes that anything which can be done immediately can have an immediate effect.
There are two other reasons. One is the importance of publicity for the idea of shared schools. I speak as a representative of the widespread ignorance on this question which dominates so many people on this side of the Irish Sea. I believe that very few people would recognise that there is even the possibility of a development of shared education, which would be thought of as Utopia. Yet it is, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has told us, already a reality, even in Northern Ireland. If people could see this as something which is already going on, as a hopeful possibility towards which they can work, and work in confidence that they are not just whistling in the wind but are working for something which really can be brought about because it is already happening, and if publicity can be given to this, that by itself will have made it worth while to have held this debate, as also would publicity for the fact that although no doubt the attitude of part of the Roman hierarchy is a real obstacle, not all the Roman hierarchy everywhere takes this line. Only this morning an Irish Roman Catholic said to me: "We envy the fact that in Redhill in Surrey"—and of course I recognise that Redhill in Surrey is light aeons away from Ulster—" with the approval of the Roman hierarchy a shared education is going on". It has happened, and if there are some members of the hierarchy who can accept it, then surely we can he hopeful that the time will come when greatly increased numbers, if not all, of the hierarchy can accept it.
844
Next, publicity for the idea. It is good to see members of the Press in the Press Gallery tonight. Is it too much to hope that the Press which, understandably and probably rightly, gives so much space to violence in Ireland, will give space to this very hopeful development that in the House tonight, led by a leader of the Alliance Party, supported by both Catholic and Protestant speakers, the idea of shared schools has been given so much solid support?
Then, publicity and also support for the courageous people in both Protestant and Catholic communities who are taking the risk of going ahead with the idea of shared schools. It is a risk; it must be very difficult indeed for people who have been brought up in the Catholic faith, who have been disciplined by Catholic ideas of teaching, to risk sending their children to schools against the wishes of the hierarchy. That in some cases is true. Seeing their children refused confirmation and refused communion, which means a very great deal to people who have been brought up as good practising Catholics from their earliest days. So give support to them, that they may know that other people believe that this is the right and courageous thing to do and that we admire them greatly for it.
7.33 p.m.
The DUKE of NORFOLK: My Lords, I do not want to speak for long at the end of this debate, but I should like to add all my support to the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, for having moved the Second Reading of this Bill. The point of the Bill is to try to restore more peace to Northern Ireland by means of integrating education, and the noble Lord and several other speakers tonight have noted that maybe some of the hierarchy in Ireland regard this as a dangerous thing to happen because it might detract from the religious content of their education. I should like to assure your Lordships that there are other Catholic hierarchies in the world who have moved to integration. Take the hierarchy in Switzerland, where they have 26 cantons: the education system is entirely integrated in some cantons although it may be denominational in others and it works perfectly well.
The hierarchies of that noble and great country, Poland, have intensely integrated

845
education. In the Polish Catholic schools there are other denominations of Christianity, and I need hardly say that in other parts of the European nations there are integrated schools. I understand that an encouraging feature is that Mr. Lynch is not against the integration of schools and I think that might be of considerable importance. I made inquiries about this the other night and was assured that this was so.
Finally, I want to try to be optimistic and encouraging about the outcome of this debate. I think it has revealed an immense (shall we say?) groundswell of opinion in favour of trying to helpNorthern Ireland to attain peace, and after all, my Lords, Northern Ireland is similar to Lancashire in its religious divisions. In Northern Ireland there are one-third Catholics and two-thirds Protestants and the ratio is the same in Lancashire. In Lancashire—and I know this because I came hack from there only the other day, and I go there frequently—the integrated and the denominational going side by side produce the most successful Catholic education, and I do not believe that the Catholics of Lancashire are any less fervent in their religion after being educated beside Protestants, and in the atmosphere of our country than the Catholics of Northern Ireland need be if they attended integrated schools.
7.37 p.m.
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, I should like to thank all those who have taken part in this debate for their very constructive, interesting and well-informed contributions. The hour is late, so I hope they will forgive me if I do not refer to all the points that were made in their speeches. Indeed, perhaps I might be forgiven if I were to pick up just one or two points made in the significant speech of my noble friend Lord Melchett. I should like to thank him for the fullness of his response to my opening speech and, incidentally, I should like to take this opportunity of endorsing the tributes that were paid to him this evening. I can endorse them from my own personal experience at home in Northern Ireland.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and other noble Lords recognise some of the difficulties, and indeed it would be foolish and short-sighted not to recognise
846
them. But it is one thing to recognise difficulties and another to put something into the "too difficult" file. We must see how those difficulties, such as they are, can be circumvented. For instance, the point was made that where integrated education is most needed, where it can perhaps do the most good, where community relations are most in need of reconciliation, it would be least likely to work and there would be least likely for there to be a will for it—some of the ghetto areas, so to speak. I accept that, but equally there are just as many cases where it could work and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said, it does work. I would go so far as to say that it does work, despite the fact—and I say this with respect—that in my view the existing management laws are not a help towards integration, and indeed in certain cases can be a barrier.
I would further say that there are schools which tomorrow would opt for controlled integrated status if this enabling measure were law. There are schools where it could start working tomorrow, and I can foresee it spreading out from there. So let us not take a hopeless look at this just because there are some areas where quite clearly it would not work at this stage.
My Lords, the point was also made that it might never be possible to get a controlled integrated school off the ground because the Roman Catholic hierarchy might not be prepared to nominate a member or members to the management committee. Careful study of the Bill—and I know it is a difficult one to read—does indicate that the Bill allows for the school to go ahead even if that nomination is not made. So that is another difficulty that could be got round.
I will not continue and speak on the other interesting points that were made, but rather I would sum up by saying that I would like to make it absolutely clear that I fully accept that Her Majesty's Government are in principle in favour of integrated education in Northern Ireland. But without casting any aspersion whatever on the membership of the Working Party or committee—I cannot remember what the title is—that the noble Lord announced this afternoon to look into school management, I. would say that the terms of reference of it are so much

847
wider than the specific topic that we have been talking about this afternoon that I would doubt that it would be possible to hope for either expeditious or meaningful results from that Working Party. Therefore, I am afraid it will make my noble friend sigh deeply, but I cannot bring myself to withdraw. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DEER BILL [H.L.]
7.42 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Close Seasons.]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, after ("order") insert ("either generally or in relation to any area specified in the order").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. This Amendment is a very simple one. It would give the power to the Minister to alter close seasons, if it ever became necessary, region by region or area by area. This is just a power the Minister would possess in case he ever needed it. I am sure the Amendment will commend itself to the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 14, after ("species") insert ("and description").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will deal with Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 together. These are entirely drafting Amendments. Amendment No. 4 goes with the new clause proposed by Amendment No. 62 on the Marshalled List, which is simply a replacement for the words in Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 15, leave out from ("for") to end of line 16 and insert ("deer of that species and description").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Unlawful weapons, etc.]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, leave out lines 34 to 38.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment goes with Amendment No. 13 and is again drafting.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 6, at end insert ("and done").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8. This is purely drafting.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Prohibition of poaching, etc.]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 12, at beginning insert ("Subject to section 18 of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, and, with permission, the Amendment on the Marshalled List in the name of my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell. If we could take these together, they amount to a redrafting of Clause 4 on the lines which I think appeal to those noble Lords who have taken an interest in this Bill. The drafting, I acknowledge completely, has been done with the help of the Home Office, who, I understand, although not happy with the principle of the clause, are now satisfied with the wording of it with these Amendments. If I may repeat it, I accept the Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 12, leave out from ("person") to end of line 17 and insert ("enters on any land without lawful authority in search or pursuit of any deer with the intention of taking, killing or injuring it").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert—
("(2) Subject to section 18 of this Act, if any person while on any land without lawful authority—

