Lords Sitting of 15 February 1979

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

SOUTH AFRICA: ECONOMIC SANCTIONS
Viscount TRENCHARD: 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 who they think would suffer, and to what extent, from the imposition of mandatory economic sanctions on South Africa; and whether they will firmly resist any such proposals.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, comprehensive economic sanctions against South Africa would have important and serious consequences for the British economy, especially on employment in this country and our investment in South Africa. The precise effect would, however, depend on the context and nature of the sanction. Comprehensive sanctions would also seriously affect other Western countries as well as South Africa's neighbours. However, as the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said in another place on 22nd November, South Africa cannot be,
"given a blank cheque to pursue policies in Southern Africa, either internally or externally, which are in direct contravention of the United Nations Charter".—[Official Report, Commons; col. 1252.]
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, and while one is hopefully aware that there is a chance of agreement on elections in Namibia, and while sharing the distaste, which we all do, of apartheid, may I ask whether the noble Lord would not agree, in view of the serious effects of sanctions which he has just outlined, that if sanctions were effective they would not only have the serious effects that he mentioned, but would also have a disastrous effect on the black as well as the
1392
white population of South Africa? Does this not make it so serious as to make it a policy that it is wrong even to contemplate, and would the noble Lord not agree that the best chance of change is to keep open every channel of contact, including the trade channel, so that enlightenment may seep in through every pore?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that in making his Statement my right honourable friend put the position in a very balanced way. He indicated that this country would keep in proper relation to its obligations under the Charter. We can do no other. On the other hand, he quite rightly pointed out that we have very strong economic links with South Africa—I understand that our investment there has a market value of some £5,000 million—and we are dependent on that general area for vital materials, vital minerals, for our industry and our workforce. The two points must be kept in relation to each other, and that is precisely what this Government will continue to do.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the lines of communication referred to on the other side have been open for a very long time and appear to have resulted in the policy of apartheid which we all abhor? Is he aware that it was only in the early hours of this morning when I returned from discussing this very subject with all the leaders of East and Central Africa, and I did so with those of West Africa earlier this year, and that there is unanimous agreement that the prestige and reputation of this Government and of this country will depend on the action in which they participate in removing this racialist scourge of apartheid? Is my noble friend now aware that the exports of this country to Nigeria alone are double those to South Africa, so that there is both a practical and a moral issue involved in this subject?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I certainly agree that it is a twofold question of principle and of interest, as so often happens in these matters. We have a responsibility to use our economic influence to apply pressure for peaceful change and to maintain communication, as we do, with the South

1393
African Government and with others involved in Southern Africa. Our dependence on trade with South Africa—and I agree with my noble friend that we have quite vital interests in trade with other parts of Africa—and our dependence on them for materials gives us a leverage of influence which we are exerting. Indeed, we recently discussed in this House a code of conduct on employment in South Africa, which the White Paper last year sought to commend to British employers in that area. Considerable advances have been made on the basis of the guidance issued by that White Paper, and we intend shortly to provide a full assessment of British company reports under the code. We shall then consider what further steps might be taken to encourage compliance with the code. So there is advance in this matter.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord, whose first Answer acknowledged the economic realities of life, explain to his noble friend behind him the consequences of mandatory sanctions on Zambia, on Botswana, on Namibia and on Swaziland?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords. I thought that the noble Lord had, in a way, done that already by putting the question in the way in which he did. But perhaps I can add my own meagre support to what he has said. It is true that wide-ranging economic sanctions would have serious implications for South Africa's neighbours, such as Botswana, Lesotho, and Swaziland, whose economies are very closely linked with that of South Africa.
Lord GLADWYN: Can the Minister confirm that sanctions can be imposed only as a result of action taken under Chapter 7 of the Charter, involving the agreement of all permanent members of the Security Council?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is absolutely right. Sanctions can be imposed only as a result of action taken under Chapter 7, and it would have to be international action taken at the instigation of and with the authority of the United Nations. I did not understand my noble friend to suggest that this
1394
country should engage in unilateral sanctions against South Africa.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I had a letter yesterday from two friends in Cape Town who wanted to know what we thought about the situation in South Africa. Whatever we may think about events in South Africa, can my noble friend tell me of any case where sanctions have been sought to be imposed and where they have been effective? Ever since Italy and the Abyssinian affair, the League of Nations, and later the United Nations have had sanctions. And what has happened? Nothing at all.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that I should answer that question in this way; that is, that economic and social sanctions are a fairly new attempt to provide a substitute for war. It is a moot question whether any war settles for very long certain outstanding questions, but war has been going on for a long time. The substitute for war has not been tried for a long time. It may well be that the way for the future is to continue with refining the methods of non-physical persuasion on countries and Governments as a substitute for the traditional use of force.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, does the Minister agree, and has he heard it from black South Africans, that once majority rule is attained, the future trading policies of a liberated South Africa will be determined, at least partly, by the historical experience the leaders of the liberation movement have had in trying to persuade foreign countries to use economic leverage against the South African régime? Therefore, although the Minister may not be enamoured of sanctions, will he consider very carefully all measures short of sanctions, such as disinvestment in South Africa, which can help to bring apartheid to an end?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, on behalf of the Government my right honourable friend and I will undertake to study various methods of persuasion, including the use of the economic lever, in order to induce Governments to conform more closely with basic principles of human rights. I would not wish to go into detail as to exactly how that leverage might be best exercised.

