Lords Sitting of 19 January 1978

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

SOLAR ENERGY
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether at the recent energy conference the possible use of solar energy was considered, including experiments conducted by some industrial firms, and with what result.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the World Energy Conference held in Istanbul last autumn discussed renewable sources of energy, including solar energy. Experiments conducted by industrial firms were not considered at the conference. I will ensure that a summary of those parts of the proceedings which are relevant to solar energy is sent to my noble friend and a copy placed in the Library of the House.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that, according to the Press reports, no reference was made to solar energy at that conference? I could find no reference. In particular no mention was made about experiments being conducted in a certain part of the United Kingdom, which I need not mention because I have no interest in the matter personally, except a public interest. Does my noble friend appreciate that every device, every expedient, however speculative or potentially expensive it might be, must not be ignored, because it may make a worthwhile contribution to the abundance of energy this country will require in the future?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Indeed the Government have accepted that
200
alternative sources of energy should be vigorously pursued. With regard to the conference, the position of solar energy in the United Kingdom was reviewed in this country's contribution to the World Energy Conference. It has been estimated that the use of solar energy for water and space heating is the area of greatest potential in the United Kingdom, and by the year 2,000 we believe that this might produce savings of 4 to 5 million tons of coal equivalent in the domestic sector and a possible further contribution from the industrial and commercial sector.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me and the House what expenditure the Government propose to make as a contribution to some of these experiments? In a periodical, I saw recently some reference to the sum of about £2 or £3 million over the next four, five or six years; but is that sufficient for the purpose? Can we be assured that the Government are considering the possibility of finding adequate finance within the limitations imposed upon us because of our situation?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the total planned Government expenditure on solar energy research and development is £6 million over the period 1977 to 1981. The Government will not hesitate to expand the programme if progress on the work being done indicates that this is necessary.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell the House whether the Government will consider greatly expanding the sums of money available for research by the National Coal Board, which is likely to be far more profitable than solar energy?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, certainly. They are not really always comparable of course, because we have a very large research and development investment in nuclear power, but the cost of research is much less than the cost of development, which is the stage we have reached with nuclear fission, as the noble Earl is well aware.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether this is not tremendously important on a world scale?

201
Would not the development of solar energy be one of the solutions to the problem of the Southern hemisphere which is now impoverished and which would have great solar capacities?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, I agree with my noble friend. We are cooperating internationally and we are in touch with work in other countries, many of which have greater solar potential than the United Kingdom.
Lord MOYNE: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government consider promoting research into the use of solar energy for desalinisation of sea water, which could be of such immense importance to and regions within the Commonwealth?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, certainly, my Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moyne. A good deal of work in this field has been done in Israel. I will see that the noble Lord's point is passed on to my right honourable friend.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the intense interest felt in the building and construction industries concerning the future of solar heating? Has any action been taken by the Departments of the Environment and Energy to encourage the installation of solar panels or to give fuller information about it, simply as an effective method of saving energy? Is not a clearer governmental view, a statement of intent, required for the guidance of interested parties?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, much of the expenditure in the Department of Energy's research and development programme is for jointly funded contracts with industry to develop industrial initiatives. In addition, of course, there is very valuable work which is done by industrial finance itself.

DEATH PENALTY IN DEPENDENT TERRITORIES
3.13 p.m.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many persons have been executed in Crown Colonies and Dependent Territories, and in which, since the last person was executed in the United Kingdom.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the total is 29. With your Lordships' permission, I will circulate the details in the Official Report.
Following is the information referred to:
"Since 13th August 1964 the following numbers of executions have been carried out in British Dependent Territories. For comparison, the numbers of reprieves granted in capital cases in the same period is also shown.

A. PRESENT UNITED KINGDOM DEPENDENT TERRITORIES

Territory

Executions

Reprieves

Belize

2

12

Bermuda

2

1

British Virgin Islands

1

3

Hong Kong

2

99

Montserrat

Nil

1

Solomon Islands*

Nil

1

*Death penalty abolished l966.

B. FORMER TERRITORIES WHICH HAVE BECOME INDEPENDENT SINCE 13TH AUGUST 1964

Country

Executions†

Reprieves†

Gambia

Nil

5

British Guiana (now Guyana)

3

Nil

Bechuanaland (now Botswana)

9

4

Basutoland (now Lesotho)

3

Nil

Barbados

3

1

Fiji

1

5

Bahamas

3

12

Seychelles*

Nil

1

Full information is not available in respect of Aden and Swaziland, and of the territories which now form the West Indies Associated States.

†These figures are for the period 13th August 1964 up to independence only.

*Death penalty abolished 1966."

Lord KENNET: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his helpful Answer. In view of the recent riots with loss of life following the executions in Bermuda and of the deplorable charges which were hurled about among the people of Bermuda and between Bermuda and London, will the Government now consider the desirability of amending the Creech Jones doctrine and of saying to our few remaining Colonies: "If you want to stay with us you must take us as you find us, and you must take the smooth with the smooth and abolish the death penalty"?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend is aware, of course, that my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has invited the other place to debate this matter in its entirety with a view to resolving outstanding difficulties in the application of the 1947 policy—the Creech Jones formula. I have no doubt that the other place will shortly conduct such a debate and it may be that the invitation, couched as it was in terms of "Parliament", may include this noble House as well.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord not point out to our Colonies that on the accumulating evidence, capital punishment, particularly in the case of political murders, does not deter, but promotes, violence and assassination and is a very silly thing to go into?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, not for the only time am I very glad to agree with the general purpose of the observations of my noble friend.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, in initiating this debate throughout our remaining Colonies, has any indication been given of the direction in which Her Majesty's Government would like the outcome to be and, if so, has it been considered that the death penalty has been abolished in this country over the last 12 years?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, yes, I think that my noble friend has largely indicated certain indications of Her Majesty's Government's thinking on this matter. It is a fact, as she has
204
pointed out, that the capital penalty has been abolished in this country since 1965. In fact, it was suspended at that time and finalised in 1970. It is also a fact, as my noble friend has reminded us, that only a few Dependent Territories have declined to follow the example of this country in abolishing this penalty. However, it would be somewhat premature, if not to some extent improper, for the Government to indicate too clearly what they are thinking on this matter before Parliament—and I repeat that Parliament in this country includes both Houses—has discussed this matter and indicated its general view as representative of the view of the population generally. It is, of course, important that before the Government finally indicate their view they should have consulted Parliament extremely closely on the matter.

NAMIBIA: PROGRESS OF TALKS
3.17 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the talks between Western members of the UN Security Council and representatives of the Republic of South Africa regarding the future of Namibia.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the talks between representatives of the five Western members of the Security Council and the South African Government have made considerable progress towards an internationally acceptable settlement in Namibia. There are, however, still a number of difficult problems to be resolved and the five Powers hope to hold further talks in the near future with the parties primarily involved.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but may I ask whether time is not now very short? Is there not the danger that the Republic of South Africa may proceed unilaterally with its tribal constitution and its early election under the intimidation of its own troops? Can the Minister say whether the difference of opinion as to the date

205
of the New York conference has now been resolved so that there may be discussions both with the Republic and with SWAPO?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, in answer to the first part of my noble friend's question, if, indeed, any State were to proceed on the lines he has indicated and if South Africa, for instance, were to do what he fears it may do, then it would be in direct contravention of Resolution 385 of the United Nations Security Council. That Resolution enjoins upon the five Powers, and others principally involved, to move to early independence in Namibia based on the removal of South African troops, the release of detainees, the restoration of complete democratic equality among all parties in that country and other provisions, which I would say are as mandatory as anything on South Africa and every other country.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord explain to the House why the Western five are discussing the future of Namibia in New York with the Republic of South Africa and with the representatives of external SWAPO, and are excluding the representatives of the political Parties in Namibia itself which have as much right to be consulted as SWAPO?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that the choice of New York as a locale arises from practical considerations as to who can get to such a meeting with reasonable safety and celerity. As to the inclusion of other political Parties, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for drawing my attention to this matter. I would agree with him that it is imperative that the Five should consult all substantial political elements in Namibia.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, has the noble Lord seen reports of the report published yesterday by Amnesty International which shows that torture is practised as an instrument of policy on a widespread and horrifying scale by the South African Government? How can political Parties be expected to function freely in Namibia when an atmosphere of terror prevails in that country? Will the
206
noble Lord seek the advice of Amnesty International, as a matter of urgency, to ascertain the extent to which this report applies in the territory of Namibia; and, if it does, raise the matter in the United Nations?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the whole purpose of the five-Power initiative, which has the blessing—indeed, the encouragement—of the United Nations through the resolution that I have quoted, is to avoid developments of that sort; to negotiate independence not in an atmosphere of repression, terrorism and torture, but in one of free democratic exchange of views, bringing in all elements in Namibia itself, as the noble Lord has just said. As to the truth of the allegations of torture, I have not yet seen this report by Amnesty International, but I most certainly shall read it, as I read everything published by Amnesty.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, may we take it from my noble friend's first Answer that, as between the available alternatives, Her Majesty's Government prefer to see the defence of Namibia managed by the Soviet Union than by the Republic of South Africa?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I should be very hard put to it to agree twice on the same day with my noble friend, and I am afraid that I cannot oblige him. Quite frankly, and with great affection and respect, I do not quite see the sequentiality of his later remarks.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is rue, as reported in the Guardian this morning, that the five Western Powers have prepared their own alternative scheme to that of the Republic of South Africa? May I ask, constructively, could not the difficulty about the presence of South African troops during the transition period be met by asking them to be a fragment of the proposed United Nations peace force?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I very much welcome the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question. It is a constructive suggestion and I think it is being considered. We

207
are by no means ruling out the possibility of a United Nations force, whether civil or other, appropriate to the needs of this situation. What my noble friend has said bears very much on an actively considered possibility.
As to the other part of his question, whether the Five have yet evolved a full alternative system, certainly they have gone a long way towards doing so. But as to the position or status of any papers they have prepared, I could not say. It is a progressively moving negotiation. As I said in my first Answer, we are making very good progress.

DOMINICA: FUTURE INDEPENDENCE
3.24 p.m.
Lord SEGAL: 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 will delay any decision about the future independence of Dominica until after the next General Election has taken place on that island.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the British Government have received no request to delay a decision on Dominica's independence until after the next General Election there. The Opposition have proposed that the independence constitution should provide that the next General Elections should be held early in 1980, which is when they would be due under the existing constitution.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that reply, which will be well received in many parts of the island. Is my noble friend aware that there is a possibility of a snap General Election being declared? Will Her Majesty's Government exert their influence to ensure that the existing electoral register is brought up to date by an impartial body before the next General Election takes place?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important
208
point, and I have no doubt that our friends in Dominica will take full note of what he says. Dominica is a self-governing State in association with the United Kingdom. That means that, although we are responsible for its external affairs and defence, we have no responsibility for nor power to intervene in its internal affairs. Nevertheless, as a long-established friend of Dominica, we are in a position to intimate to them what we hope they will find it possible to do. I very much agree with my noble friend that proper preparations for a viable election should form part of the Dominicans' thinking on this matter.
Lord GLENDEVON: My Lords, to what extent are we in the position to give that advice if, in fact, we are responsible solely for their foreign policy?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, of course we are properly and fully represented in Dominica and are in constant close touch with them, exchanging views on a wide variety of matters, including commerce as well as constitutional matters. There is no difficulty about this at all.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that the vast majority of the people of Dominica want independence? If so, what measures have they taken to ensure this and what criteria have they used to make this judgment?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, detailed reports of the public and Parliamentary discussion of the White Paper which emanated from the Constitutional Conference have, of course, reached us. It appears that Parliament and the people in Dominica are actively discussing the nature of the constitution which was accepted at the Conference.
If we are satisfied that the desire for independence is widely supported by the people of Dominica, we shall recommend that they proceed to independence. The progress and the process of internal discussion is, I think, encouraging. It is a factual matter: radio discussions, public newspaper articles and public meetings are proceeding and are, I think, gathering momentum. It is apposite to say that, although both Government and Opposition have a number of constitutional points

209
on which they are at variance, they nevertheless agree that Dominica should proceed to independence. I have an impression that the differences between Government and Opposition are narrowing practically day by day.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, is it not the case that although at the present moment we are responsible only for the defence and foreign affairs of the associated States in the Caribbean, under the West Indies Act 1967 we have the power to resume control over their internal affairs at any moment we judge right, and that this power has been used, though not in Dominica?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that may be so. It has not been used here and I see no reason why it should or any prospect of it being applied to this part of our dependency.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, in view of the fact that known irregularities have occurred at General Elections held elsewhere in the Caribbean area, could Her Majesty's Government arrange to send an observer to attend the count at any future General Election held in that island?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would hesitate to make any suggestion which conveyed to the Dominican authorities a doubt about the fairness with which they will conduct their General Election. They are well aware of the hopes and expectations of their friends in this country. I have every confidence that they will comport themselves accordingly.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, might it not be less prejudicial if the Commonwealth Secretariat were approached to appoint an observer?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that the Commonwealth Secretariat will consider my noble friend's suggestion with great care.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think that noble Lords have had a good run on this Question.