(a) takes or wilfully kills or injures any deer; or

(b) searches for or pursues any deer with the intention of taking, killing or injuring it,

he shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) A person shall not be regarded for the purposes of this section as being on any land without lawful authority at any time if, at that time,—

(a) he believes that the person or persons whom he believes to be entitled to consent to his being there have so consented, or would so consent, if he or they knew of his being there; or

(b) he is in constant pursuit of an injured or wounded deer and such injury or wound was inflicted on land where the pursuer was lawfully entitled to take deer.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 12 as an Amendment to Amendment No. 11:
Leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) A person shall not be regarded for the purposes of this section as entering or being on any land without lawful authority at any time, if at that time,—

(a) he believes that the person or persons entitled to consent to his entry or his being there have so consented, or would so consent if he or they knew of it; or

(b) he is searching for or pursuing an injured deer which was injured on land on which he has the right to take or kill deer.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend has already intimated that he is prepared to accept Amendment No. 12. I therefore beg to move.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 11, as amended, shall be agreed to?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, hesitate to interrupt this headlong rush, but I am going to do so for two minutes. It is for this reason. This Bill is now getting to its penultimate stage in your Lordships' House; in fact has got there. I must confess that I regard these Amendments to Clause 4 with a great deal of satisfaction. It may be a suitable moment to say this. There was a great deal of
850
anxiety expressed over various parts of this Bill at various times, as anybody who reads the Official Report will confirm. I myself was particularly concerned with two clauses, of which Clause No. 4 was one, because I thought that particularly subsection (3) made, not to put too fine a point on it, legal nonsense. I must pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, who has persisted indefatigably to get agreement from all sides on his Bill and in particular this clause. It would he wrong for the clause to pass into history without some reference to and acknowledgment of his powers of advocacy, powers of persuasion and powers of compromise. This is an Amendment which I think will be welcomed in all parts of the House.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I must say this to the noble Earl: I was almost discourteous, because I should have said at the very beginning that he himself played a very great part in helping to redraft this clause.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Taking etc., of live deer
. Subject to sections 18 and 19 of this Act, if any person—

(a) takes any live deer; or

(b) marks, or attaches any tag, ring, collar or device to, any live deer,

he shall be guilty of an offence.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment. It is linked with Amendment No. 5. It is replacing lines 34 to 38 on page 2 by a totally new clause, and does not alter the sense of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Offender may be required to quit land]:
7.50 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendments Nos. 14 to 19:
Page 3, line 26, leave out from ("person") to ("suspected") in line 27 and insert ("is found committing or is with reasonable cause")
Page 3, line 28, leave out from ("under") to ("to") in line 29 and insert ("the preceding

851
provisions of this Act on any land, it shall be lawful for any constable or authorised person")
Page 3, line 31, leave out ("such") and insert ("the")
Page 3, line 31, leave out ("and, if that person on being") and insert ("(1A) If any person who is")
Page 3, line 35, after ("person") insert ("in relation to any land")
Page 3, line 37, leave out ("on which the action authorised is taken")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I should like to move these Amendments en bloc. These are all drafting Amendments and do not alter the sense of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 7 [Penalties under Part I]:
Lord NORTH FIELD Lord NORTH FIELD moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 4, line 7, leave out ("excluding") and insert ("after").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this again is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Sale, etc., of venison]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 33:
Page 4, line 18, at end insert—
("(1A) If any person sells or offers or exposes for sale or has in his possession for sale, or purchases or offers to purchase or receives, any venison which comes from a deer—

(a) which has been taken in circumstances which constitute an offence under Part I of this Act; and

(b) which he knows or has reason to believe to have been so taken,

he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both.")
Clause 9, page 4, line 26, after ("sale") insert ("or has in his possession for sale any")
Clause 9, page 4, line 27, leave out ("wherein shall be entered") and insert ("containing")
Clause 9, page 4, line 28, leave out ("all")
Clause 9, page 4, line 30, leave out ("such book forthwith full particulars of") and insert ("that book forthwith all")
Clause 9, page 4, line 38, leave out ("the") and insert ("his'record").
Page 5, line 3, at end insert—
("(4) Any authorised officer, on producing, if so required, his written authority, and any constable may inspect—

(a) the record book of a licensed game dealer;

(b) any venison in the licensed game dealer's possession or under his control, or on premises or in vehicles under his control; and

(c) any invoices, consignment notes, receipts and other documents which relate to entries in the record book (including copies where the originals are not available);

and may take copies of, or extracts from, the record book and any such documents.
(5) A record book shall be kept until the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which the last entry was made in the book, and any such documents as are mentioned in subsection (4) of this section shall be kept until the end of the period of three years beginning with the date of the entry to which they relate.
(6) If any licensed game dealer without reasonable excuse fails to comply with the provisions of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(7) If any person wilfully obstructs any authorised officer or constable making an inspection under this section, or knowingly or recklessly makes or causes to be made in a record book any entry which is false or misleading in a material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(8) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.
(9) In this section—
"authorised officer" means any officer of the council of a district or London borough, or of the Common Council of the City of London, who is authorised by them in writing to exercise the powers of this section;
"record book" means a book kept in pursuance of subsection (1) above.").
Leave out Clause 10.
Leave out Clause 11.
Leave out Clause 12.
Leave out Clause 13.
Clause 14, page 6, leave out lines 2 to 5.
Clause 14, page 6, line 8, leave out ("the servant of") and insert ("a servant of any").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I should like to move Amendments Nos. 21 to 33 inclusive. Perhaps I may pause to allow noble Lords to take in the full impact of that. It means that we shall be taking all the Amendments on pages 4 and 5 of the

853
Marshalled List together. These Amendments are suggested by the Government as a means of bringing together in one clause what had been in several clauses in the original draft, and at the same time making a few drafting Amendments. I can again say that they do not alter the sense of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the House will take them extremely briefly. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 15 [Powers of search, arrest and seizure]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 6, line 35, after ("seize") insert ("and detain for the purpose of proceedings under this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to bring the text of Clause 15(1)(d) into line with that of paragraphs (e) and (f) by the inclusion of tile words:
"… and detain for the purpose of proceedings under this Act",
which were omitted. In view of the presence of these words in the two following paragraphs, their absence from paragraph (d) might throw doubt on whether any such powers to detain a deer exist. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.53 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 6, line 39, after ("(b)") insert ("or (bb)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment which is consequential on splitting Clause 16(1)(b) into two parts, and the Amendment does that. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Forfeitures and disqualificalions]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 17, leave out ("or of any dog used (by the person convicted)") and insert—
("( ) order the forfeiture of any dog used (by him)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment, but it has a slight misprint. In between the brackets at the beginning of the Amendment the two letters "(bb)" should be inserted so that the Amendment would then refer to Amendment No. 35 just moved by my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell. This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 37:
Before Clause 18, leave out lines 6 and 7.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to delete the words:
"Part IV Miscellaneous and General".
It will pave the way for the retitling of the various parts of the Bill made necessary by the transposition of clauses and other alterations. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [General exceptions]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 38:
Page 8, line 9, leave out from ("under") to ("protecting") in line 24 and insert ("any of the provisions of sections 1 to 4 and (Taking etc. of live deer) of this Act by reason of any act done for the purpose of—

(a) preventing suffering by any deer calf, fawn or kid deprived of its mother; or

(b) preventing suffering by any deer which appeared to be so seriously injured or in such a condition that to kill it was, or would have been, an act of mercy; or

(c)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have not been able to have a word with my noble friend Lord Northfield, but I know that he has some reservations about this particular Amendment. With your Lordships' permission, therefore, I propose not to move this Amendment in the hope that we can have some discussion before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to my noble friend.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 8, line 34, at end insert ("and nothing in sections 1 to 4 and (Taking etc. of live deer) shall