1395
I personally think that if we are involved economically in South Africa it means two things: we are dependent to that extent upon them, and they are dependent upon us to that extent. Therefore, we should use that interdependency to continue to try to persuade them peacefully to change their ways.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, as my noble friend is tempted to accept the argument that sanctions have not been effective, I wonder whether he would be good enough to explain to the House the phenomenon which causes Mr. Smith's many friends on the Tory Benches constantly to demand the removal of sanctions against Rhodesia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think the answer to that question would best come from the noble Lords to whom my noble friend presumably addressed his question.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think we have had a good run on this Question. We ought to proceed to the next.

NORTHERN IRELAND: INFANT MORTALITY
3.17 p.m.
Lord PLANT: 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 the statistics on infant mortality in Northern Ireland compare with those for other regions of the United Kingdom, particularly with other development and depressed areas, and with those for other industrial countries and other member States of the EEC.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett): My Lords, the rates of perinatal and infant mortality in Northern Ireland are higher than the overall rates for the rest of the United Kingdom, the other EEC countries and industrial countries in Western Europe and North America. In certain industrial areas of the United Kingdom, rates are higher than or similar to those in Northern Ireland.
Lord PLANT: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his frank reply, I feel that it will cause some concern to the citizens of Northern Ireland. Does he agree that the relatively high rate of infant mortality in Northern Ireland reflects the general level of deprivation experienced by the whole of the community? Therefore, would he undertake research to find out which infants are at greatest risk? Would he also undertake research towards lowering the rate of infant mortality in this unhappy Province?
Lord MELCHETT: Yes, my Lords, I agree with my noble friend that one of the major factors at work is the general level of poverty and deprivation in Northern Ireland. As to which sections of the community are most affected, clearly it is those in the lower social classes who have the worst records of infant mortality and perinatal mortality and, therefore, clearly those who are suffering most from poor housing and low income levels in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the Western world. At the end of last year, the Government set up a high level committee in Northern Ireland to look into this question and to recommend the priorities by which we should act. The fact that infant mortality rates can be substantially reduced is already well known and experience in many other Western European countries shows that this is possible. We have asked this committee to report as urgently as possible on the priorities by which we should tackle the question in Northern Ireland.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can my noble friend say that the high infant mortality in Northern Ireland is due to a low standard of living, or is it due to poor ante-natal care?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, without wanting to pre-empt the report that this committee may make, I think that poverty and the factors associated with poverty are likely to be the major reasons. The standard of ante-natal care in Northern Ireland tends to be very high, but there is another problem on the medical side, namely, the lack of concentration of acute medical facilities and particularly maternity units. My noble friend may have