EEC FISHERIES COUNCIL MEETING
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble ft lend Lord Strabolgi will repeat a Statement on the EEC Fisheries Council Meeting held from 16th-18th January.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Denham be appointed to the Select Committee in the place of the Earl St. Aldwyn.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE AND LORDS' EXPENSES COMMITTEE
3.30 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Denham be appointed to the Select Committee in the place of the Earl St. Aldwyn.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I wish to join in the congratulations showered upon the noble Lord, Lord Denham, upon his appointment as Chief Whip of the Conservative Party. However, this affords me an opportunity to ask a question, and indeed to offer a few comments, on the subject. I observe that not only is he now to be appointed a Member of the Select Committee but he will also have something to say about Lords' expenses. In view of the increased transport charges in the London area (the provincials are exempted in this regard), the increased charges for postage and the expense entailed, with which all Members of your Lordships' House are familiar, the occasional secretarial expenses due to the correspondence that

211
one receives and is forced to answer because otherwise one's reputation is tarnished, and a great many other factors which I could mention except for the fact that I do not wish to take up too much of your Lordships' time, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Denham, now he is in this position, a question? Would he take the opportunity of expressing his liberality—and I mean no offence to the previous occupant of the office—to ensure that, if the subject of Members' expenses is raised (and if it is not raised, will he see that it is raised?), particularly Members in the London area, and indeed throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, receive adequate consideration?
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am afraid that this Committee does not have anything to do with fixing the level of Peers' expenses; it only interprets the rules laid down by the Government. I am sure that the noble Lord's remarks will have been well received by all of us, and I am sure that the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Denham, have taken due note of what he said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

JUDICATURE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, just over 100 years ago the Royal Assent was given to the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act 1877. That Act has remained and is still today the Statute governing the organisation and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Northern Ireland. However, for reasons which I w ill explain shortly, the time has now come for proposals to be brought before your Lordships to replace the 1877 Act and indeed much subsequent legislation as well. Those proposals are now embodied in this comprehensive Bill.
Since the 1877 Act was passed, many and far reaching changes have taken place in Northern Ireland. I shall not endeavour to describe them all to your Lordships. I have not the necessary knowledge, despite my membership of
212
the Northern Ireland Bar. But it may be helpful if I describe briefly some of the significant developments that have taken place in the legal system in Northern Ireland during those years and the evolution of the courts in their present form.
They have developed in three distinct, although inter-related, tiers. First, the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal; secondly, the county courts (as successors to the courts of quarter sessions); and, thirdly, the magistrates' courts. Following the major reorganisation of the higher courts in England and Wales in 1873, a Supreme Court of Ireland was established by the Act of 1877. It became the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland after 1920. For civil business, the High Court in Northern Ireland sits in two divisions; the Chancery Division and the Queen's Bench Division. The main criminal jurisdiction of the High Court continues to be exercised at courts of assize. Although all serious "terrorist" crime is currently dealt with in Belfast (at the Belfast City Commission, which is the assize court for Belfast and is now unhappily in almost continuous session) judges continue to travel twice a year to the main county towns for the spring and autumn assizes, thereby continuing a practice which has been followed since the 13th century. This is a practice which existed also in England before the Beeching recommendations; a practice which, like many other members of the Bar, I enjoyed greatly during those halcyon days. There is also a winter assize, which is normally taken by a single judge in one place only.
The other court which forms part of the first tier is the Court of Criminal Appeal which, like its English counterpart until its abolition in 1966, is a separate creation of Statute. It is not part of the Supreme Court, although in practice it is manned by judges of that court and is staffed by the same officers.
The second tier of courts—the county courts—have much more ancient origins than county courts in England. They were reorganised in 1959 and now exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction. Their criminal jurisdiction, which they took over from quarter sessions, consists of dealing with appeals from magistrates' courts and trials on indictment of all but a very few

213
excepted offences. The civil jurisdiction of county courts covers common law claims up to a limit of £1,000, and also unlimited jurisdiction in claims for damage to property, death and personal injuries which come within the criminal injury legislation.
The magistrates' courts in Northern Ireland, which form the third tier of the court structure, are normally presided over by resident magistrates who are appointed both from the Bar and from the ranks of solicitors. As in England, the criminal jurisdiction is of two kinds—committal proceedings in respect of indictable offences, and the hearing and determination of complaints charging summary offences. These courts also have a small civil jurisdiction consisting mainly of the hearing of claims for debt and for ejectment, and business in respect of maintenance orders and the issue of licences. There are also lay magistrates, who may still conduct committal proceedings, but since 1935 their powers to try offences have been very limited, but I am grateful to them for the assistance that they continue to give.
This system has served the needs of the people of Northern Ireland very well over the years, and there is generally a high level of confidence in the quality of the administration of justice there. Nevertheless, it has become increasingly apparent in recent years that the system is under strain in certain respects. This is due largely to the considerable increase in crime, with the consequential increase in the number of criminal cases to be tried. The situation has been the subject of examination and report by three distinguished committees in Northern Ireland. This Bill owes much of its content to the detailed and painstaking work of those committees. I should like to express on behalf of the Government our thanks and appreciation to their members, and especially to their chairmen, the noble and learned Lord, Lord MacDermott, the learned Lord Chief Justice, Sir Robert Lowry, and Lord Justice Jones. We have been fortunate that three such eminent members of the Northern Ireland Judiciary were willing to devote so much of their time, in addition to their other duties, to produce these reports which together represent a most valuable examination of the entire court structure in Northern Ireland.
214
Those committees recommended various improvements in the administration of justice. The MacDermott Committee recommended replacement of the more antiquated aspects of the administration of the Supreme Court. They also recommended that the Court of Criminal Appeal should became part of the Supreme Court by amalgamation with the Court of Appeal and, with regard to the county courts, they felt that the county was no longer the best territorial basis of jurisdiction and that a new sub-division of the Province into four regions, based on centres pf population, would improve the administration of justice.
The Lowry Committee's recommendations were in part overtaken by those of the Jones Committee and their remaining recommendations have largely already been implemented. The Jones Committee, whose report was presented in 1974, criticised the existing system and, having considered the newly-established Crown Court system in England and Wiles, felt that, as they put it:
"the time is ripe for the establishment of a unified system of courts for the trial of indictable offences".
The Committee recommended the establishment of a Crown Court system to take over the existing original criminal jurisdiction of the courts of assize and county courts. They also recommended that the three separate court services of the Supreme Court, the county courts and the magistrates' courts should be unified, that a proper court service should be established and that a central department should be set up to administer the new court service. In addition, they made recommendations with regard to petty sessions districts. Although the Bill does not follow all the recommendations of these committees in every detail, they form the basis of this Bill. Account has also been taken of the views which have been received following the publication of a Consultative Document in October 1976.
Following those recommendations and consultations, the Government's approach in the Bill is to make those changes which are necessary both now and for the foreseeable future, while as far as possible preserving the best of the existing system. The main changes are, first, to provide the Supreme Court with a new basic

215
Statute and a modernised administrative structure; second, to merge the Court of Criminal Appeal with the Court of Appeal; third, to abolish the original criminal jurisdiction of courts of assize and county courts and to establish in their place a Crown Court with exclusive original criminal jurisdiction on indictment; and fourth, to establish a unified courts service to provide the administrative staff for all levels of courts in Northern Ireland.
It will be apparent to your Lordships that the greater part of this Bill relates to the Supreme Court and in fact seeks to provide a new statutory basis for the practice and procedure of the several courts which will constitute the new Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland. The new Crown Court is established by Clause 4 and will be part of the Supreme Court.
In Part II there are set out the detailed provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the High Court. The opportunity has been taken to give effect, with some modifications, to the recommendations both of the MacDermott Committee and of the Law Commission on Remedies in Administrative Law in relation to applications for injunctions, declaratory judgments and prerogative orders which should greatly simplify those somewhat complex procedures. This is done by Clauses 18 to 25, and in Clauses 26 to 29 there are provisions for the transfer to the High Court of certain jurisdiction relating to minors and mental patients that is at present vested in the Lord Chief Justice.
The Court of Appeal is similarly provided for in Part III and the abolition of the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the transfer of its jurisdiction to the new Court of Appeal, is achieved by Clause 34. A similar change was made in England and Wales in 1966 and I think it is generally agreed that that change was successful. A new substructure for the Supreme Court is provided for in Parts V, VI, and VII. There are also some technical legal provisions in Part VIII.
I turn to the new Crown Court which will be covered by Part IV of the Bill. It has become apparent that the present arrangement of the several sittings of the assize and county courts is not the most
216
efficient system of co-ordinating the scarce judicial resources available and of ensuring the prompt dispatch of business. They have a largely overlapping jurisdiction but require arrangements for sitting days, lists and jury panels which are separate for each tier of court. Furthermore, this system does not make the best use of court buildings and other accommodation. The changes which I will now describe are modelled on those made six years ago in England and Wales with considerable success. Indeed, I believe that if those changes had not been made we should be in even greater difficulties in England and Wales than we are now, with, I fear, the growing backlog of cases waiting for trial due to the graphic and continuing increase in criminal cases.
The new Crown Court will be capable of sitting anywhere in Northern Ireland and, although commissions of assize as such will cease to be issued, it is contemplated that judges of the Supreme Court will continue to go to places outside Belfast to hear and determine serious criminal cases. Judges of the county court and of the Supreme Court, including the Lords Justices, will all be judges of the Crown Court. In recent years, the assistance given by county court judges, at the request of the Lord Chief Justice, in the trial of indictable offences at the Belfast City Commission since 1973 has given a clear demonstration of the administrative advantages of such a system, and it undoubtedly leads to accused persons being tried more quickly.
Under the provisions of Clause 47, it will be the function of the Lord Chief Justice—and I emphasise that it will be his function—to give directions as to the sitting of High Court and county court judges in the Crown Court. It will also be for him to determine the cases or classes of cases suitable for allocation to judges of the High Court and to county court judges respectively. Thus, the most serious cases—and they will probably be a fairly limited class—will be reserved for trial only by judges of the Supreme Court, but most cases will be capable of being tried by county court judges. At the same time, the Lord Chief Justice will be concerned to ensure an equitable distribution of criminal business among the Judicary. Clause 47 also provides that it shall be for the Secretary of State, but only after