855
make unlawful anything done by virtue of any power conferred on the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or on that Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly, by or under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, the Rabies Act 1974 or sections 9 or 10 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is in fact a substitute for Amendment No. 45 which my noble friend has not moved. It is to meet a legitimate point raised by the Government about the need for powers under the Diseases of Animals Act and other matters as they are specified. I beg to move.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, is to Amendment No. 45 which has not been moved.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I must beg noble Lords' pardon. I apologise most sincerely and I should have pointed out at the beginning that that again was due to a printing error. Those words should not have appeared on the Marshalled List.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 8, line 41, leave out ("the deer was causing, or had caused, serious") and insert ("deer were causing, or had caused").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 49 and 51. These Amendments are designed to narrow the restrictions imposed on farmers who need to take advantage of the exemptions provided in the Bill for shooting deer in the close season or at night in defence of their crops.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but he has said that he is speaking to Amendment No. 51, which is an Amendment to Amendment No. 50. I thought it was agreed through the usual channels that we should not, in fact, tackle Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 this evening because we have only a short time left and these are rather controversial Amendments. Is that not right?
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I am slightly puzzled. Is the noble Lord
856
suggesting that this should be the point at which I should move the adjournment of the debate?
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, yes.
Lord NORTHFIELD: If it is for the convenience of the House, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

DEFENCE EXPENDITURE CUTS
8 p.m.
Earl CATHCART Earl CATHCART rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what reductions are to he made to our Reserve Forces and stockpiles of key stores as a result of the recent series of cuts in Defence expenditure and to what extent these cuts will reduce our ability to transport essentials to BAOR quickly and in time. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. When we debated the Statement on Defence for 1977 in your Lordships' House on 12th May, I asked for an assurance that the defence cuts, then announced, would not adversely affect the size or equipment of our Reserves nor inhibit our ability to reinforce the British Army of the Rhine effectively and in time.
My Lords, I find that I am not addressing any Member of the Government at the moment. I wonder whether perhaps we should wait until they return. Would that be in order? Is the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, coming?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, a search party is now looking for the noble Lord. There was an impression that the other debate we have now suspended would have gone on until 8.15 p.m. Apparently there is a misunderstanding.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, would it be in order if we adjourned during pleasure until the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, is available?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the noble Lord has arrived. The situation is now saved.
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, perhaps I should start again. I should like to repeat one sentence. When we debated the Statement on Defence for 1977 in your Lordships' House on 12th May, I asked for an assurance that the defence cuts, then announced, would not adversely affect the size or equipment of our Reserves nor inhibit our ability to reinforce the British Army of the Rhine effectively and in time. For reasons which are well understood, the noble Lord who replied to that debate on that occasion was unable to answer my questions. But the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, acknowledged that it was an important matter and encouraged me to raise it again in the manner in which I am now doing.
I shall not repeat my speech of 12th May, except to remind your Lordships that I stressed then the essential part that our Reserves must play in our strategy from the very outset of hostilities, and even before that. I also stressed that these hostilities, if tragically they are ever to occur, are likely to occur swiftly and suddenly and without a long period of rising tension. We had been told that these cuts have not been made to the teeth arms, and therefore my anxiety is that we must assume that economies will have to he made to our reinforcement capability and our logistic units, many of which are part of our volunteer Army. If economies are made in training time, or training ammunition for these Reserves, or if slippage occurs in the rate with which they are issued with the most modern battle equipment, we cannot expect them to be fully operational to complete the British Army of the Rhine to war establishment and to take their place with field force units immediately on mobilisation.
Equally, if proper reserve stocks of essential stores and equipment are not pre-positioned to the correct scale and in the correct locations in peacetime, the fighting capability of the 1st British Corps will be badly impaired and the task of moving those stores on mobilisation will be extremely difficult. I hope that in order to economise in the expenditure of foreign currency, these British reserve stockpiles are not being run down on the continent in the central region of Europe and set up again instead in this country.
858
The other matter that I dealt with at length on 12th May was the very difficult problems that this country would face next time during the period of mobilisation; more difficult than any previous experience this country has had, since mobilisation next time will not be carried out at the leisurely pace we experienced in the last two wars. With this in mind, I asked whether Her Majesty's Government would undertake to consider the speeding up of their modernisation programme for the military port at Marchwood.
Before I sit down, I should like to thank all those noble Lords who will be speaking in this small but important debate, especially in view of the lateness of the hour. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, in anticipation of his reply, and also for the good natured and patient way that he always listens to us on these subjects. Finally, I should like to say how much I am looking forward to the speech of my noble friend Lord Avon, not only because it will be his maiden speech, but because, as happens so frequently in your Lordships' House, he will bring experience in the matter on which he will be speaking. He commanded a volunteer battalion of a very distinguished regiment with a most important operational role on mobilisation, and on giving up that command he was promoted to colonel; and in the appointment of volunteer colonel he was responsible for advising his superior officers on all Volunteer Reserve matters. I know that we all look forward to his speech with very great interest.
8.6 p.m.
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, for those kind remarks, and indeed for raising the subject of our Army Reserves in relation to their BAOR commitment. I believe that any more cuts in expenditure on the Reserves at this moment could seriously harm their efficiency, credibility and even their morale. At this point I believe that I should declare an interest. I am currently a vice-chairman of a Greater London TAVR Association.
I should like to put forward this evening four major reasons why this is not a good moment to cut the Reserves in any way; indeed, why it is a time when thought

859
should be given to expansion rather than to curtailment. First, there is the increased importance that this Government themselves have given to the TAVR by making many units of the TAVR on mobilisation an integral part of the Army in BAOR. Having given them this task, the TAVR should have been equipped and established to work alongside regular battalions. This has not yet been completed. There is, for instance, a general shortage of radios and FFR vehicles; infantry battalions are equipped with Wombat and not even with Mobat; they have a smaller allocation of Carl Gustavs, and thereby a lower anti-tank capability. Some of their equipment is old: the expression "beyond economical repair" is not unknown in the TAVR. The TAVR is proud of its role in BAOR, but to carry it out, and thereby fulfil this country's commitment to NATO, the TAVR units need more equipment, not less.
Last September I was able to witness in Germany part of the preparation for an exercise in which regular and volunteer troops worked together. It was carried out by an airportable brigade. But the participation of the TAVR in the infantry units was seven companies, which amounted to 842 men out of an infantry total of 2,100; just over a third. The Reserves also provided over 1,000 personnel in the Logistic Support Group, making the total TAVR share of just under 2,000 in a grand total of 5,500—again just over a third. That such an exercise can happen is proof of the viability of the TAVR; but the value of their performance would be considerably enhanced if their equipment and establishment more closely resembled that of their regular counterpart.
My second reason is that the TAVR remains our only reserve against the unknown. It stands at 60,000 strong—a ludicrously small number. Sixty thousand is the highest figure that it has been for some time. Is this not the moment to increase it? In fact to invest in success, rather than to make cuts? Much in this country is in disarray at the moment; it would be a gross pity to jeopardise this excellent investment. May I remind your Lordships that the TAVR was conceived under a Socialist Administration. It was ten years ago that the
860
Government set the liability bounty at a maximum of £60 per annum. It has never been increased. No account has been taken of the fall in the value of the pound or of rising prices. Should not some increase now be given to them, rather than wait for them to come and beg for it? It would ease recruiting problems. It would take no mathematician to work out that the cost would be minuscule. Many members of the Reserve are out of pocket and, to give one example, their petrol allowance is 4·9p per mile compared with your Lordships' 12p.
My third reason is the shopwindow that the TAVR provides for the Armed Services. The presence of the Reserves and their drill halls up and down the country are part of this country's way of life. Throughout the United Kingdom they are taken for granted, like the local town hall or police station. It is essential to maintain their outward and inward condition, otherwise it will lower the standing of the soldiery in the eyes of the general public. Of course economies are necessary, but the postponement of painting and refurbishing is just bad housekeeping; as we all know, the putting off of a decision nearly always leads to more painful answers later. Cuts in this direction must surely end; the alternatives will be difficulties in recruiting, bad morale and lowering standards.
My last reason for an expansion rather than a retraction is on a more general note, and I should like to include the Army Cadet Force in this plea. There are over 200,000 people in the tri-Services cadet forces and Reserves. When discussions take place on the permissiveness of youth or the selfishness of the new society and we worry about future standards, many of us are frustrated that there seems little positive that we can do about it. I believe that in this body of boys, young men and women we have available just such a positive opportunity. Here are organisations that train citizens to be responsible, to help others, to be a member of a team and to understand that service to Queen and country is a healthy and worthwhile idea. Could not Ministers persuade the Treasury that this is an occasion to invest in the youth of tomorrow? Incidentally, this group of 200,000 also provides many good recruits for the Regular Armed Services.