1397
seen an article in the Guardian this week which mentioned that factor. This is something on which the Government are pressing ahead as rapidly as possible, although of course there is a good deal of local opposition to the concentration of acute medical facilities in Northern Ireland.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend say how the infant mortality statistics of Northern Ireland compare with those of the rest of Ireland?
Lord MELCHETT: No, my Lords, I am afraid I do not answer in this House for the Republic of Ireland and I do not have the statistics to hand, but if there are any published figures I will let my noble friend have them.
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the higher cost of energy in Northern Ireland places a grave burden on many family budgets, and that therefore the level of heating available in houses where there are infants and the level of nutrition available to them is perhaps inferior to that which may exist in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, certainly the high level of cost in. domestic heating is one of the factors which causes the overall level of poverty in Northern Ireland to be the highest of any region in the United Kingdom. As I have already said, I am sure that is a major factor in the very bad figures that we in Northern Ireland have. Maybe I might just add that although the figures are bad they have been improving particularly rapidly in the last two years for which figures are available, 1975/77. However, although things are improving, we still have a long way to go.
Lord SMITH: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has been brought into the discussions that have taken place so far? By their very Charters our Royal Colleges are supposed to protect standards on behalf of the community, and if they were brought in here I believe that the network of regional advisers which all colleges have set up would be of great use. May we know whether this is so?
Lord MELCHETT: Yes, my Lords. Many of the leading hospital and university specialists from Northern Ireland are represented on the committee which, as I mentioned, was set up by the Government at the end of last year, along with family doctors, community physicians, midwives, health visitors and so on. It is a broadly representative committee with a great deal of the expertise that is available in Northern Ireland at the moment.

OILFIELD ROYALTY REFUNDS
3.24 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what information they would require before agreeing to refund royalties on an otherwise unprofitable offshore oilfield.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Government would require information sufficient to demonstrate to us that the benefits to the nation from making a refund would justify its cost and that without the refund the development concerned would not go ahead. In the first instance it would be for the applicant to provide the information which would enable us to be satisfied on these points. Naturally, further information may be requested by the Government.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that in at least one case an applicant company was confronted by such an enormous questionnaire, requiring such extensive research, that it reckoned that the cost of the effort of answering the questionnaire was likely to be greater than the benefit of the refund, and is this not rather a counter-productive procedure?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I find this difficult to believe; but I must put it to the noble Earl that the sums involved might be large and we must have sufficient information to satisfy ourselves that a

1399
royalty refund is in the national interest and is necessary to allow a project to go ahead.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, without wishing to embarrass individuals or companies on the floor of the House, I would be most willing to give him personally and privately the information which he doubts that I possess? But may I ask him this question: Is he aware that on one occasion recently a company applying for this advantage was invited to provide information about its activities at the other end of the world, which have nothing whatever to do with the North Sea at all?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, it would be for applicants to supply the information to persuade us that their application should be granted. The nature of their application and the sort of case they seek to make will determine what further information is required.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the noble Earl is about a month too late with this Question, given the present situation?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, that may well be so. If I might just develop the other point—because I am trying to be helpful to the noble Earl and to the House—in this sector the initiative has to come from the company seeking a refund. We are ready to do business and it is up to the company to prove its case. What we are not ready to do is to use the power to refund as a form of negative income tax for oil companies.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, seeking to reciprocate the noble Lord's eagerness to help me and the House, may I ask one final question; namely, how many companies have in fact applied for such remission of royalty?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we received one application, which we rejected.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us may not know whether we are a month too late or a month too early? But is he
1400
further aware that some of us have now had a practical example of the economic system which I spoke about a month ago; namely, that of socialising the losses and privatising the profits of the oil companies, and whatever else might be said about it, it is rather seeking to socialise losses in oil when one of their competitive ventures fails.
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords. These are the British Isles, not the Cayman Islands.