217
consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, to determine the places at which the Crown Court is to sit and the days and times of sittings.
The Crown Court will have its own rules of procedure; and Clause 53 provides that the rule-making authority will be the Supreme Court Rules Committee with the addition of two county court judges, a resident magistrate and a master of the Supreme Court.
The fourth of the principal objectives of the Bill is the establishment of a "unified and distinct" court service, as Clause 69 of the Bill describes it. I do not think this idea of a single court service for Northern Ireland is a new one: it has in fact developed gradually over a considerable number of years. Indeed, as long ago as 1957 the committee presided over by the late Mr. Justice Sheil recommended very much this kind of thing; and more recently a White Paper entitled Northern Ireland Constitutional Proposals, published in 1973, expressed support for the unified administration of the courts.
At present the courts are serviced by three distinct bodies; namely, the staff of the Supreme Court, the county court service and the petty sessions service. There is, in addition, in Belfast, an enforcement of judgments office, established in 1969, which has responsibility for giving effect to the judgments and orders of the Supreme Court and decrees of the lower courts. At the present time there is no provision for any interchange of staff between these several services, and this has restricted the effective deployment of staff and, of course, the opportunity for career advancement. The creation of career opportunities for court staff has indeed been a primary consideration underlying the adoption of the proposal for a single service, and this, I think, will be a valuable advance. Now, more than 20 years since the recommendations of the Sheil Committee, I think it is appropriate to create this separate and distinct Civil Service of the Crown, which will not be part of the Home Civil Service, nor indeed of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, but a new Northern Ireland Court Service.
I now come to the question which Minister should have responsibility for
218
this new service—a matter about which I know a good deal of concern has been expressed. I have given it very careful and prolonged consideration after much discussion with the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and others, but in the end I decided, with the agreement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that the overall responsibility for the administration of the courts should rest with the Secretary of State, and that he should be answerable to Parliament for its performance.
I must emphasise at the outset that this question has no bearing whatsoever on the independence of the Judiciary—to which, of course, I attach very great importance. It is essential that, whatever changes may be made, nothing s should be done which would weaken the independence of the Judiciary in Northern Ireland. For this purpose, I believe the key elements are the appointment and the tenure of office of the judges themselves and of the professional officers of the courts who are responsible for undertaking judicial work. These will remain unaffected by the proposals in the Bill. All appointments will be the responsibility either of the Lord Chancellor or of the Lord Chief Justice. No such appointment will be terminable without my approval or, in appropriate cases, the full, traditional Parliamentary process; and I and my successors, I feel sure, will continue to support and uphold the judges should the Executive at any time seek to encroach on judicial territory.
The deployment of the Judiciary will also be in the hands of the Lord Chancellor or of the Lord Chief Justice. Clause 47 of the Bill gives this responsibility to the Lord Chief Justice in respect of sittings in the Crown Court, and Clause 97 makes the Lord Chancellor responsible for the assignment of county court judges to their county court divisions. Thus, any attempt by the Secretary of State or his senior officials to manipulate the judicial process—and this is in any event a highly unlikely development—would be bound to be ineffective. Moreover, I have given the judges an assurance that, should they need a voice at governmental level at any time, I will be available for the purpose. I may add that I would not have given my agreement to the new

219
proposals had I not been satisfied in my own mind about these matters; and I have the authority of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland to say that he is similarly satisfied. I hope that that will reassure those who have expressed doubts about this part of the proposals.
The question of ministerial responsibility is directly related to the setting up of the new court service. I think there is a feeling in some quarters that the creation of this service, with a central administration, will to some extent take out of the judges' hands a measure of the organisation of court business, and put it into the hands of administrators. It is, of course, one of the purposes of setting up the new court service that it should provide an efficient administrative structure and should be able to relieve the judges of some of their administrative responsibilities. That has happened in England and Wales since the passing of the Courts Act, and I do not believe it has resulted in any detriment to the position of the judges, nor to their independence.
Although I am the head of the Judiciary, my responsibility for the administration of the courts in England and Wales is a ministerial one, which I exercise in my capacity as a Minister of the Crown. Therefore, it makes no difference, for this purpose, whether the responsible Minister is the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State: the self-same officials will in practice have the day-to-day running of the courts. It is merely a question of which Department is to co-ordinate their operations and which Minister is to answer to Parliament should the officials make mistakes or if there is criticism of undue delays or other defects in the running of the system. The operational control of the Supreme Court will remain very much in the hands of the Lord Chief Justice and his judicial colleagues.
There is one particular reason for leaving responsibility with the Secretary of State which I regard as decisive. My predecessor and I, as Lord Chancellors, and our Department have now had six years' experience of the running of the new service in England and Wales. This has shown that, if it is to work effectively and complaints are to be avoided, the Lord Chancellor and his more senior officials have necessarily and frequently
220
to be involved in a great many of the problems. If these are to be solved in a sympathetic and effective way, we have found that it is essential to have a close personal knowledge of the issues and personalities involved. In the case of Northern Ireland, we do not think it would be practicable for my senior officials, or indeed for me, to acquire and maintain the intimate, informed and up-to-date knowledge of local conditions and personalities that would be essential. Even though the officials on the spot in Belfast would be the same whichever Minister had responsibility, I believe it would not overcome the difficulty about the need for my own involvement and that of my most senior officials. Finally, the administration of all courts below the level of the Supreme Court is already in the hands of the Secretary of State, and has been so since 1973; and I do not think there has been any diminution in public confidence in the administration of justice in the Province in this time.
There will continue to be a number of posts which call for professional legal qualifications. These are listed in Schedule 3 to the Bill and we can consider the detail of those in due course. It is the Government's intention that a small claims jurisdiction shall vest in the new officials, the circuit registrars, and that the valuable and encouraging experience gained in England and Wales with regard to small claims procedures should be drawn on in order to achieve this. The Government will be bringing forward Amendments for this purpose at a later stage.
There is one other matter that I should mention—and I apologise for taking up so much of the time of the House; but this is a very important change in the whole structure of the administration of justice in Northern Ireland—and that is the new arrangements for the territorial distribution of the county courts and magistrates' courts, which are to be found in Clauses 95 and 99. They will enable the Secretary of State, after consultation with me, to fix new boundaries for court districts. I believe that this will be a useful development and will go for greater efficiency. The changes proposed will require an alteration in the territorial basis of the magistrates' courts. With the abolition of courts of

221
assize based on counties and with new local government and police districts no longer based on geographical counties, the time has come for the county courts to abandon this basis of jurisdiction also. The Bill will enable this to be done.
My Lords, I believe the measure which I am now presenting to the House will constitute an improvement in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. But a measure like this can, at best, only provide a framework in which new ideas and concepts for an effective court structure can be blended with the best of the old. In the final analysis, a system can only be as good as the individuals who operate it. In view of the high reputation earned by members of the Judiciary in Northern Ireland, and the commendable support services maintained during a long period of exceptional stress and increasing pressure of work by court staff there, I feel sure that we can look forward confidently to the future development of the legal system in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.2 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the preparation for this Bill spans a period of over 10 years, during which there have been published no fewer than three reports by committees which included both the present and the previous Lord Chief Justices of Northern Ireland. Therefore, although the changes which the Bill will effect in the structure of the courts in Northern Ireland will be in harmony with the structure in England and Wales, the members of the MacDermott, Lowry and Jones Committees have ensured that these changes are going to be made in accordance with the system of judicature and the judicial needs of Northern Ireland.
As the main purpose of this Bill is to modernise the whole range of Northern Ireland's courts and to establish the Crown Court, speaking as one with no legal qualifications I should particularly like to thank the learned and noble Lord the Lord Chancellor for his very full explanation of this Bill. Indeed, on a Bill of this importance I regret that it is not possible for one of my legally qualified colleagues to speak. However, the slimness
222
of my knowledge I hope will be matched by the brevity of my speech. For that reason, I make no comment about the revised structure for the Supreme Court which has been explained to us so clearly by the noble and learned Lord today. Suffice it that Parts I, II and III of the Bill follow, in the main, the recommendations of the MacDermott Committee. But from this one question, although a very minor one, arises.
On pages 144 and 145 of the MacDermott Report, Recommendations 16 to 19 dealt with probate matters; and each of those recommendations contained a proposal either for a new provision or for repeal of an existing provision of the la x or the administration of the law relating to probate. I confess that I am unable to trace the clauses in the Bill which carry those recommendations into effect and I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would be good enough to explain the reason for those omissions.
Clause 4, taken with Part IV, will establish the Crown Court in Northern Ireland. The Jones Report of three years ago and the words of the noble and learned Lord today clearly show the desirability of this innovation; particularly that it will reduce, one hopes, the delay in bringing remanded cases to trial and will end the duplication of the criminal jurisdictions of the High Court and the county courts which were wasteful of the services of jurors, lawyers, court staff and the police, all of whom have been under great pressure in Northern Ireland in recent years.
At the same time, a departure from the practice in England and Wales is going to be that the county courts in Northern Ireland will retain their appellate jurisdiction in relation to magistrates' courts. It strikes me that this is a particularly appropriate retention with regard to appeals on family matters. Perhaps this is one instance of the way in which Northern Ireland will be in a better position than the administration of justice in England and Wales. Of course, as county court judges will sit in the Crown Courts, and therefore will continue to deal with criminal cases, I understand why there is no reason to alter the appeal arrangements which have worked satisfactorily in the past.

223
What I do not understand, however, quite so readily, is the reason why the right of resident magistrates to retain their civil jurisdiction alongside the civil jurisdiction of the county courts is to be tied up so tightly by Statute. I intend no reflection on the work of the magistrates' courts in saying that but, as paragraph 62 of the White Paper says that it may be necessary in the future to alter this dual arrangement depending upon how the civil jurisdiction of the new circuit registrars develops, I should have thought that power to alter this by way of Statutory Instrument subject to the Affirmative Resolution might be more appropriate than having to resort to primary legislation once again in the future.
There are just two more unrelated points which I should like to raise. I am advised that the clauses which comprise Part VIII do not appear in the equivalent legislation for England and Wales; namely, the Supreme Court Judicature Consolidation Act 1925. On looking more closely at Part VIII, to my joy I discovered that Clause 87 deals with the assignment of debts and choses in action; and pleasant memories of the Patents Bill returned to me once more. But even those tender memories cannot blind me to the realisation that the clauses in Part VIII do not appear to have a particularly unifying theme; and I wonder on what basis they were selected as being within the scope of this Bill.
The other matter is perhaps of more substance. Clause 18 legislates specifically for judical review in Northern Ireland. This, as I understand it, is to be done by Rules of Court and, indeed, subsection (2) of Clause 18 contains minimum provisions for those rules. However, I understand that procedure for judicial review in the High Court in England has simply been provided for by Rules of Court without the authority of primary legislation but by way of a Statutuory Instrument numbered 1955 of last year's date. If that is the case for England and Wales, I should be grateful to learn why it is that Clause 18 is necessary for Northern Ireland, and to be assured that the need for Clause 18 will not throw any doubt upon the way in which judicial review is being provided for in England and Wales.
The points which I have sought to make
224
are rather disparate and, perhaps, more suitable to the Committee stage. However, one of the main purposes of the Bill, as the noble and learned Lord has said, is to restructure the administration of the courts of Northern Ireland and, if I may I, should like to refer to this briefly—briefly because I think that other noble Lords who will be taking part in this debate will be referring to it also. The noble and learned Lord has made it clear that the responsibility for all judicial appointments in Northern Ireland will remain with the Lord Chancellor, so it can be said with absolute truth that all the members of the Judiciary will continue to be appointed by Her Majesty on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, a point emphasised by the noble and learned Lord in his speech. Furthermore, the appointment of what Clause 70 refers to as "statutory officers", listed in Schedule 3, is to continue to be made by the Lord Chief Justice for Northern Ireland, and indeed there are three additions to that list.
Apart from judicial appointments, up to the present time the Northern Ireland courts have been administered by three distinct court services, and Clause 69 of the Bill will bring them into a single unified service which, among other things, will have more attractive career opportunities, a provision which I have no doubt will receive considerable support. This leaves the question of who is to be ultimately responsible for this new service—a question, incidentally, which was left open for further decision in Schedule 3 to the 1973 Northern Ireland Constitution Act as being a "minimum reserved matter". It is therefore obviously right on the occasion of this Bill—a Bill which after all is going to determine the structure of Northern Ireland courts for many years to come—to consider very carefully indeed, the responsibility for the court service, and the noble and learned Lord in his speech has made it clear that he has given this matter very close attention.
I hope the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I make a comment or two about the conclusion which he has reached, that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should continue to have responsibility for the court service. First, it appears clear that the day-to-day running of this new service will be taken care of by the Treasury and the Civil Service Department as well as by the