861
The direct expenditure on the Reserves is such a tiny portion of the total defence expenditure that it makes this force the best possible investment. I hope the Government will continue to support these loyal citizens, will encourage them by positive means, and not cuts, and will ensure that more, not less, of the defence budget is spent on the Reserves. I can assure the Government that some cuts are already having an adverse effect on morale. I trust that the Ministers responsible are aware of this and that they will commit themselves to the maintenance of the TAVR at its present good level and will reject any further cuts in this direction. I conclude by quoting from the Defence Estimates published earlier this year. Paragraph 126 says:
"States that wish to preserve peace have never achieved that aim by neglecting their own security".
I recommend that maxim to the Government, particularly in relation to the Reserves and their role in BAOR.
8.13 p.m.
Lord WESTBURY: My Lords, I wish at the outset to congratulate my noble friend Lord Avon on his interesting and well-informed speech, and I am sure it will add a great deal to our defence debates to have somebody with first-hand knowledge of these matters. I also thank my noble friend Lord Cathcart for introducing this Unstarred Question and I agree with all that he so wisely said, which, luckily for the House, cuts down enormously the speech I had intended to make. I must say that I am shocked by the lack of interest being shown on the Government Benches for a Question of this paramount importance at this time.
I suggest that there are two main factors: Do we have the time or capability to back up our forces in BAOR if war breaks out? First, the question of time. I reckon that, if attacked, our aggressors would be at the Channel ports in one week. How on earth could we get our Reserves from the United Kingdom and Ulster to BAOR in less than one week? It is not possible. Secondly, our capability. We do not have the reserves of equipment in the United Kingdom, or large enough stockpiles in BAOR to make it possible for our forces to stand fast in Europe. Her Majesty's Government must realise that by the continuous
862
cutting down of our reserves they are making it impossible for our troops in BAOR to withstand an onslaught from the East.
8.15 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I too wish to start by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Avon, on his maiden speech and I hope we will hear him often again on this subject, on which he is so well-informed. I should also like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, for raising this Question again—it is not the first time he has raised it—and at the same time I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, for encouraging him to ask the Question; obviously he did not know the answer on the last occasion and wanted to dodge it in that way.
When I first came to your Lordships' House I happened to be the Territorial Army ADC to the Queen and the noble Earl was then commanding a TA brigade. He was in those days still living in Devonshire and many a time and oft—not in the Rialto but anyway in the depths of darkest Devon—did we discuss the frightful proposals which were then in the air and which preceded the Healey massacre. Going back to those days, and particularly on the subject of the Reserves, it is well to point out to the Government that the strongest critics of their policy for reducing our Reserves were the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, in this House and Mr. Crawshaw, another member of the Labour Party, in the other House. However, as so often happens, the sensible Members of the Government did not have their way.
The Reserves in this country in the modern concept really sprung into life about 140 years ago when our Regular Forces were all overseas. The Duke of Wellington, then in his 80s, issued a warning to the House about the danger to the country from all our Regular Forces being overseas. That was followed up by a well known admiral of the time who pointed out that we had only 50 artillery pieces in the whole of the United Kingdom, with not one fixed gun on coastal defences between Land's End and Portsmouth. From that time, the volunteer movement started and it was a movement which came from the people; the first volunteer battalion of that era was raised by a doctor, at his own or other people's

863
expense, in Exeter, and the descendant of that battalion I had the honour to command many years later.
Then in the Boer War the volunteers produced the Imperial Yeomanry and volunteer companies served with the Regular battalions. In the Great War the first thing that happened was that the TA battalions replaced the battalions in India and elsewhere so that they could come back to reinforce the troops in Germany, and later all the Service battalions were built up from that. In those days, when Aden was defended by an Indian brigade, it had one English battalion. When one of these TA battalions went out, the English battalion always had a detachment on Kamaran Island, so that when the battalion arrived out there off went this company to Kamaran Island. They were not used to overseas service in those days and on one occasion, about a week after they had gone out there, a message came to battalion headquarters saying, "We have one case of beri-beri". A reply went back from headquarters not long afterwards saying, "Give it to the sergeants' mess. They'll drink anything".
In the last war, the TA produced, inter alia, nine full infantry battalions. What are we reduced to now? The TAVR II which, as your Lordships have heard, is committed to reinforcing Germany, and the TAVR III which is, I suppose, the only thing we have in the way of home defence. I happen to be the honorary colonel of a TAVR III yeomanry unit and all one can say is that this is completely, utterly and entirely inadequate. I went to Sennybridges in Wales only a few weeks ago to visit them in camp and there was this one yeomanry unit in that camp which, the last time I went there when I was a deputy brigade commander, had a complete brigade group plus divisional headquarters. To see what the country is letting itself in for by not having adequate Reserves is absolutely appalling.
We have heard so much about the increase of the Russian navy and about what we have in the Reserves being committed in Europe. There will have to be more because the forward theory of defence which I believe will have to take over in NATO will mean that we in
864
this country shall be back at the state we were in 140 years ago. The TAVR II will be in Europe. All our Regular Forces will be there. What will be left here in case this very superior potential enemy force should try to land?
There is a crying need for more and more Reserves. Earlier this afternoon I was talking to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and I feel that I cannot do better than quote him. He said, "If I were Minister of Defence, I would double the largest number of Reserves we have ever had, pay them the highest bounties, give them the best equipment. Then the country need never fear an attack." My Lords, that would be the cheapest way of defending the country anyway.
8.23 p.m.
Viscount BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, when I spoke in the defence debate, I mentioned the scarcity of noble Lords with any recent experience of defence problems, so I should like now to say how glad I was to see from the Birthday Honours that that deficiency was about to be remedied. Equally good is the appearance of my noble friend Lord Avon, who brings such great knowledge and recent experience of the Reserve and cadet forces to this House. It is a delight to one Greenjacket to say how pleased he is to see another make his maiden speech, and only the lateness of the hour and great self-restraint prevent me from expanding on what my noble friend has said, particularly about the cadet forces. All I shall do is to say that, as a former Director of the Territorial Army and the Army Cadet Force, I agree with every word that he has said and hope that his speech has registered with the Benches opposite.
I want for one moment to look a little further back at the origins of the trouble which my noble friend Lord Cathcart has so clearly outlined this evening. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will be able to answer, but I am bound to say that I do not think an Unstarred Question a very suitable vehicle for a debate like this for, although the reply that the Government make is very interesting, it cannot be debated. Therefore, we shall perhaps need to put down another Unstarred Question later on in order to debate what the noble Lord has said.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Viscount might organise a mini-debate of two and a half hours.
Viscount BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. I should like to go back to the origin of some of the troubles that Lord Cathcart mentioned; that is, the 1957 White Paper. Everybody knows that, in that White Paper, the policy was laid down that the deterrent fear of nuclear retaliation was likely to keep the peace. At the same time, however, the White Paper emphasised the importance of reserves. Alas and alack— from that day to this, the importance that the authors of the White Paper attached to reserves of equipment and manpower has been very largely honoured more in the breach than in the observance, by, I am sorry to say, successive Governments of different complexions.
There are other factors involved. One is what I see as the stupidity of trying to divide nuclear from conventional warfare so that one was followed by the snobs and the other was unpopular. Then there is something that always conies up in considering modern warfare. It is the blurring of the old-fashioned 18th century line between peace and war. We have cold war and guerrilla warfare which may or may not legally be war under international conventions. It means that one never knows whether one is at war or peace and that war is no longer confined to the battlefield.
I should like to mention one other matter. I go back to 1921, when the late Lord Trenchard had an idea, which turned out not to be right in practice, that peace could be kept in places like Iraq and the North-West Frontier purely by aircraft; it was not necessary to have people on the ground. That, again, seems to have been forgotten and now we have here a White Paper which, although it tells us the number of Reserves, does nothing to indicate whether or not they are sufficient. However, I fancy that, if one knew the figures since 1957, one would find that the number and the quality of the Reserves had steadily declined every year. A point which the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, touched on just now was the cadres of TAVR III, for example: if they have not been destroyed they have been as nearly destroyed as makes no
866
difference. I should like to come back to that in a moment.
I am not myself competent to talk about the Naval or Air Force Reserves but, as to the Army Reserves, one wonders whether they are sufficient to cover the needs which I imagine still are the needs for Reserves. They certainly used to be in my time. Those are transition from peace to war establishment; the provision of the first reinforcement, and the provision of what was called the "three months' war wastage" to tide over the time before the people enlisted on mobilisation can be trained.
Then, as I believe I said in the defence debate, there is the factor that the National Service Reservist has run out. Nothing is said about this in the White Paper, but it is very hard to believe that that run-off of the National Service Reservist has not had a very significant effect on the total Reserve position. I hope we shall be allowed to hear something about this, though I am not quite confident.
It is very easy to make a speech advocating the building up of Reserves, but I think that one should be realistic and should say that it will not be nearly so easy in practice as we should like it to be. Equipment can be developed and built to quite an extent while the public is not looking, even if foreign Powers know what we are doing. One does not have mass demonstrations by polytechnic students because someone has invented a missile to outrange any other. If there are any demonstrations, they are much more likely to be in places such as Barrow-in-Furness because someone has stopped building a cruiser and a lot of people are out of work.
Successive Governments—and here should like to mention the Attlee Government—have, in the past, had good records in developing equipment when nobody has been looking. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, if he were in his place, would probably agree, especially as I think that he had some hand in it and ought to take some of the credit. But with manpower it is a different matter. Nothing can take place behind the scenes, because one is dealing with people. One is making demands, if not on the full-time on the part-time activities of a very large number of individual men and women, and also, as I said just now, with things as they are