BELIZE: POLICY ON INDEPENDENCE
3.28 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their present policy in regard to Belize and what action they are taking in view of the People's United Party's Manifesto for an Independent Belize, adopted at Belmopan in April 1978, especially paragraph four which asked the United Kingdom Government to ensure the safety of the Belizean people and preserve their independence.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we continue to seek a negotiated settlement to the controversy with Guatemala over Belize. Representatives of the Belize Government and Opposition are involved in the negotiations. No settlement will be made which is unacceptable to the people of Belize.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he does not think that these people have been patient enough, that they need their independence and that the state of insecurity in which they are living is most unfortunate in view of the fact that the United Nations has already given its full support?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords; some months ago the United Nations supported that position, I think by 120 votes to nil with 12 abstentions, which was an increased majority—if I may put it like that—on the result of the previous resolution the year before.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House as to the kind of protection that he envisages might be available to Belize, because presumably that is one of the difficulties of providing adequate protection for them once they get their independence? I wonder whether the Minister can say if anything came of the discussions at the Kingston Commonwealth Conference, when, as I understand it, there was a proposal to have some kind of Commonwealth defence force stationed for some time in Belize?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, such a possibility is by no means ruled out. However, the nature of a negotiated settlement implies that the Guatamalans would be satisfied with the terms of their settlement, as we hope, and that in itself would be the best guarantee of the integrity of an independent Belize. In the meantime, we are responsible for the defence of Belize and for maintaining a garrison there, and we propose to continue to do that.

INVERCLYDE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
SOLICITORS IN THE SUPREME COURTS OF SCOTLAND (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

JUDGMENTS ENFORCEMENT AND DEBTS RECOVERY (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1979
3.31 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th January be approved. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the two orders in relation to Northern Ireland be approved. They relate to the recovery of debts in Northern Ireland. The second of the orders only corrects a minor drafting omission; I shall deal with it later. The main order, the Judgments Enforcement and Debts
1402
Recovery (Northern Ireland) Order seeks to amend the Judgments (Enforcement) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, which provides machinery for the enforcement of judgments and orders of courts in Northern Ireland which has no parallel in the rest of the United Kingdom.
In England and Wales if a person obtains a judgment from a court, be it for payment of money, return of goods or possession of land, then, if the judgment or order is not complied with and has to be enforced, he goes back to the court from which he obtained the order, or sometimes for geographical reasons, a different court, for enforcement. In Northern Ireland, the arrangements are different. Once you have your judgment or order from the court, any enforcement proceedings must be taken in the central Enforcement of Judgments Office, which is situated in Belfast.
The Act of 1969 represented an entirely new venture in this field and is without precedent anywhere in the United Kingdom, and it is now thought that a degree of revision is required in the light of experience. The order before your Lordships today represents the fruits of eight years' experience of the working of the Office, and since I shall shortly be acquiring responsibility for the Office it also includes experience from England and Wales which I hope will further improve matters.
The order is based on proposals published more than a year ago. Since then, there have been intensive discussions with those who may be affected by the order, including the legal profession in Northern Ireland, the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights, public authorities and the affected commercial interests. I am happy to assure your Lordships that the draft order has met with general approval.
It has become clear that, despite the need for improvement, the Office has succeeded in dealing with outstanding matters. A creditor's main interest in any system of enforcement is that it. should produce a payment for him. In the situation which has prevailed in the last few years in Northern Ireland, it has been very difficult for the Office to perform the tasks assigned to it. Despite the difficulties, it has managed to perform the duty of enforcing judgments of the Northern Irish courts in a way which I