225
administrative staff of the service. I understand that their pay will be provided by a separate Vote from the Treasury, though the Permanent Under-Secretary for the Northern Ireland Office will be the accounting officer and recruitment and careers within the service will be matters for the CSD. I am grateful to the Northern Ireland Office for furnishing me with that information.
Of course I have there been referring to those officials who will run the service, as the noble and learned Lord said, whoever is to be ultimately responsible. Given the establishment of a unified court service with statutory officers appointed by the Lord Chief Justice for Northern Ireland and the day-to-day running of the service being very carefully planned for, surely this is a golden opportunity for the ultimate responsibility for that service in Northern Ireland to be brought on to the same footing as the courts in England and Wales and to be assigned to the Lord Chancellor. Confidence in the administration of justice is essential, and nowhere more so, and, so far as some people are concerned, in some ways nowhere more difficult to bring about, than in Northern Ireland.
Public confidence in the office of the Lord Chancellor is explained, in far clearer words than I could ever marshall, in the MacDermott Report. Arguing a different matter, namely, the case for and against de-reserving powers relating to the Supreme Court from Parliament at Westminster, paragraph 43 of the MacDermott Report had this to say:
"Whatever may be said in favour of the strict separation of judicial and executive powers, the constitutional position in Great Britain affords a link between these two spheres which has proved of immense practical benefit. The Lord Chancellor of the day is both head of the Judiciary in England and a member of the Government in office. As a lawyer of high standing and authority he is thus in a unique position to see that the requirements of justice are recognised and respected and that the rule of law is upheld and protected from conflict between the several branches of Government".
Those words were written by a Committee which included the Lord Chief Justice and the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and the intention of those words would be very well served if the noble and learned Lord were to be responsible for the administration of Northern Ireland's courts.
226
Although this Second Reading is taking place in the tranquility of your Lordships' House, these courts are being administered within the realities of life in Northern Ireland, which are, that those who would attack the administration of justice should have no excuse, however ill-founded, to work their mischief, and those who wish to uphold the rule of law should be given every possible encouragement. The responsibility of the Lord Chancellor for the courts would go a long way to meet those two considerations, for the noble and learned Lord's office is seen not only to uphold, but also in a way to represent, the independence of the courts, and we know as a matter of fact that to place responsibility elsewhere is causing some considerable concern, not least with the General Council of the Bar in Northern Ireland. No doubt my noble friends Lord Moyola and Lord Brookeborough will be giving their view of this policy decision as they see it from the other side of the water.
Why then is the Government proposing a decision which is causing concern? The noble and learned Lord has laid stress upon the problem as he sees it, that his office would not be closely enough in touch with local conditions in Belfast and indeed throughout the Province. Of course I understand that the noble and learned Lord and his staff are under very great pressure indeed, but, as I have tried to show, the day-to-day administration of the new service is already being carefully planned and provided for, and if the noble and learned Lord will forgive my saying so, with his experience he will know that the plea of administrative convenience is an argument which very rarely finds favour in Parliament.
I listened when the noble and learned Lord said that the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland to this decision had been secured, although whether or not the agreement was enthusiastic the noble and learned Lord did not divulge. I hope he will not think I am being impertinent if I say it would be interesting to hear in addition what measure of other support this proposal to bestow responsibility for the courts upon the Secretary of State has received in Northern Ireland. My belief is that it has received very little. That is regrettable for undoubtedly the substance of the rest of the Bill should go on to the Statute Book as speedily as possible.

EEC FISHERIES COUNCIL MEETING
4.18 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels on the 16th, 17th and 18th January on fisheries. The Statement is as follows:
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting of the Council to consider proposals put forward by the Commission for a definitive Common Fisheries Policy. Perhaps I should remind the House that the Government have three essential requirements: a preferential position for our fishermen within 50 miles; adequate and properly enforced conservation measures; and acceptable quotas.
"I believe that further progress has been made towards an agreed solution. In particular the Commission have now put forward proposals on quotas which the Government could regard as a basis of discussion if sufficient progress could be made on the crucial issue of preferential access. There was considerable opposition to my demands on this question on the basis that they were contrary to the Treaty of Accession. Nevertheless the Council are now willing to consider whether our demands can be met by means of fishing plans. That is an important advance and I believe also that not too much separates us from our partners on the important question of conservation measures.
"I reiterated that the acceptability of any measures so far proposed will depend not only on the content of the proposals looked at by themselves but also on the nature of the final package when it can be seen as a whole. My right honourable friend and I have not, therefore, agreed to any part of the proposals so far examined. The position of the Government on them is entirely reserved and our judgment of their acceptability must depend first on what can be achieved on coastal preference—which is now the most difficult single
228
issue—and then on the balance between the different parts of any possible overall package.
"Despite the difficulties which may well lie ahead I believe that progress is being made. There is now time for a pause for reflection and the Council will then meet again in Brussels on 30th January to make a further effort towards reaching final agreement."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.21 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for repeating the Statement being made in another place. I will try to comment very briefly for two reasons; first, because the negotiations have now become even more complex. In that context, the subjects of the Statement require close study. Secondly, I will try to comment because there was a debate on these matters in your Lordships' House in the last week before the Recess. In that debate the great importance of these negotiations for both the British fishermen and the British consumers was emphasised. From this Bench we stated that coastal preference was a most difficult issue. Surely it is right that the Government have not accepted the proposals put forward this week by the EEC Commission but have fully reserved the United Kingdom position until that matter is resolved.
The Government should keep in mind that a simple quota system is highly suspect among British fishermen, and it is no longer fully trusted. It is difficult to monitor and enforce. I would put this question to the noble Lord: what progress is being made with a system of licensing vessels? This would involve numbers, areas and periods of time. This is a much easier system to control; for example, by observations from aircraft.
On the need for conservation, we agree that this is essential. It is not simple, though. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and I have in previous debates spoken about the mobility of fish, the peregrinations of stocks from the waters off the coast of one country to another, most inconveniently from within one country's fishing, limits to within those of another. One cannot be precise in referring to particular stocks as belonging to particular

229
countries; for example, "Britain's fish" or "France's fish", as I very recently heard in a broadcast. None the less, in these negotiations we urge the Government to impress upon the Commission and the fellow members of the EEC that at any given time as much as 60 per cent. of the fish in the EEC pond are in an area bounded by the United Kingdom 200-mile fishing limit or median line. This country therefore is more involved than any other member of the EEC in preserving stocks generally. The interests of United Kingdom fishermen should be given special consideration in the negotiations now continuing.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. We also welcome the three essentials which are being demanded. It is understandable that the French do not approve of this because, unfortunately, they have already eradicated most of the fish from their side of the Channel. There was one point which was not mentioned, and that is the net size with regard to conservation and over-fishing. It surely would be a good thing if there could be severer penalties for the infringements of using small mesh nets. Regarding the 12-mile limit as opposed to the 50-mile limit, I think I am right in saying that it is vital for the fishermen in the United Kingdom that some national conservation areas should be decreed. If we look back in history there have been very few international agreements regarding fish and whales throughout the world that have ever succeeded. It is no good the scientists saying that there are more fish because local fishermen will not agree with them.
There are two points that I should like to ask the noble Lord. Would he consider banning any vessel over 60 ft. or 20 metres long from inside the 12-mile limit? Would he bear in mind that, if and when Spain and Portugal join the EEC, the number of 100-ton fishing boats will be more than doubled? We think that the right honourable gentleman, the Minister, is right to reserve his position at the moment and we sincerely hope that he will stick to his guns. We wish him well on January 30th.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that we are very grateful for his Statement. During the past 25 years we have witnessed the destruction of a great industry—the herring fishing industry—in this country at the hands of Continental Europe through ruthless over-fishing of immature stocks for industrial purposes. This country is not prepared to see a similar fate befall the whole of our fishing industry. This country will not tolerate it. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said the other day—and I agree with him—although he did not repeat it this afternoon, that a quota system is really no go. It is not trusted; in practice, it does not work.
All I want to say to your Lordships this afternoon is that I believe this country is absolutely solid on this question. The country is not prepared to see the destruction of our whole fishing industry, and that is what I think the Continental countries of Europe, having destroyed their own, are now hell-bent on doing. Therefore, I would say to the noble Lord that whatever steps Her Majesty's Government think necessary to take to prevent this, even if it should involve the threat of our withdrawal altogether from the European Economic Community, they will have unanimous support, regardless of Party, from the nation as a whole, to preserve our fishing industry.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken for the support that they have given—
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, may I say something before the noble Lord replies? I understand from the Statement that it is at least likely—perhaps even probable—that agreement will be reached on the two vital matters of conservation and quotas. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said it was impossible. I gather that that is not the view of the Government. The Government think agreement is likely and I hope that, as a result of further talks, agreement will be reached. It seems that it may be. If it is reached, is it really reasonable for us to insist in all respects always on a 50-mile limit? Is not the 50-mile limit negotiable, too, in the circumstances? Why must we have precisely a 50-mile limit if agreement is

231
reached on the other vital points? I should like an answer to that question.
4.29 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken for the support that they have given to the Government's position and to the attitude that we have assumed. The Government are naturally aiming to reach a friendly agreement with our Community partners, and they will do all they can to find a solution. But I must emphasise that we have not changed our position on the three essential points of adequate quotas, good conservation and a coastal access preference.
I mentioned in the Statement which I repeated the question of "fishing plans" and, as this is a new term which has not been fully reported and has indeed been misinterpreted in some quarters in the Press, it might be useful if I developed that a little. The Government are prepared to explore whether our essential need for a coastal access preference could be met by means of these fishing plans. This is not a change of position, as I have seen reported—though that has not been said in this House; nor, in view of your Lordships' knowledge of these matters, did I expect it would be—since we have always been willing to explore alternative methods of achieving our essential objectives.
What do "fishing plans" mean? These comprise all aspects of the fishing situation: that is, the area to be covered, the number and size of boats, the type of fishing gear and the amount of fish to be taken, all considered together as one plan. So the two essential points are exclusive access out to 12 miles, after allowing a reasonable period for existing rights to be brought to an end, and a preferential position for British boats between 12 and 50 miles.
With regard to quotas, the United Kingdom's position is entirely reserved, as the Statement says, until we can see more clearly what arrangements it may be possible to agree on coastal belts. We cannot even make a proper judgment of the present quota proposals. They cannot be considered in isolation but only as part of a whole agreement. Nevertheless, we believe that the quota proposals are a
232
step forward and would provide a basis for further negotiation.
The noble Lord, Lord Boothby—I am very glad that he spoke, as he usually does, on these matters—mentioned the Treaty of Accession. Of course, we did not negotiate that ourselves, but the Government are quite certain that the Treaty of Accession does not prevent the Council from changing the Common Fisheries Policy by agreement. However, it does protect the rights of other Member States inside 12 miles until changes can be agreed. As I said, I am grateful to noble Lords for their support. There is another meeting of the Council in Brussels on Friday week and I will see that Parliament is kept informed.