867
the cadres have to be built up almost from the start. So there are plenty of opportunities for interference with any action, however necessary it is to rebuild the Reserves. It is not merely the students and the Left-Wing; there would be many more respectable people who would complain that to do this would spoil their efforts towards detente and the rest of it.
There we are, my Lords, and the hour is late, but not so late, I hope, that we do not realise the very great importance of the matter which the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, has brought to our notice, together with the hope that we may hear something tonight which will make us feel that, in the modern jargon, there is credibility in our Forces, that there really are the men and the Reserves to keep them at the proper degree of readiness for war.
8.31 p.m.
Viscount MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY: My Lords, first, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Avon. It is good that a Territorial soldier should make his maiden speech on this occasion. I had the privilege of serving his noble father as military adviser in Geneva at the Indo-China and Korean conferences of, I think, 1955. This is an important subject; it should not be lightly treated tonight. The first point on which I should like to know more—and I hope that an answer may one day be forthcoming—concerns the fear, at least in the Rhine Army, and in some ways in the Territorial Army, that the shortages of equipment are in fact affecting the role of the Rhine Army and affecting the role of the Territorial reinforcements of the Rhine Army. The role is being altered to suit the shortages. I hope that this is not so, but it is a very strong and popular feeling in both the Regular and the Territorial Armies at the moment. It was introduced by my noble friend Lord Cathcart in his opening speech.
My next question is: what fighting Reserve Forces are left in this country after mobilisation, after the Territorial units have gone to the Rhine Army? What is left here to guard the home base? I believe that what my noble friend Lord Bridgeman said on manpower may not be quite as bad as that. I believe that if we were given the go-ahead we could increase manpower now. Certainly in the unit in
868
which I work—the Yeomanry in Kent and London—we could increase. We only want the go-ahead to be allowed so to do.
Finally, my Lords, I ask one more question which may seem small, but the effect is large. Rumour, again, but fear, again, has it that the Regular Army appointment of the Director of the Territorial Army (he is called something else now) is either to be downgraded to a brigadier's appointment or to be absorbed into the appointment of one of the United Kingdom Chiefs of Staff appointments. I hope, and ask, that it should not be so. As a Regular who has never worked with the TA before, I know the importance of the rank of the man representing the Territorial Army at the Army Council level. It is essential that he should be a major-general. It is essential that it should be independent from any other appointment, and perhaps he should be brave enough to resign when he thinks he should resign, as a friend of mine did once when occupying the same appointment. My Lords, as usual I have kept to my time limit, and I hope that these points may at some time be answered.
8.34 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, first I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, for introducing this subject. We all know that he has spent the greater part of his life in serving his country as a soldier, and we are very grateful to him for the knowledge that he brings to this House and for the work that he does here. I should also like to take the opportunity of congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Avon, on his excellent speech. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, and myself are the only two people in the House tonight who served in the other House with the noble Earl's father, and therefore we are delighted to see that he is following so well in his father's footsteps, and we hope that he has an equally good career.
I am of course a little nervous of speaking in front of so many "brass hats", but I should like to mention the other Services; in other words, the RAF and the Navy. I understand that the RAF has very little in the way of Reserve Forces. In fact, with the virtual disappearance some years ago of the old RAFVR, its Reserve Forces are very small indeed. Transport Command having disappeared, I suppose that