1403
think is a credit to the staff involved. Last year, the Office dealt with nearly 5,700 applications. Its success rate, judged by the amount of money recovered, is remarkably high. It has managed to win general confidence in Northern Ireland, and it would be wrong for me in introducing this order not to pay a tribute to Master Anderson—who not only chaired the working party on whose recommendations the Office was set up but who is also, and has been since its inception, the Master of the Enforcement of Judgments Office—and his Chief Enforcement Officer and staff on the way in which they have carried out their duties in conditions which have been far from easy.
If I may turn briefly to the provisions of the order itself, it is a highly technical order the provisions of which are intended to make the Office more efficient and speed up the making of orders and the obtaining of enforcement. It will simply provide the structure by which those improvements will be achieved. I shall, as soon as the order is made, be making Judgment Enforcement Rules which will clothe this structure. My intention is to reduce the complexities of the enforcement process to a minimum, to enable orders to be made quickly and with as little work as possible for all concerned, and, most importantly, to see to it that justice is done, first, to the creditor, in that he gets the money or order he is entitled to as quickly as possible, and, secondly, to the debtor, in seeing that he is fairly treated. I do not think it is necessary for me to go through this complex order in detail, but I shall point out its main provisions to your Lordships.
The first is a provision which attempts to solve the problem of having to go to a court and then to the Office to enforce the payment of a debt. The provisions of Article 19 and Schedule 3 will allow the Office to take enforcement proceedings for the recovery of certain debts without a prior judgment being obtained in a court. A creditor whose debt is for less than £300 and who feels that there is no defence to his claim would be able to go direct to the Office without going to court first and to seek enforcement straight away. If the debtor disputes the debt, then the application will be refused, the creditor will have lost his application fee, and the
1404
matter will have to go back to court while liability is determined. So there will be no risk of this procedure being abused.
Nevertheless, this proposal has given rise to some concern on the part of the Law Society in Northern Ireland. Their concern has been that the Office will not be able to cope with the additional burden placed upon it by this provision. The fear that it may not be able to cope, given the radical changes which are provided for by the rest of the order, some of which I shall deal with in a moment, is a reasonable one. I am glad to be able to give the assurance that I shall not seek to bring this particular provision into operation until there have been further consultations with the users of the Office, including the Law Society, and am satisfied that the arrangements within the Office are such that they can deal with the additional work that might arise.
The other major innovation is the introduction of a system of administration orders. This is very much on the lines provided for in England and Wales by the County Courts Act 1959. The best way of describing administration orders is as a poor man's bankruptcy, although the order does not have quite such a drastic effect as bankruptcy. The proposal meets the difficulty of the large number of debtors who get themselves into a situation where they owe money to a number of creditors, each amount in itself being very small, but where they would be faced with successive enforcement actions against them by those creditors to enforce payment of the sums due. An administration order allows the debtor to apply to the Office for all his debts to be brought to account and for him to pay one sum weekly or monthly to the Office, which will then distribute that payment among the creditors. The advantage for the debtor is that he is protected against his creditors, and the creditors do not have to wait in turn for payment.
Other provisions in the order modify the system of attachment of earnings to bring the system in Northern Ireland into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom, make changes in the way in which a number of enforcement orders will be dealt with in the future, increase the penalties for persons who make misrepresentations in trying to recover a debt, and allow the Northern Ireland

1405
Housing Executive in common with other public bodies in Northern Ireland, to take magistrates' court proceedings without employing a solicitor.
I do not, unless your Lordships wish me to do so in relation to any particular article, intend to deal in detail with any other article. The main purpose of the order is clear. It will make the Office more efficient and, as I have said, it has the general blessing of the Northern Ireland Law Society and other users.
The second order remedies an oversight in the drafting of the Armed Forces Act 1971. The effect of the order is to amend provisions of the Services Acts which allow deductions from pay of members of the Armed Forces, so as to bring within their scope judgment debts which, in Northern Ireland, are enforceable by the EJO. That will make the position the same as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Before I sit down, perhaps I could take this opportunity to repeat what I have indicated in a Written Answer to a Question from the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, this afternoon—namely, that I propose shortly to make a commencement order bringing all the principal remaining provisions of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 into force on 18th April this year. That, therefore, is the date on which all the main changes provided for by that Act will take place, including the transfer of responsibility for the administration of the courts in Northern Ireland from the Secretary of State to the Lord Chancellor. It is also the date which I shall appoint for the commencement of the principal order which is before your Lordships this afternoon. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th January be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, this order includes 35 articles and five Schedules and, in view of its complexity, I am more than usually grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, for his explanation of the main provisions of the order. If I may, I shall confine myself to only two aspects of the order and I shall do so briefly.
1406
The noble and learned Lord has explained that Article 19, taken with Schedule 3, makes new provisions for the recovery of a debt without judgment. I was a little concerned to read paragraph (6) of Schedule 3 which, as I understand it, takes a debtor to have admitted a debt if the debtor does not pay in full by the time he is summoned to attend for examination, or does not comply with the summons or notify the Office in writing that he disputes the debt. As I understand it, we are talking here in Schedule 3 about a situation in which a creditor makes application to the Enforcement of Judgments Office and on payment of a fee alleges that a debt is owed. I should have thought that some further protection for the alleged debtor might perhaps be required in the procedure.
I am aware that in summary proceedings, certainly in England, the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of a fine can sometimes work wonders. In other words, the imposition of an immediate sanction can often wonderfully concentrate the mind of someone who owes money. None the less, I should have thought—and I am asking the noble and learned Lord for his views on this—that perhaps the somewhat peremptory provisions of paragraph (6) of Schedule 3 might be looked at again to see whether a person who, after all, is only alleged to be owing money should be further protected so far as the procedure of Schedule 3 is concerned before the Enforcement of Judgments Office assumes that the debt has been admitted.
I should like to ask one other quick question of the noble and learned Lord regarding Article 34 which he mentioned. He said that the effect of Article 34 was to enable officials of the Housing Executive to appear in magistrates'courts for recovery of rent arrears instead of having to employ a solicitor. I assume that the Northern Ireland Law Society has expressed itself satisfied with that. But is it the case that the provisions of Article 34 will also facilitate the bringing of proceedings in order to try to reduce the enormous rent debt which, so far as I know, I regret to say, still exists in Northern Ireland and which is owing to the Housing Executive? If that is to be the case, then, on those grounds, I most certainly welcome Article 34.