JUDICATURE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
Second Reading debate resumed.
4.33 p.m.
Lord MOYOLA: My Lords, I am no legal expert and I rise merely because I should like to endorse one point—a point that has already been made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. That is the point concerning the involvement in judicial matters of the Secretary of State, who is already involved in politics. I want to make it absolutely plain that I do not for one moment suspect that the Secretary of State would wish to manipulate the judges, but there is another side to this matter.
We in Northern Ireland have suffered over the years from a plague of lying propaganda. No opportunity has ever been missed to defame or denigrate the powers-that-be. I doubt whether there is any authority in the land which has not, at some time or other, been the subject of a campaign of vilification or been under attack in some way or other. The only body of any importance that I do not remember coming under attack, and very rightly so, is the Judiciary. I feel that the change this Bill will bring about, will by giving so much responsibility to the Secretary of State, provide just that opportunity for ill-intentioned people to attack the Secretary of State, the judges and the judicial system.

233
I do not, in anything that I say, intend to impugn the impartiality or integrity of the Secretary of State; but from time to time he is bound to be a party in cases which come before the courts. The most obvious example would concern claims dealing with criminal injuries—claims for compensation for bomb damage as a result of terrorist activities. It seems to me that if he is to have responsibility for deciding what judge is to try a case in which he is one of the parties concerned, then sooner or later someone or other on one side or other of the sectarian or political divide is going to say something to the effect of: "The Secretary of State gave my case to such and such a judge because he knew he had that judge in his pocket." From that could spread a tale of woe and a tale of calumny which would undermine public confidence in both the Secretary of State and the Judiciary. If past history is anything to go by, it will succeed, because there are plenty of simple-minded people about and, in Northern Ireland, there are even more people about who just want a stick with which to beat the Establishment, regardless of what that Establishment may be.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor emphasised that he too, like the Secretary of State, has a ministerial responsibility; and of course it is perfectly true that similar attacks could be made on him. I feel that, despite that comment, the Lord Chancellor's Office is the proper place for this responsibility, because he is remote from Northern Ireland and is in no way involved in anything that goes on there. He is certainly regarded in the eyes of most people as part of the judicial process. Consequently, I have no doubt in saying that most people in Northern Ireland would realise that there is no propaganda "mileage" to be made from an attack on the Lord Chancellor's Department.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I too would be very interested to know how many of the Northern Ireland judges have actually been consulted about the proposal to give the Secretary of State these new and added responsibilities. I should be very intrigued to know if, in fact, they were consulted, how many of them were in favour of the change. From what I have heard, I would say that the number, if any, was very few. To me, as
234
to many people in Northern Ireland, this is an important matter. If the opportunity is given to undermine confidence in the Secretary of State and the Judiciary, I am absolutely certain that that opportunity will be taken; and I submit that, by making this change and placing this responsibility in the hands of the Secretary of State, we may well bring about an attack of the kind that I have mentioned on him and on the Judiciary. I very much hope that before the Bill completes all its stages some change along the lines I have suggested may be put into effect.
4.40 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I rise to welcome this Bill. I should like to tell the House that the noble Lord, Lord Grey of Naunton, sent me a message to say:
"Started out to attend debate today. Am now firmly stuck in snowdrift at my own front door".
I say that merely for the information of the House, because I know that the noble Lord intended to speak in the same tone as my noble friends Lord Moyola and Lord Belstead. The noble Lord, Lord Grey, has had years of experience in Northern Ireland, while the other two of us have spent all our lives in Northern Ireland, and we are three people who are asking the Government whether they will think again on this issue. It seems to me that, when a really strong opinion is held by people who have been so much involved, the Government should have another look at this issue.
I should also like to say how much I welcomed the speeches of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Belstead. The independence of the Judiciary in Northern Ireland is a subject which I have heard discussed all my life, and I consider it to be of the utmost importance to everybody in Northern Ireland. But we have to look at this Bill in the context of nine years of attempted revolution in that part of the United Kingdom. Like my two noble friends, I am certainly no lawyer and I shall not try to deal with the legal niceties. What I want to do is to paint the picture in which the courts will have to operate, and try to suggest that we should have a change.
The prime aim of subversives is to discredit the forces of law and order and the courts. That the terrorists have failed

235
so far is to the eternal credit of the Lords Chief Justice who have ruled in Northern Ireland up till now, the noble and learned Lord, Lord MacDermott, and Sir Robert Lowry, together with their teams of judges in High Courts and county courts, and magistrates. If I may beg leave of the House, may I say how nice it is to see Sir Robert Lowry at the foot of the Steps. He is a man who has led our Judiciary and our courts through very difficult times indeed.
But if the subversives have failed in their attack, it is at this moment of time all the more incumbent upon us to protect our institutions and put them in a position where they will never again be open to attack. For I fear that, at a date not so very far in the future, we may have a renewed attack by terrorists, and I want all our institutions in Northern Ireland, and indeed in the rest of the United Kingdom, to be put in a position where it is difficult to discredit them. So, while making it clear that I welcome the Bill, I must make it equally clear that I consider the Bill as drafted to be a lost opportunity.
The issue is quite clear. Will the courts of Northern Ireland be less easy to discredit if they are administered by the Northern Ireland Office or by the Lord Chancellor's Office? On the one hand, we have a most politically active Government Department, the Northern Ireland Office, and on the other we have a Department which is steeped in centuries of the organisation of justice, and I do not think that we should underestimate either the involvement in politics of the Northern Ireland Office, or the standing of the Lord Chancellor's Office throughout the whole world. Knowing the insight, understanding and sympathy of the noble and learned Lord, I cannot believe that he would be unwilling to accept this further burden on our behalf. But I am slightly worried that he may have pulled a fast one on his colleague, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, because when I look at the size of the two men I feel that the battle may have been a little unequal. Without in any way casting aspersions on the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State, we in Northern Ireland would prefer the burden of this office to be carried on the shoulders of the noble and learned Lord.
236
I have listened with great care to the long and detailed explanation of this Bill, and I fully understand and accept that the Judiciary's independence will be enhanced if this Bill is passed. But I was a little worried by the statement of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that he found that he had to be involved in matters concerning the administration of the courts in Great Britain, because that rather leaves open the fact that the Northern Ireland Office may have to interfere in matters of administration of the courts in Northern Ireland. I must point out that in the length of time which the noble and learned Lord took to explain this matter to us here lies the danger in Northern Ireland, because the ordinary people will probably have a lot of the explanation given to them by evil men at an appropriate time.
To my mind, the necessary involvement of the Northern Ireland Office in everyday politics prohibits their involvement in the administration of the courts, especially when we are reorganising these courts for years to come. I must also emphasise—and this point was made by my noble friend Lord Moyola—that in so very many cases the Northern Ireland Office is a litigant, and for it to be litigant and administrator at the same time makes it wrong for that Department to look after the administration of the courts. Further to that, we have the involvement of two great Departments. The Beeching Commission recommended that there should be only one authority in charge of the courts in Great Britain, and yet we are having a different development for Northern Ireland by having two Ministers responsible.
Paragraph 4 of the White Paper stated that it was regarded,
"as essential that executive responsibility for the provision, maintenance and due functioning of the courts system should be clearly distinguished from judicial responsibility for the administration of justice".
That was in the White Paper which preceded this Bill, but I do not believe that to the ordinary man in the street that distinction is clear enough. I should like to follow my noble friend Lord Moyola by asking the noble and learned Lord what representations he has received from High Court judges, county court judges, magistrates and the Bar Council? What were their views, and what are their views, and,

237
even if they are happy, would they be happier if the Lord Chancellor followed my suggestion and accepted this responsibility? It is the last part that is the most important.
I welcome the unified courts service. This is something which has been needed in Northern Ireland for a very long time. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord how he sees the command structure—assuming that we cannot persuade the Government to change their minds—from the head of the Judicature Office to the Secretary of State? Will the head have direct access to the Permanent Under-Secretary, and from there to the Secretary of State? I feel that the standing of this official will be of great importance to the future administration of justice. In fact, will he be a three-star General, or just a two-star General?
I should like to finish by saying that I welcome this Bill, but I intend at the Committee stage to press the Government further to accept the substitution of the Lord Chancellor's Office for the Northern Ireland Office. We are not asking very much of the Government. I accept that we are asking something very big of the noble and learned Lord, but, as I said, he has very broad shoulders. But we are asking solidly from Northern Ireland—and I believe that I speak for most of the people who are involved in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland, and those who have thought about it—for only a small thing, but I believe that it would be a great thing on the part of the Government if they were to give way.
4.50 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am most grateful for the welcome which noble Lords have given to the Bill, subject of course—I readily concede—to the anxieties that have been expressed about ministerial responsibility for the administration of the courts in Northern Ireland. That anxiety was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, but, if he will permit me to say so, I think he has overlooked the recommendations of his own Administration in 1973. In the Northern Ireland constitutional proposals one sees recommended in paragraph 67(a) the very pattern which is contained in this Bill. Perhaps I may quote from paragraph 67(a):
238
"Responsibility for the appointment of county court judges, magistrates, coroners and a limited number of other appointments of a quasi judicial nature will be reserved to the Lord Chancellor and responsibility for the administration of the courts and tribunals in question will be reserved to the Secretary of State".
At the end of that paragraph there appears this sentence:
"It is the view of the Government that all judicial appointments should be made by or on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor"—
that, of course, is provided for in this Bill—
"and that there should be a unified administration of the courts for which the Secretary of State should be answerable to Parliament".
That was the view taken by the previous Conservative Administration and I have little doubt that the reasons why they came to that view were the same kind of reasons as those which I ventured to submit to your Lordships at the opening of this debate.
Perhaps I ought to emphasise certain matters. As noble Lords have said, it would indeed be very disturbing if this provision in the Bill were in any way to diminish confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that it will. The crucial matter is the maintenance of the independence of the Judiciary. As I indicated in my opening speech, I agree with the commendation and praise of the courage, the ability and the independence of the judges in Northern Ireland during the recent years of peril. I was particularly pleased—I know that he will not mind my saying this, and as I cannot see him at the moment I can properly do so, in any event—with the tribute paid to the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Robert Lowry. Never has a tribute been so well deserved.
Let us examine what the form will be under the Bill. All matters touching upon the independence of the Judiciary, notably the appointment and removal of judges and resident magistrates and, indeed, the deployment of judges, will remain in the hands of myself and the Lord Chief Justice. The Secretary of State will not be able to control which judge hears which case. The deployment of judges is a matter entirely for the Lord Chief Justice and myself. Although the Supreme Court will come under the supreme administration of the Secretary of State—at the moment no Minister is