869
in an emergency the RAF would have to commandeer civilian aircraft. In view of the fact, as I mentioned in the previous debate, that so many pilots have left and are serving now, for example, with the Cathay Pacific piloting VC 10s, I wonder whether any of them are being asked—for, after all, we paid a great deal for their training—when leaving the Service and taking up other jobs as pilots, whether they would sign a contract to return to serve in case of war. I have in mind a kind of Supplementary List.
The Royal Navy has already had to "hire" merchant ships in peace time to transport the Navy and the Royal Marines to Norway. In regard to transporting equipment to BOAR quickly, can the Minister state how the Army is streaming the system and improving the flow of men and stores? Has the implementation of the cuts affected this work, which I gather was going on very well?
The total cut affecting the TAVR is not quite as bad as one had anticipated. What I really want to know is whether the noble Lord can give an assurance this evening that there will not be any further cuts, especially affecting training or equipment. Can he also say what is happening to the weapons needed in the future, especially in regard to the Centurion tank which I gather will have to be used until the 1990s and will by then be out-gunned?
Though today the Minister may be able to say that cuts have not affected the TAVR too badly, it is the long-term aspect which is at present the worrying factor. I understand that 30 per cent. of our NATO Army strength comes from the citizen Reserve, and about 3 per cent. is the cost to the defence budget, so we in the United Kingdom should offer grateful thanks to the Reserve Forces. An interesting point to my mind is the fact that the Territorial Army Volunteers have become part of the Regular Army, with the 289 Commando Battery of volunteers as the first unit. Should an emergency occur on NATO's Northern flank, within less than a week I understand that barristers and businessmen, builders and bus drivers, who form this élite unit, would be on duty in Northern Europe. Perhaps the Minister can confirm this? I gather that on 4th May the 289 celebrated its integration with the 29th Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, which supports the third Royal
870
Marine Commando Brigade in East Ham, and the red berets of the paratroops were also exchanged for the green ones of the Royal Marines. I should like to hear a little more about that, if possible.
With regard to the Royal Navy, I understand that on 1st March last year the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Command assumed responsibility for the RNR, and for the WRNR, and for the nurses. I should like to know whether this arrangement is working, because I gather that it was designed to achieve closer integration between the Royal Navy and its Reserves, and to ensure that the Reserves are better placed to keep up to date with the present rapid changes in maritime technology and tactics. Is this proving to be successful? I gather that the RNR are to man the minesweepers and the mine countermeasures vessels, and I understand that they are very keen to do this. In fact, on 14th December last year these Reservists were in Portsmouth to celebrate their centenary.
The reorganisation of the Royal Naval Reserves has meant that part-time volunteers must be kept up to date, and I hope this will continue. Perhaps I should mention that there are others. For instance, at the present time there are, I gather, only 2,253 officers and 3,125 ratings in this Reserve Service. Then perhaps we might think of the Royal Marine Reserves, whose training is designed to support the commando forces. They have been doing this since October 1976; and I think there are 66 officers and 863 men. I was very glad that the University Officers' Training Corps was mentioned. Could I just say that I myself have had the benefit of knowing how well these Reserves of the Royal Navy can work. When I was helping to evacuate from Indonesia prisoners who had been imprisoned under the Japanese, except for the engineer all the officers and men were Reservists, and they were working on a very uncomfortable ship—a utility ship lent by the Americans. The work that they did among the women and the children on that ship was absolutely magnificent, and they rescued a great many of them.
My Lords, I understand that the last Minister for the Navy in the Conservative Government set up a Departmental Committee in regard to the future of the Royal

871
Naval Reserves. I wonder whether their report has yet been published, whether it is going to be published or whether, anyhow, the Minister could let me know what is happening to it.
8.41 p.m.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to intervene in this debate which has been initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, and distinguished by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Avon. I should like to make two points which I made in the last defence debate but which seemed to be overlooked. In that debate I said:
"The most serious effect of the British cuts has already been automatically to brine the theatre nuclear threshold closer". [Official Report, 12/5/77, col. 420.]
The Government do not seem to mind that. That is a terrible thing, to my mind. That leads to the all-Party report by the Expenditure Committee in the House of Commons, from which I quoted in that debate. It said:
"We are bound to report to the House that we have come to the conclusion that the cumulative effect of the cuts has been and is likely to be increasingly felt not only by the Services' support structure, itself important, but also by the frontline forces".
My Lords, it could not have been put clearer, and yet the Government have not answered it. Incidentally, we have a lot of catching up to do. I reckon that 5 per cent. a year, which is the Supreme Commander's estimate, is 62 per cent. over ten years; so we are 62 per cent. behind the Russians already, and we ought to catch up at that rate.
My second point is this. In that same debate the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, said that there was no such thing as "teeth and tail". I myself was corrected by a very senior officer in the Defence Ministry when I underestimated the number of riflemen, or active fighters, in the divisions at 15,000, and I said, "40,000 administrative tail". This very senior officer corrected me and said that there were 55,000. As we were fighting Germans at the time, I think it ought to he taken seriously. Anyway, the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, said:
"If you cut anywhere, you cut the whole". [Official Report, 12/5/77, col. 433].
That is proved by the all-Party report of the Expenditure Committee in the House
872
of Commons, so I think that point must be answered. My suggestion is that we ought to do these things only by agreement with NATO, and that we ought not to spring a surprise on them by saying that we are bound to do this and that for economic reasons, for financial reasons. We ought to consult NATO.
8.46 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to intervene at this rather late hour and before the winding up speeches, more especially in the rather unexpected absence of my noble friend Lord Kimberley who was going to make a speech for the Liberal Party. Perhaps your Lordships will therefore permit me first to make a few comments from the Liberal point of view on the debate which has just taken place. It seems to me that all noble Lords who have spoken—and all without exception are men of authority who know what they are talking about; they do not speak foolishly or without profound knowledge—have said that our present Reserves are totally inadequate. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, especially has said that it would be extremely difficult in any case to get them to the right spot in time. There is no doubt about it: anybody who knows anything about it thinks that that is the situation. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, in an excellent maiden speech, made essentially the same point. He said that in his view the present cuts have had their effects on the British Army of the Rhine. He spoke of reported shortages which we have discussed very often before now, and of the very low level, unfortunately, of the TAVR. To sum up, all noble Lords have said that the Reserves are insufficient and that they would not be easy to reinforce at the present moment.
My Lords, I should however like to raise just one other point of substance. In the last debate we had on this subject on 12th May the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said:
"The new clement that is being injected into our discussions at this point, which I find most interesting, is that for the first time I have heard that the flexible response doctrine is being challenged. It is being challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Giadwyn". [Official Report, 12/5/77, col. 444.]
It was very interesting for me to hear that declaration because as a matter of fact I

873
have indirectly, and more and more of late directly, been challenging the doctrine of flexible response in every conceivable forum: first of all in the Western European Assembly, then in the European Parliament and lately elsewhere in articles and speeches all over the place. I have never hesitated to challenge it because I think it is fundamentally wrong and is becoming increasingly incredible. We cannot get—as a matter of fact we shall not be able to get—the Reserves into the front line in sufficient time. That will become increasingly clear as time goes on; and even if we did, the Reserves are not sufficiently trained or armed to have any effect on the battle.
The only hope, in my view, is for us to build up—and I have said this time and again—a credible conventional defence in Western Germany with our allies, more particularly with the Americans, and let us hope also with the French, which with the use of modern weapons would be able to establish a line which it would be very difficult for the Russians to penetrate by conventional means, thus forcing the Russians if they want to achieve a victory—although it would hardly be a victory—to employ tactical "nukes". And they would not employ tactical "nukes" if they thought that they were going to be held up by conventional means. It is as easy as that. It is easy to understand.
Why can that not he generally accepted? It is logical, it is reasonable and it would not cost very much more if we got together on such lines. Why not? Well, reason has not much to do, I am afraid, with policy, a conclusion I have come to at my advanced age. The only things which really dictate policy are greed and fear. Reason plays a certain role, but greed prevents us having the forces which are necessary. Fear? Well, we might be able to depend on that if people thought they might be menaced by the Russians—but hardly anyone does. Détente has the field at the present time.
For that reason I have ventured to put down for July 28th an Unstarred Question addressed to the Government, asking whether they think that the flexible response doctrine is likely to be credible for much longer and, if not, what they propose to do about it. Then I hope that we shall have a debate on what the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said the other
874
day was "a matter of enormous importance" which he would "like to discuss at length". So should I, my Lords, and I hope that all noble Lords interested will do so too, on July 28th.
8.51 p.m.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, for another opportunity to hear what we hope are going to be some forthright answers from the Government to the many questions which have been put time and time again on the many defence debates. I must offer my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Avon. He has a great deal of first-hand knowledge. He has given many figures and facts and has also asked a great many questions of great import. I hope that the Government will pay deep attention to what he has said from the knowledge that he obviously has. This is not a defence debate, as such, and therefore we must try to contain some of the anger that is certainly felt throughout the whole country and the worry about the state of our Armed Forces. I must add my voice to those noble Lords who have already expressed their wish to see, occasionally, a Labour voice in defence debates. We know that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has to reply, but once again to have no Labour Members to speak is, indeed, sad.
My Lords, we are part of NATO and our major contribution to NATO is in BAOR. We have Standing Forces and we have Reserve Forces. The problem, really, is to ensure that our resources are available at the right time. NATO is very heavily reliant upon reinforcements. The question is: will they get there? And if so, will they be in time?
Lord GLADWYN: No.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, the Government know of the enormous amount of opposition to their cuts which exists on this side of the House. The cuts have reduced spares and ammunition. They have definitely reduced morale and people and, certainly, conclusively, reduced the ability of the fighting forces to do their job. They have so reduced the Regular Forces that the Reserve Forces have an increasing role. But what are they given to do it with?