239
responsible for it—to a very large extent it will be run by the Lord Chief Justice. The officials who are running the Supreme Court now will be running it under the new arrangements. The Secretary of State is already responsible for courts below the High Court. Noble Lords have commended and noted the confidence which, at any rate until now, has existed in the courts of Northern Ireland. That confidence will continue. The provisions contained in the Bill will in no way impair those arrangements or that confidence.
There was a faint suggestion that my greater physical dimensions might have overborne the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I think that it was Lloyd George who said that you should measure a man from the neck up. I am not admitting any intellectual or other inferiority for myself by comparison with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but those who know him well would indeed not venture to suggest that he is easily overborne. No; I am bound to tell your Lordships that the conclusion which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has reached and that I, independently and separately, have reached, knowing of my responsibility in these matters and knowing of the great and historic importance that is attached to my office of Lord Chancellor, has been taken with those considerations in mind.
I am satisfied that what is proposed in the Bill is best for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. I am quite confident that when those who have expressed their anxieties—and those anxieties have very properly been expressed today—examine the present arrangements, the future arrangements and the careful steps which have been taken to preserve the independence of the Judiciary in every element of importance and their freedom and independence in the conduct of their own cases, they will see that the suggestion that the Secretary of State might perhaps bring pressure to bear on a judge to affect his decision in a given case, say in respect of a claim for civil injuries, is wholly unwarranted. The independence of the judge deciding the case will be as complete in the future as it is today. In view of the importance of this issue, I make no apology for repeating that assurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, raised a number of points of detail of which he
240
was kind enough to give me notice. Perhaps I may refer briefly to some of those matters before I sit down. First, he mentioned why the recommendations of the MacDermott Committee in regard to probate matters are not provided for in the Bill. May I inform your Lordships that new provisions to give effect to the main recommendations of the MacDermott Committee relating to probate matters will be made. However, we think that those provisions are more appropriate for inclusion in a Northern Ireland Order in Council, to be made under the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1974, The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, may like to know that a comprehensive draft order relating to the administration of estates is in an advanced state of preparation, and the provisions relating to probate will be included. Those matters will, therefore, be covered. I do not know whether probate actions are so prevalent as they used to be in the Principality, where I used to practise at the Bar. If so, I am sure that the lawyers involved will be enjoying themselves in those proceedings, as I used to enjoy myself in them, too.
The next matter which was raised was in regard to the provisions relating to judicial review in Clauses 18 to 25. I do not think that the fact that statutory provision is made for the matters that are there provided for in this Bill will in any way bring into question the validity of Rules of Court which made similar provision in respect of England and Wales. In this Bill, advantage has been taken of the opportunity to give effect by primary legislation to the useful recommendations of the Law Commission in its report on Remedies in Administrative Law.
Then, with regard to the civil jurisdiction of magistrates, it is certainly intended to consider the abolition of some of the civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' courts. I am afraid that, because of lack of time, I was not able to develop the theme of the new office of circuit registrar but clearly he will be an important person in regard to the exercise of civil jurisdiction, particularly when, as we propose, it will fall to him and to his colleagues to deal with the small claims jurisdiction which it is proposed to introduce.
I was asked about the inclusion of

241
Part VIII, Clauses 86–94 of the Bill, which contains a miscellany of rules of law in judicial matters generally Which have in fact been carried over from the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act 1877, and there are corresponding provisions in the English Act of 1925. The reasons for including them are largely historical but nevertheless their inclusion is necessary and, at the Committee stage, if the noble Lord has any questions to raise with regard to them we shall be able to enter into the detail.
I am grateful for the preliminary canter, if I may put it in that way, that we have had on this Bill, but I should like to assure noble Lords that I have given most anxious thought to the question of Ministerial responsibility. I have had discussions not only with the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland but also with the judges and, while I will not say that at this point of time they unanimously approve of what is proposed with regard to the functions of the Secretary of State—nor indeed for that matter do some members of the legal profession—I am quite confident that, when the point is analysed and examined, the conclusion will be reached that there are practical advantages in doing what the Bill proposes—namely, those who are in Belfast, who know the position, who know the individuals and know the people, are better able to conduct the sheer administration. Moreover, when it is borne in mind that careful safeguards have been introduced to protect that which is of crucial importance, I am confident that the Judiciary, the legal profession and the public of Northern Ireland will see that the Bill combines the necessary practicality and the best pattern for the administration that the situation can command. I wish a fair wind to the Bill in its future progress through the House and I hope that we shall be able to proceed fairly expeditiously so that the reforms contained in the Bill may be put into effect in the reasonably near future.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

EDUCATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
5.4 p.m.
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
242
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Dunleath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Controlled integrated schools]:
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I am advised that there are two corrections which should be made. Amendments Nos. 22 and 24 on the Marshalled List which are tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, should be in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath.
Lord DUNLEATH Lord DUNLEATH moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out subsectior (1) and insert—
"(1) In order to facilitate the establishment of schools likely to be attended by pupils of different religious affiliations or cultural traditions, a school may, in accordance with the following provisions of this section, become a school (in this Act referred to as "a controlled integrated school") the management committee of which is nominated in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 4A to the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (which Order as amended is in this Act referred to as "the principal Order")."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1 I beg leave to make reference also to Amendments Nos. 2, 10 and 11; to a certain extent they are all consequential. The position is that during the Second Reading of this Bill on 24th November last my noble friend Lord Melchett expressed some grave reservations about Clause 1(1), (2) and (3). On that occasion he was good enough not to press me too hard to withdraw and I undertook to give the matter further consideration. In the intervening period he and his officials have been most helpful in furnishing me with additional information and, as a result, I am prepared to move the first Amendment which substitutes the paragraph as printed in the Marshalled List. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett): I should just like to make it known that I would never presume

243
to persuade my noble friend to withdraw the Bill or to do any such thing, but I am grateful to him for moving this Amendment and indeed Amendment No. 2, to which he has also referred. As he has said, they meet the main problems which I saw in the practical application of the Bill when we discussed it on Second Reading.
Viscount LONG: I am sure we are all very grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, and the Government are in complete harmony. I should like to say from these Benches that we too are in harmony with them. Doubtless it is a New Year spirit, and long may it continue. The Amendment does exactly what I think we all wanted, leaving the rest of the clause in a rather well written democratic state. We have no criticism of this so long as it stays democratic.
Lord HAMPTON: I should like to join in the spirit of goodwill and to say that neither have we on these Benches any opposition to express to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DUN LEATH Lord DUN LEATH moved Amendment No. 2.
Page 1, line 15, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.9 p.m.
Lord KILBRACKEN Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("not less than three-quarters") and insert ("a majority")
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I think it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak at the same time to Amendment No. 7, which deals with a similar matter in the following subsection of the Bill.
Lord MELCHETT: I do not want to delay the Committee on procedure but I wonder whether it would be possible to take Amendment No. 7 separately? I understand that this Amendment deals with the position of the transferors, whereas Amendment No. 7, and indeed the two Amendments tabled in my name on the Marshalled List, deal with the position of trustees. As a slightly different existing
244
law applies, I think it might be more convenient to take them separately.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: In any event I must call the Amendments separately.
Lord KILBRACKEN: I was merely trying to save a little time, but I am quite ready to do as my noble friend wishes. Amendment No. 3 refers to what is still subsection (4) of Clause I and it deals with the circumstances under which a controlled school can become a controlled integrated school. Here it is required that "not less than three-quarters" of the management committee should be in favour of such a change taking place. I am proposing that such a change should take place if it is desired by a plain majority of the management committee. My intention in doing so is that I want to see as many integrated schools as possible in the Province, and decisions of this kind are, after all, normally made by a majority. If I were to press this to a Division—which I have no intention of doing—it would be decided by a majority, as are all Parliamentary decisions. Therefore, I should like to put it to my noble friend Lord Dunleath that by making it a plain majority it would be more possible to have a substantial number of controlled integrated schools at an early date. I beg to move.
Lord DUNLEATH: I know that my noble friend Lord Kilbracken has proposed this Amendment for the simple reason that he is trying to be helpful; he supports this Bill and he is trying to make the implementation of it easier, if it in fact goes on to the Statute Book. I should say that I deliberately put in the three-quarters majority so that there could be no question of anyone suggesting that it was not a true majority. Nobody could say "If only so-and-so had not been off sick", or "If only so-and-so's car had not broken down, it would not have gone through". This was to make it absolutely cast iron and watertight. It was for that reason that my associates and I put in the three-quarters majority, so that there could be no argument about it whatsoever. I think that if this goes through it will stifle a lot of those people.
It may surprise your Lordships to know that there are people who are waiting for

245
an opportunity to say that this is not democratic, waiting to find anything which can be misinterpreted as containing some element of imposition or compulsion, whereas, in your Lordships' House, I have on every occasion made it clear that this is purely an enabling Bill and will do nothing unless it is the will of the people that integration should take place. That is why we put in the three-quarters majority, and I myself would be happy for it to stay that way.
Lord MONSON: I do not often find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, but I must say it does seem to me that his Amendment is extremely reasonable. If it were accepted, it would not in itself change anything at all. It would merely require the parents to be consulted. Under subsection (8) a three-quarters majority of the parents would have to agree before anything could be done, and I think it is right that it should be so. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be simply to require the parents to be consulted if a bare majority of the management committee agreed. Perhaps the right compromise solution to meet the potential objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, would be to change the three-quarters to two-thirds. Perhaps this could be inserted at the next stage.
Lord MELCHETT: It does seem to me that there is an even balance between the two proposals. I do not think it is a matter of great principle. If the Committee wanted my advice—and I certainly would not come down firmly one way or the other—it would be to agree with my noble friend Lord Dunleath. The prospect of the Bill's passage through Parliament would be improved if the safeguard existing in the Bill for the position of the transferors was maintained and the majority of three-quarters left; in other words, hopefully, my noble friend might be persuaded to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: It seems to me that the suggestion that has been made that there should be some form of compromise is a very sensible one. After all, a two-thirds majority is a two-to-one vote and that is a very considerable safeguard indeed. I should have thought that would meet all the
246
points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. I think that a three-to-one, 75 per cent., majority is really taking safeguards to an extreme. We all want there to be as many of these schools as possible, and we also want there to be sensible safeguards. I would suggest that possibly the best course of action, if the Amendment were to be withdrawn, would be for the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, to consider accepting an Amendment to two-thirds at a later stage.
Lord DUNLEATH: Certainly, I would accept that.
Lord KILBRACKEN: I am very grateful for the support I have received on this Amendment. In view of what has been said by all noble Lords, I think perhaps the best solution is that at Report stage I should put down an Amendment in similar terms requiring a two-thirds majority. With that idea in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord DUNLEATH Lord DUNLEATH moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 2, after ("2(a)") insert ("or 3(a)")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4. This in principle is to include secondary intermediate schools. I must apologise to your Lordships that it was an omission on my part that this was not written into the original Bill. The purpose of this Amendment is to make good that omission, so that there can be controlled secondary inter mediate schools as well as controlled primary schools.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DUNLEATH Lord DUNLEATH moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 5, leave out ("board") and insert ("education and libraries board (in this Act referred to as "the board")")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5. This is purely a drafting point in the interests of accuracy and clearer definition.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DUNLEATH Lord DUNLEATH moved Amendment No. 6:

247
Page 2, line 6, after second ("school") insert ("or that, where two or mre schools are grouped under such a management committee, one or more of those schools should become a controlled integrated school or controlled integrated schools,".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6. Here again there was an omission on my part in drafting the original Bill. This Amendment is to include schools which may happen to be grouped under the same management committee, so that one or more of those schools can be included in the provisions of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.18 p.m.
Lord KILBRACKEN Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 8, after ("where") insert ("majority of").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7. In subsection (5) we move from controlled schools to voluntary schools, and here it is provided that in the case of a voluntary school "the trustees" must wish for it to be transferred to the Department and request that it should become a controlled integrated school. In the normal use of language, I would take that as meaning that all the trustees must be in favour of such a transfer, but it is not perfectly clear whether that is the intention. I was, therefore, proposing that the words "a majority of" should be inserted so that it would only be necessary for a majority of the trustees to wish for such a transfer. In view of the decision we reached just now, that in the case of a controlled school possibly a two-thirds majority would be the most suitable figure, I feel that it would be better to have the same requirement in this subsection. Therefore, if the Committee pleases, I shall withdraw this Amendment and at a later stage move insertion of the words,
"Where two-thirds of the trustees of a voluntary school …".
I am looking forward to hearing what my noble friend may say on that matter.
Lord MELCHETT: I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I said a few words about Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 which stand in my name on the Marshalled List,
248
because they strike at exactly the point which my noble friend Lord Kilbracken has hit upon. Certainly, whatever is the case on the transferors' side, the Bill did not specify any majority in the case of trustees where a voluntary school is being converted to a controlled integrated school. That was a clear omission from the Bill.
I suggested that we might take the two matters separately because in the case of a voluntary school becoming a controlled school there is already statutory provision in the Education and Libraries Order for the procedure which should be followed and for the majority of trustees which is needed for that process to take place. When I saw the Amendment of my noble friend and recognised, as I have said, that he had hit upon an omission in the Bill, it seemed to me that the sensible thing to do would be to attract the existing provisions for the conversion of a voluntary school to a controlled school, so that they applied equally to the conversion of a voluntary school to a controlled integrated school. This seems to me to go along, more or less, with what your Lordships have informally decided about the position of transferors, in that a two-thirds majority would be needed.
That is already the position under the Education and Libraries Order and that would be the effect of my Amendments Nos. 9 and 18, with the exception that the Education and Libraries Order says that where there is a clear practice laid down for the trustees in the trust deed, or where there is a practice which is by convention and long practice followed by the trustees, then that should apply. In other words, if the trust deed says that the trustees need a majority, a simple majority or some other majority, then that is required, but if the practice and convention of that body of trustees is something else, then that is what would be followed. Otherwise it would be a two-thirds majority. That is the effect of my two Amendments and I suggest that that is probably the most desirable course to follow in this case. Moreover, it would be very much in line with what has already been suggested for transferors.
Lord KILBRACKEN: In view of what my noble friend has said I certainly do not intend to press my Amendment any