875
There is no point here in going into the argument about how many days the war would last. This is a matter for debate by the military. The Government must look again very hard at the availability of Reserves without which BAOR cannot operate as it is required to operate. There are 101 questions which one could ask. For instance, do we really have to hire 2,000 "B" vehicles in BAOR when the balloon goes up? Will they be available anyway? Will the Northern Ireland Forces come soon enough? And what about the troops training in Canada? A great many deficiencies will certainly come to light only when battle commences. There are a great many problems like this which are not being faced by the Government.
In the early days of a war, undoubtedly, casualties will probably be heavy. I am sure that the Government will be aware of the enormous shortage of field hospitals and the terrible shortage of doctors. The doctors are so short-staffed that they can hardly cope with the families and the soldiers at the moment—without casualties and without movement problems. When will they get more doctors? What are the Government going to do about it? We have heard from several noble Lords about the few aeroplanes and boats available to transport troops. I am not suggesting that we should have enormous boats waiting in case they should be wanted to transport troops. But will they be able to do the job that we expect of them? The Reserve Forces are totally dependent on civilian transport.
So far as spares are concerned, a great deal has been said already. There are a great number of instances of spare parts and replacements not being available at all. Two of the larger ones come to mind. They are helicopter spares and tank engines. I think, too, that I should mention to the noble Lord opposite that we seem to have reached a pitch where recently, according to my information, a particular spare part for one of our military vehicles had to come from Russia. When we reach that stage it has gone too far and the risk of military problems there are too great to think about. Ammunition is very short; not only for training but, certainly, if there is any decrease in expenditure, it will be a hopeless situation. Undoubtedly, forward dumps
876
are required. I believe that something is going on in this area; but when will it happen? How far have the Government gone in arrangements to place dumps for ammunition and fuel? It is not only spares which are short; there are too few drivers to cope with them when the action comes. I wonder how it is going to be coped with when the situation arises.
My Lords, I should like to mention again something that I raised in a defence debate: the problem of the political decision of when to call for Reserves. Have the relevant Ministers ever given enough thought? Have they been trained and exercised in this vital area so that they know when to call up Reserves? We do not want them to arrive too late. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, brought out the argument of "teeth and tail". It is a ridiculous animal that the Government have dreamed up from somewhere. There is no such animal. The cuts over the past few years have seriously affected our Forces' ability to perform the tasks for more than the briefest period. I cannot do better than to quote my honourable friend Sir Ian Gilmour when he said:
"There is not much point is having front line units which look strong if their weapons are not fully up to date, if they cannot be transported to the place where they are required, if they do not have enough fuel to move about when they get there, if they do not have enough spare parts to keep their equipment serviceable, or if they do not have enough ammunition to fire their weapons as often as they need. Those are the functions of the support arms, and indispensable they are. It is untrue to suggest that to cut them does not harm our contribution to NATO. Of course it does." [Official Report (Commons) col. 1345; 31/3/761]
My Lords, there are serious deficiencies in the equipment and supply of our Forces which a Conservative Government will endeavour to put right as soon as they are able to do so. Meanwhile, we can only hope for reasoned and accurate answers to our questions, if not tonight than at some stage where we can all get to see them. Meanwhile, we can only hope for some improvement in the commonsense of the Government in this area and I hope that the Government will remember that the first duty of Government is to safeguard the people.
8.58 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, before I answer what I think is an exceptionally interesting debate on this Un-

877
starred Question, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Avon, on his maiden speech. May I say that it was a model of what such a speech should be: it was informed, short and to the point. I can say that this House will be most disappointed if the noble Earl does not continue to take an interest in the defence matters which concern your Lordships' House to a great degree and in many other matters in which the noble Earl is interested.
May I say that I am pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, put down this Unstarred Question so that we are enabled to debate it. As I have said previously in our defence debates, it is a fundamental point in our defence thinking. I am grateful to him for indicating that it is a combined operation between us. Noble Lords must be aware that the Defence and External Affairs Sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee in another place—the one that conducted the inquiry which the noble Lord, Lord Newell, mentioned and which was so relevant to our problems—has conducted an inquiry into Reserves and reinforcements, the report of which is likely to be published shortly; and by that I mean in the course of two or three weeks. The Government will present their observations on the report when it appears.
This evening I am somewhat inhibited in my reply because I must not pre-empt the Government's response to what will be a very important report, which was carried out at a very high level of security clearance. It will be as important a report as the previous one on supply. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, considers that this is not the way to conduct a discussion on defence. It is the second best action we can take. The best we could do would be to have a 2½ hour mini-debate on certain elements on defence policy. Those of us who are interested in defence might consider this for some future date.
Viscount BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, does the noble Lord consider that if this report is forthcoming from the Committee in the other place, we might have an opportunity to debate it when we know the views of the Government on it?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, there are things called "usual channels" which we must all obey. They are responsive and if it were the feeling of the
878
House that this would be of value, I am certain that time will be made available, possibly not before the House rises in the summer, but in not too far a distance in the future.
I should like to start by giving your Lordships a categoric assurance that our ability substantially to reinforce BAOR and also RAF Germany and to provide reinforcements of all three Services for NATO headquarters is unaffected by recent cuts both in terms of the level of reinforcement and the speed at which it can take place. Indeed, on the latter point we have achieved real improvements over the last couple of years, and studies continue. Equally our War Reserves will continue as at present to be generally in accordance with NATO's stated requirements.
As your Lordships are aware, the question of the time available for reinforcement of BAOR is closely bound up with the assessment of the threat that NATO faces. There has been widespread recent public comment on the increasing strength of the Warsaw Pact forces and the implications of this growing imbalance in conventional forces for NATO's policy of deterrence and flexible response. Perhaps most disquieting of all, is the apparent increased preparedness of the Warsaw Pact forces leading to speculation on their ability to launch a surprise attack against NATO. Your Lordships will appreciate that the intelligence assessments of these matters are highly sensitive and not something that can be discussed in public.
I should like, however, to put this into context. To begin with, there is no evidence to suggest that deterrence is yet failing, or that the Warsaw Pact is contemplating aggression against the West. Secondly, military indicators are not the sole guide to national intentions and a marked deterioration in the political climate might be expected prior to any attack. On the basis of the information available to him, General Haig, who as SACEUR is the supreme NATO operational commander in Europe, has recently reaffirmed his view that although a surprise attack cannot be ruled out, it is more likely that a period of warning will be available. This is an assessment with which we concur, although that is not to say that either we or our NATO allies are complacent. The state of readiness of the Alliance is kept continuously under