249
further, because, as I understand it, what I had not realised is that the Amend-merits that he has put down, to a great extent, have the effect of the Amendment that I was proposing to put down at the Report stage. I hope that my noble friend Lord Melchett and the Government will always bear in mind that the great opposition to the Bill—and one has to say this—will come from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church more than anyone else, and it is the schools attended by Catholics that we are now talking about. If it will, under any circumstance, require unanimity among the trustees in a voluntary school, I think that there is very, very little hope of its ever being obtained. I hope that wherever possible the change can be or will be made with a two-thirds majority. However, in view of what my noble friend the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord DUNLEATH Lord DUNLEATH moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 9, after ("Department") insert ("of Education for Northern Ireland (in this Act referred to as "the Department").")
The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment in the interests of definition. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 9, after ("Department") insert ("under Article 14 of the principal Order")
The noble Lord said: As I said when speaking to Amendment No. 7, this Amendment would have the effect of providing, in all cases where the trust deed did not already lay some legal obligation on the trustees to follow a particular practice or where the trustees did not, through long practice and custom, follow a particular practice, the need for a two-thirds majority. In view of the fact that we are talking about a very similar process—the conversion of a voluntary school to either a controlled school or a controlled integrated school—it would make sense for the existing statutory procedure to be attracted to the transfer in this Bill. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will accept this Amendment and Amendment No. 18 which is consequential to it. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.25 p.m.
Lord DUNLEATH Lord DUNLEATH moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("(2) or").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment: No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DUNLEATH Lord DUNLEATH moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("(3) or").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Derwent): Amendment No. 12. I must point out that if Amendment No. 12 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 13 or 14.
Lord DUNLEATH Lord DUNLEATH moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 18, leave out from ("question") to ("shall") in line 21.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 12 I should recall to your Lordships' minds that the other area of concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Melchett during the Second Reading of the Bill was this particular passage of the Bill, because he and Her Majesty's Government felt that it would be impossible to define or quantify what was "a reasonable distance of that school" or what would be the catchment area of the parents who would have to be consulted. Again, I am very grateful to my noble friend and to his officials for the information and advice that they have given me in the intervening period. Therefore I am prepared to propose Amendment No. 12 which deletes the passage in question. As has been stated, Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 will be irrelevant if Amendment No. 12 is agreed to, as indeed will Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
Lord KILBRACKEN: I put down Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 16 and 17 before knowing that my noble friend Lord Dunleath was planning to delete this passage. Those Amendments constituted my attempt at making the subsection

251
more easy to administer. I felt a certain apprehension when I saw that my noble friend had gone so far as to delete the passage altogether because, of course, it means that if in any area there is a question of, let us say, a Protestant school becoming an integrated school, the views of the Catholic parents will not be taken and vice versa. However, having thought it over, I think that he is absolutely right and that is how it should be—it should be merely the parents of the school in question who should be consulted. Being, therefore, completely in favour of the change that my noble friend is proposing not only will Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 fall, but I shall not be moving Amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Lord KILBRACKEN Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) If the Department cannot approve a scheme prepared by a board, the parents' views shall be ascertained in accordance with a scheme prepared by the Department.").
The noble Lord said: This is a proposal to add a new subsection at the end of subsection (6). Under subsection (6), the appropriate board is required to ascertain the views of parents of children at the school in accordance with a scheme prepared by the board and approved by the Department. However, no provision is made for circumstances in which the Department is unable to approve a scheme prepared by the board. I foresee the possibility that a board, which does not want or which is not in favour of integration and wants to hold up integration in some way or other, may make proposals of a sort which it knows the Department cannot approve. I therefore propose the addition of this paragraph, which simply states that:
"If the Department cannot approve a scheme prepared by a board, the parents' views shall be ascertained in accordance with a scheme prepared by the Department".
I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: Once again, my noble friend has hit on an omission in the Bill. There is a similar provision in the main Education and Libraries (Northern
252
Ireland) Order. Clearly, it is needed in this case so that there is no prospect of a stalemate. Although I should certainly not expect there to be this sort of dispute between the Department and an area board, it clearly makes sense to have some provision for settling any such dispute in the Bill. I urge the House to accept this Amendment.
Lord KILBRACKEN: I am most grateful for what the Minister has said.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
5.32 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert—
(" ( ) In Article 14 of the principal Order, in its application to a school which the Department determines under subsection (7) above shall become a controlled integrated school, for the words "controlled school" there shall be substituted the words "controlled integrated school".")
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this Amendment when I dealt with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord KILBRACKEN: I should like to raise a point which occurred to me too late to table an Amendment. I should like to draw the Committee's attention to it and perhaps table an Amendment for a later stage. Under subsection (6) parents are required to state whether they would be prepared to send their children to the school if it became a controlled integrated school; whereas under subsection (8) their views as to whether or not they are opposed to the school becoming a controlled integrated school must have been ascertained. These two things are said as though they are the same thing, which I suggest they are not.
We must consider the kind of case that would arise, where a school becomes an integrated school because more than three-quarters of the parents wanted it to. It is perfectly possible that a parent would be prepared to continue to send his child to that school because it is the only school in the area. But at the same time he might

253
be one of those who were opposed to it becoming a controlled integrated school. My feeling is that the language used should be the same in both cases.
I have given neither of the noble Lords most interested in this Bill notice of this point. I feel it would be better if the same language were used on both occasions by changing the sentence in subsection (6) so that it reads:
"to state whether they are opposed to the school becoming a controlled integrated school"—
the same language as in subsection (8). I do not know whether I could have any reaction on that. Perhaps I should not have raised it at this stage. It might be a matter for the Report stage.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I should like to raise, briefly, another matter, although I suspect not very constructively, because I do not think that there is any way of effecting that which I should like to see. In this clause we are discussing the whole question of who should be consulted. We have agreed to the Amendment which omits the consultation of "parents of children of the appropriate age" in the locality. The appropriate age is quite clear there because the children were enrolled in other grant-aided schools; it is quite clear that they were children of that age. It is a pity that we have been unable to find some way of inserting a means of consulting the parents of children who are not yet of school age. It may be impossible to do so, but if it were possible—and perhaps the noble Lord who introduced the Bill, the Minister and other noble Lords would like to think about this between now and the next stage—it might be very helpful.
In a survey which I commissioned about seven or eight years ago, I found, as one might expect, a marked difference between the opinions of parents whose children were at school and those of parents whose children were not yet at school about the comprehensive system, with a considerably greater majority in favour of the comprehensive system among those whose children had not yet taken the 11-plus and had not yet passed into the secondary system. I think that we might find something of the same if we consulted parents of children of a very young age in Northern Ireland; we might find a greater willingness to integrate, a greater willingness to spare their children some of
254
the problems of division which arise under the present system, among the parents of younger children. I do not have much hope that there is any practical way of doing this, but I thought it right to draw this point to the Committee's attention.
Lord MELCHETT: Perhaps I could comment briefly on that. It strikes me that my noble friend Lord Kilbracken has hit on a good point about the need for similar wording in subsections (6) and (8) now that lines 18 to 21 of subsection (6) have been deleted. I am sure that this is something to which we could return at the next stage.
I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I am afraid that I should still be raising the objection which I felt the need to raise on Second Reading—namely, that it does not really matter what age group we want to consult—whether it is pre-school or the same age group as the children at the school. That is not the problem. The difficulty arises in deciding in which area we consult them. That is the Difficulty and the stumbling block which we come up against every time, both in the circumstances of this Bill and, as I think I mentioned on Second Reading, in similar circumstances where, for example, we ask parents to appoint members to a management committee. We are always driven back on the need simply to limit it to the parents of children actually at the school.
Lord DUNLEATH: I am extremely grateful to noble Lords who hate made constructive and obviously well thought out suggestions so far during the Committee stage. I should like to assure the Committee that I shall certainly give very careful consideration to the points that have been made.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
5.39 p.m.
Lord KILBRACKEN Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 1 insert the following new clause:
Separate classes for children of different religious denomination
(" . In a controlled integrated school, if a majority of the parents of either denomination should so desire, there shall be separate classes for Protestant and Catholic children, conducted by teachers of their own religious affiliation, in any period devoted to religious education.—")
The noble Lord said: I have tabled this Amendment because I think it is important that the Committee should consider this question of the teaching of religious education, which is sometimes referred to in the Education Act as religious instruction or religious knowledge. I am not talking about divine worship; I am talking about periods devoted every week to religious education. There is nothing in the Bill about it. It may be the feeling of the Committee that there should not be. However, I think that it is an important matter to be considered. If there was something in the Bill about it, it would again remove, or tend to remove, some of the fears of the Catholic hierarchy who, I mention again, I see as the main enemies of the Bill.
My proposal is that in a controlled integrated school there should be separate classes for Protestant and Catholic children conducted by teachers of their own religious affiliation in any period that is devoted to religious education, if it is desired by a majority of parents of either denomination. I do not mean by that that all such periods should be segregated but as many as the parent may think desirable.
The Committee may be interested to learn, if it does not know already, what has been done in England in this matter at the one school where there has been a coalition of Catholic and Protestant pupils; that is to say, at St. Bede's School at Redhill in Surrey. Here two schools got together and made an integrated school, and the arrangement is that there is no watering down of denominational beliefs.
"Each tradition brings its own richness to the common study of the Christian faith in mutual respect".
I am quoting from the Catholic Herald of last November. But, during two of the three weekly RE periods, pupils together follow a joint syllabus but separate into their denominational groups for the third. It is something of that sort that I think may be desirable.
I also have here the constitution of All Children Together, the organisation in Northern Ireland which has done a great deal in the sponsoring and organisation and working with my noble friend
256
Lord Dunleath on this Bill. Article 2 of their constitution particularly says that the organisation seeks change in the education system of Northern Ireland and looks for an education in shared schools acceptable to all religious denominations and cultures in which the Churches will provide religious education and pastoral care. It is heavily underlined as being a very important point that the Churches (in the plural) will provide religious education and pastoral care.
Of course I personally would far prefer it that the period devoted to religious education, like the others, should be integrated. But, at the same time, I think that, if a majority of the parents particularly of the denomination that happens to be in a minority in that school should desire it otherwise, then one or more of the periods devoted to religious education should not be integrated. That is what the addition of this new clause would bring about. I beg to move.
5.44 p.m.
Lord DUNLEATH: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, for having raised this point. We thought about this quite a bit but, in the event, decided not to put in a clause of the sort he has drafted because it seems to be pretty fully covered in Article 16(7) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, where it states that Ministers of religion and other suitable persons, including teachers of the school, have access to schools to give what religious education may be required. We reckon that this would again be largely a matter of parental choice. If there was a group of Catholic parents who wanted a Catholic priest to come in and give religious education to those children, they would be empowered to arrange that, and indeed welcome to do so. But, like the noble Lord, I should like to think that, as I believe is the case at Redhill, there was a general assembly of children of all denominations, and that secondary to that there was denominational religious education where this was required. But the main reason we did not include this was because we reckoned that the order covered it already.
Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH: Although I appreciate my

257
noble friend's motive in introducing this Amendment I have grave doubts about it, and particularly with regard to its wording. It suggests separate classes for Protestant and Catholic children, and that there are only two religious bodies to which schoolchildren belong. Of course in England that is wholly untrue, and in years to come it is likely to become equally untrue in Northern Ireland. Therefore if we accepted this Amendment, I think the wording would have to be altered.
It seems to me that undenominational religious instruction education certainly works very well in this country, and pupils have the right, through their parents, to withdraw if they wish to do so. Very few do. In those classes the children learn to co-operate and to understand not only religious matters but others too. If children were withdrawn to attend denominational classes in Northern Ireland today, I think that that would be likely to remind them, if they were old enough, of the many problems that country has had relating to both religion and politics. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be better to maintain the non-denominational classes as they are today.
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: May I ask a question on a point of information? In Northern Ireland are there schools in which there is no stated religious education, or are most of the schools church schools of some sort? Reference has been made to the school at Redhill. That happens to be in my diocese, and I was largely responsible. In fact, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Southwark and I were responsible for it, and we opened it together. I know all about the syllabus, and so on. But people go to that school from that area because they want to be taught either in the Anglican faith or the Roman Catholic faith, and also to learn something of one another in an ecumenical way. If people wanted no distinctive Christian faith then they would not go to that school: they would go to a school where no denominational teaching was given. The question I am really asking is whether in Northern Ireland it is the same as in this country; you can go to a denominational school, be it Anglican or Roman Catholic, or you may go to a school where there is no distinctive denominational teaching.
Lord KILBRACKEN: I am not sure that I am qualified to answer the right reverend Prelate's question, and indeed I do not know why I am trying. When we consider that somewhere around 99 per cent. of schoolchildren of both denominations are at present going to segregated schools, and when we consider the importance that religion plays as a political shibboleth in the Six Counties, I think that it is very hard to imagine that there are many schools there which are not very specifically of one denomination or the other.
I am grateful for the contributions that have been made. I feel that the general wish of the Committee is that this Amendment should be withdrawn, and that there are already safeguards, to which my noble friend Lord Dunleath has drawn attention. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Management of controlled integrated schools]:
5.50 p.m.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I understand that Amendments Nos. 20 to 24 are all of a drafting nature. If that is so, and if the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, wishes to move them en bloc then, if the Committee agrees, I shall put them en bloc.
Lord DUNLEATH: In my opinion these Amendments all deal with drafting points. However, I must put myself at the service of noble Lords should any Member wish to ask me questions about them. If it is the wish of the Committee, I shall be happy to move them en bloc. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 45, leave out from ("Order") to end of line 1 on page 3.
Page 3, line 5, after ("schools") insert ("where they first occur").
Page 3, line 18, leave out ("after the definition of "controlled school"") and insert ("at the end of the definition of "controlled school" there shall be inserted the words "other than a controlled integrated school" and after that definition").
In Clause 3,
In Clause 3, leave out from beginning of line 28 to ("school") in line 31 and insert ("principal Order shall apply to that").
In Clause 3, line 33, leave out subsection (2).
—(Lord Dunleath.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Supplementary provisions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount LONG: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the Committee, if I am delaying matters, but I noticed that when Lord Melchett spoke on Second Reading he said that he was somewhat unhappy about this part of the Bill. Am I right in thinking that he is now happy about this provision?
Lord MELCHETT: I am at a loss to remember at this time, particularly without being directed to the exact comment made on Second Reading, exactly what worries I had about this clause. Now that the noble Viscount has reminded me of the point, perhaps I might consider the matter between now and the next stage of the Bill, and if there were some residual worries which have not been met by the Amendments made today I could, if necessary, table an Amendment then.
Viscount LONG: I apologise for catching out the noble Lord. We on these Benches were nearly caught out and we simply wanted to put on record the fact that he expressed some slight unhappiness about the provision, but we look forward to hearing what the noble Lord has to say at a later stage of the Bill.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Schedule [Membership of School Management Committees of controlled integrated schools]:
On Question, Whether this shall be the Schedule to the Bill?
Lord KILBRACKEN: I apologise for detaining the Committee for a few moments longer, but this is a rather important Schedule which contains a matter of some concern to me. My concern is about paragraph 2, which deals with the formation of the school management committee of a controlled integrated school. It seems to me most likely that the controlled integrated school will have started life as a controlled school, which
260
decided to become a controlled integrated school and which then attracted a certain number of pupils from voluntary schools. It is, therefore, basically a Protestant school which attracts a relatively small number of Catholic pupils. These would be pupils who were previously attending a voluntary school in much the same area. I do not think we can hope for more than three or four, or at the most half a dozen, of these schools in the Province in the near future. They might have, say, 80 or 100 Protestant children of a certain age and, say, 20 or 30 Catholic children of the same age.
I feel some concern as to the likely composition of the management committee which will have to run such a school. Under paragraph (2)(a), (b), (c) and (d) it is laid down how the members of this committee will be apportioned. Noble Lords will see, in paragraph (a) that—
"not more than one-third of the members of the committee shall be persons nominated at a meeting … held in accordance with regulations made by the Department, by the parents of the pupils attending the school or schools …"
and the parents of the children attending the school or schools at the time they become integrated schools, in the case of a controlled school, will be Protestant and they are most likely to vote for Protestant members of the committee. Similarly, under paragraph (b)—
"not more than one-sixth of the members of the committee shall be appointed in accordance with regulations made by the Department as persons representative of the transferors and superseded manager of controlled schools in the area".
Therefore, any appointed under that provision will also be Protestant. Similarly, under paragraph (d)—
"the remainder of the members of the committee shall be persons nominated by the Board for the area in which the school is situated".
In a predominantly Protestant area, as in County Down or Antrim, it is likely that the majority of the board will be Protestant. Thus, the only members who are more or less guaranteed to be Catholics are the not more than one-sixth of the members of the committee who are appointed under paragraph (c). If the number of Catholic pupils in the school is, say, one-quarter or one-third of the total, then I do not think that will be enough.
I suggest that this is a matter which should be given some consideration, and

261
perhaps on Report an Amendment could be made to ensure greater Catholic representation—or greater minority rep-presentation because the same could perfectly well happen in a Catholic area so far as Protestants are concerned—and to ensure that there are more representatives of the minority community on these committees.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I take the noble Lord's point, but, speaking as the chairman of a Catholic school in this country, I thought that his was a counsel of despair. If the integrated school is to work at all, surely the one thing that must be clearly seen is that those who sit on the board of management, whether they be Catholic or Protestant—or the other curious beings who seem to be undenominational, whatever that means—are there for the good of the school. They should not see themselves as representing a minority or majority, and I am one of those who believe that religion has been blamed in Northern Ireland for many problems which have nothing to do with religion.
As we are seeking to get an integrated school, we should not start off by assuming that we must have, say, six of those and 12 of those because, if we do, that is how they will see themselves. They must see themselves as members of the management board for the good of the school.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I do not know if the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, intends to reply to the cogent points that have been put, and in my view this is a subject into which we should go rather further; the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has raised an important point. I fear that, in the circumstances of Northern Ireland, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is producing a counsel of perfection. I am sure it is necessary to have safeguards for the minorities. With the best will in the world, these things can go wrong. It is important that they should not go wrong, but it is also important for people to feel that if they agree to send their children to a school such as this, they will definitely have a guaranteed say in what goes on.
I need hardly point out to the Committee that the answer is to have the elections of the parent representatives
262
by the single transferable vote, something which is not particularly difficult. I have recently been instrumental in persuading my branch of the National Union of Journalists to introduce exactly that system. It is probably the only way to get round this problem, except with a nominated scheme, but a nominated scheme is not quite the same thing. I should have thought that what we want to produce is a situation whereby the parents of both main groups in the school, both Catholics and Protestants, can feel that they quite definitely have a right to elect certain representatives. I suggest we should put our heads together, to see whether or not before the next stage we can insert an Amendment to that effect into the Bill.
Viscount BARRINGTON: I should like, very shortly, to support the line which has just been taken by my noble friend Lord Beaumont, with whom I do not always agree, even on religious questions. I very seldom disagree with the noble Baroness; but I agree with my noble friend that she is being a little starry-eyed on this occasion in thinking that what happens in English schools is likely to happen in Ireland. I think the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has a point here. The only county of which I have had any personal experience is Tyrone. I can quite imagine a school which had a large majority of Catholic children, the board of which would be very unlikely to have possibly any Catholics on it at all. I put that forward only as a suggestion; but I think Lord Kilbracken's Amendment is one which is worth consideration, and I believe it would be a pity simply to dismiss it on the grounds that everybody in Northern Ireland is sensible enough to realise that religion and politics are different matters.
Lord DUNLEATH: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, for having raised this point. There are a couple of things I should say in reply. One is that from a practical point of view we do not envisage an immediate rush into integrated education in areas which are almost entirely Protestant or almost entirely Catholic. Where a start is made—and I hope a start will be made—it is more likely to be in the more mixed communities; so one would hope that there might be a better balance in that instance.

263
But I think the really important thing is that this is an enabling Bill, designed to provide the framework for the people and the parents themselves, if they so desire, to bring about the changes; and one would hope that if the mood of the parents is such that they want integrated education, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, was not being all that totally unrealistic or starry-eyed about it. One would hope that if this was the mood of people, this mood would translate itself into the way in which these appointments were made.
Of one thing I would have certain doubts, and that is the giving to people of a certain denomination a guaranteed place on a management committee, because, as Her Majesty's Government (not this one but a previous one) learned to their discomfort some years ago in Northern Ireland, if you try to give people guaranteed places in any position of authority on the basis of what part of the community they come from the results are not always entirely satisfactory. But I am very grateful for the suggestion and for the observations which have been made by the noble Baroness and several noble Lords. Certainly this is something to which more consideration will be given before this Bill comes before your Lordships again.
Lord MELCHETT: I wonder whether I could be quite out of order for a very brief moment and take the opportunity of this debate on the Question, Whether the Schedule shall stand part of the Bill?, to point out that the Marshalled List has misled the Committee to some extent, and I am grateful to the noble Viscount, who drew this to my attention. In fact, Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 applied to Clause 3 and not to Clause 2, as the Marshalled List says. They have made the drafting clear in a way which now makes me entirely happy with Clause 3. My confusion arose from the fact that there should have been some Amendments to it.
Viscount LONG: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

IMPORT OF LIVE FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
6.4 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to restrict in Scotland the import, keeping or release of live fish or shellfish or the live eggs or milt of fish or shellfish of certain species. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (Viscount Thurso.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.
ABINGDON MARKET PLACE BILL [H.L.]
CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
CHRIST CHURCH WOBURN SQUARE AND SAINT MATTHEW OAKLEY SQUARE BILL [H. L.]
COUNTY OF MERSEYSIDE BILL [H.L.]
KENDAL MARKET BILL [H.L.]
MILE END GARDENS (PORTSMOUTH) BILL [H.L.]
UNION THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN IRELAND BILL [H. L.]
WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
WEST YORKSHIRE BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.