879
review and we do, of course, maintain in Europe a substantial Army with a significant fighting capability even before reinforcement. But we are working hard to ensure that BAOR can be reinforced quickly. We have made improvements and hope to do better still.
It may be of value to your Lordships if I outline, as far as is possible in public, what our plans are. In the first place, the Government are committed to returning to Germany those units temporarily redeployed to Northern Ireland—who normally number some 4,000 personnel—within 72 hours in an emergency. Plans also exist for the early return of individuals on training or leave in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, and the effect of all these measures will be to ensure that BAOR is fully up to its peace time posted strength of some 55,000.
Before leaving the subject of units from Northern Ireland, I should also mention that the operational role in Germany of Headquarters 39 Infantry Brigade, which is located in Northern Ireland, has from the 1st April this year been taken over by the 5th Field Force, the major part of the regular element of which is located in BAOR in peace time. This is a new formation that has been created as part of the restructuring of the Army in BAOR which has concentrated on improving our numbers of front-line troops within the framework of our Brussels Treaty commitments. The effect of this change is both to enhance somewhat the readiness of BAOR, and reduce the need to withdraw troops from Northern Ireland to BAOR at a time of tension.
Moving on to the reinforcement of BAOR, my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Army has repeatedly stated in another place that it would be more than doubled in size upon mobilisation. While these reinforcements will contain an element of Regulars, they obviously contain a significant proportion of Reservists, both members of the Regular Reserves and the TAVR. The efficiency and rapid mobilisation of Reservists are therefore matters of the utmost importance. I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, has once again underlined this point. It is no good having Reserves if they are not there when the balloon goes up.
880
Let me first assure any noble Lords who have memories of the old Territorial Army—an admirable organisation which served the country well in two World Wars, but which was founded in a period when we went to war at a more leisurely pace—that the modern TAVR is alive and well and living at a high state of readiness. By 1st April 1978 there will be no complete operational Reserve formations (in fact at present there is only one, and the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong, 44 Parachute Brigade); TAVR units being used instead to reinforce Regular formations. That way, we believe that they will be ready to fight more quickly. The TAVR units are ready to move at very short notice; many units with a NATO role have a proportion of their equipment stockpiled in Europe—where it is inspected annually by the unit commanding officer or his representative—and there is close contact between the units and the formation commanders under whom they would come in war. Their tasks will have been reconnoitred in detail, and the complete units will train on the Continent at least once every three years. This training involves some 16,000 TAVR members travelling across every year and provides, among other things, an opportunity to exercise parts of the reinforcement machinery.
The noble Earl, Lord Avon, in a very interesting speech, raised a number of points; but he will forgive me if I mention only one in particular. We accept that some TAVR equipment is older than we should like. We have adopted in the past few years the concept of "one Army"—an integrated force of Regulars and Reservists. Under this concept, TAVR units shall be comparably equipped to Regular units with a similar role. As part of this policy, we have started delivery of the new "Fox" armoured car to the TAVR in advance of delivery to some Regular units, and it is intended that they, as well as the Regulars, will also receive the "Blowpipe" low-level air defence missile system and Milan anti-tank guided weapon system.
Noble Lords have also mentioned the question of TAVR recruitment. Over the past two years there has been a steady upward trend in recruitment. Recently the strength exceeded 60,000 for the first time: I believe the establishment is 72,000. While it is too early yet to assess the full impact

881
of the recruiting campaign held this spring, preliminary indications are that it will give added impetus to this upward trend.
Of course, not all the Reservists we plan to use are members of the TAVR. There are also regular Reservists; that is ex-Regular soldiers who accepted a period of Reservist service as part of their regular terms of service. These men will be used principally as individual reinforcements to ensure that all units, both Regular and TAVR, are right up to strength. Although they do no training, the types of men who are posted to front-line units, so far as possible, would have left the Regular Army only comparatively recently and are therefore able to fit into the military environment. These Reservists hold documentation in peace time that tells them where to report upon call-out, and also mobilisation travel warrants to enable them to get there. Unlike members of the TAVR, they do not already possess their personal equipment but draw it before moving forward to join the units to which they are assigned.
The call-out of all Reservists, both Regular and TAVR, will be by a combination of broadcasts on radio and television, postal notices and notices in the Press, as deemed appropriate at the time. The use of postal call-out has been the subject of some misinformed comment in the Press. It is important to realise that the Ministry of Defence will not be acting in isolation, but rather that it forms a part of an integrated crisis management system in which principal decisions will be taken by the Government and measures co-ordinated centrally. The recall of Reservists should be seen within this framework. Without going into detail, I can assure noble Lords that, depending on the circumstances at the time, use is expected to be made both of the news media and of special arrangements that exist to ensure the rapid delivery of postal call-out notices.
Finally, the crux of the matter must be our ability to ensure that the planned reinforcements for BAOR can be transported there with sufficient speed to ensure their timely arrival. This is the very essence, without which no amount of training or call-out planning will be of any avail. Noble Lords will be aware that purely military transport resources will not be sufficient to meet this task,
882
and that civil resources will also be employed. It is always a matter of surprise to me that such an arrangement meets with criticism. After all, it is the method that we used with complete success to transport our Forces to the Continent in 1914 and in 1939. The size of the task and the speed with which it must be accomplished would necessitate an inordinately large expenditure on transport equipment alone, were it the intention to use solely military ships and aircraft; this could not but be to the detriment of the Forces themselves. Presumably, the criticism of the use of civil resources springs from a belief either that they will not be available at the time or that they will be available only after protracted negotiations or Parliamentary activity.
That is a fear which I myself have shared, as some of your Lordships will know. Quite simply, it is not the case. The plans, which are based on a worst-case assessment of the numbers of ships and aircraft required, envisage the use of both independent operators and the nationalised industries, in addition to military resources. In the first case, dormant contracts or letters of agreement have been or are being negotiated. The two major nationalised industries involved are British Airways and the Sealink Division of British Rail, which is a major operator of cross-Channel roll on/roll off ferries. No legislative or other Parliamentary action is required to place those organisations at the disposal of the Government, provision for this being embodied within existing Statutes. All that is required is a Cabinet decision, followed by the necessary executive action.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, may I ask a question of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom? Do the measures he has described in some detail amount to what General Haig asked for in April in Paris, that is, an increase, a regular annual increase, of 5 per cent. in NATO?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think that this is an entirely different point. We have certain Reserve Forces in existence; we have to get them to agreed positions in Western Europe at a time of crisis, and the question is: Have we the transport rescources to get them there? This is a different point from

883
increasing our contribution. It is a question of how we get our existing contribution to the location where it will be required in Germany and the Central Front. I am now satisfied that the transport resources are available to get them there, without legislation and simply upon the basis of a Cabinet decision.
In the course of the discussion, the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton, raised the question of what forces will remain upon mobilisation within the United Kingdom. I am unwilling to go into detail on this, but I assure your Lordships that substantial forces, both Regular and TAVR, will remain in all districts. Indeed, this year's White Paper mentioned the recreation of a new formation, the 8th Field Force, containing both Regular and TAVR units with a specific rôle of home defence. This formation came into existence and raised its flag in South-West District on 1st April this year.
To summarise, I assure your Lordships that there will be no cut in the size of our Reserve Forces as a result of recent cuts in defence expenditure—indeed, as I have indicated, we hope that they will increase in size—that the cuts will in no way impair our ability to provide effective and timely reinforcement to BAOR, and that our holdings of key stocks will continue to be generally in accordance with NATO's stated requirements. Of course, at the end of the day, we all know that everything depends on a timely decision by the Government of the day to order mobilisation. This is part of the business of training Governments to act. But assure noble Lords that, if it has to be done, this Government will do it.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can give an undertaking to answer many of the questions that remain unanswered and which are not affected by the two to three weeks' delay in the coming out of this Paper.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will, as usual, carefully study the discussion and, where necessary, will send written answers. I am thinking particularly of the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers.
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and for the
884
benefit of the record, will he answer my question about the military port of Marchwood?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl. I forgot that this was an important element in this defence debate. The position is that in the debate some weeks ago the noble Earl questioned whether the commencement of the proposed redevelopment of the military port cannot be advanced from 1980–85, as presently planned. My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army has said in another place that this is part of a complex plan, which has to be considered on both operational and economic grounds. Though we are pressing ahead with planning for the redevelopment, the issue has not yet been resolved; it is still, to use a cliché, actively under consideration and there is nothing that I can usefully add at this stage, except to say that the cost is considerable and would have to be justified in operational terms.