1407
May I also say that I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for announcing to the House the terms of his Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Brooke-borough. It is of interest that the provisions of the Judicature Act are to be brought into force in April. I have no further questions and I most certainly support the passage of this order.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for the courtesy he has shown in announcing the Answer to my Question. It certainly will relieve a great deal of uncertainty in Northern Ireland. There has been a good deal of discussion as to the final date and it will certainly be welcomed. Once again, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his courtesy.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am most grateful to both noble Lords for their support for these orders. I should like to deal with the matters which have been raised. The procedure that is contemplated in Schedule 3 is similar to default procedures in England and Wales. However, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that when the rules are drawn up I shall bear in mind the importance of adequate safeguards for the debtor. I am grateful to him for drawing specific attention to the matter.
As regards Article 34, I am aware that representatives of the legal profession in Northern Ireland are not happy about this provision, but I can only say that we have looked into it and have concluded that it is really sensible for public authorities who have been diligent enough to establish teams of officials for the purpose of recovering arrears to be allowed to nominate those officials to appear on their behalf in court to prove the debt.
As for the amount of debt, the Housing Executive is the only Northern Ireland public authority which is not allowed to proceed in the summary courts for the recovery of debts over £100. There is, I think, no good reason for that and we have concluded that there is a clear case for bringing the Housing Executive into line with the other public bodies. There is an undoubted problem of recovery of outstanding rent payments in Northern
1408
Ireland and the process of seeking recovery is being dealt with. I venture to think that what is proposed here will to some extent assist in that operation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

JUDGMENTS ENFORCEMENT (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1979
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th January be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL
3.48 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read for a second time. This is a simple Bill with a simple object. It aims to bring the representation of Northern Ireland in the other place into line with the representation of the rest of the United Kingdom. In doing so it follows precisely the recommendations of an all-Party Speaker's Conference. At the moment Northern Ireland has 12 Members of Parliament, each of whom represents on average 86,000 electors. The comparable average for Scottish MPs is 54,000; for Welsh MPs it is 57,000; and for English MPs 66,000.
This under-representation of Northern Ireland at Westminster has existed since 1920. At that time Northern Ireland was the only part of the United Kingdom which had a devolved Government. And the existence of a local Parliament at Stormont, which could debate and legislate on a wide range of matters, led to a widespread acceptance that Northern Ireland's representation at Westminster should be at a lower level than that of England, Scotland and Wales, all of whose affairs were dealt with by Westminster. But circumstances have changed since 1920; among other

1409
things, the importance of central Government has greatly increased. It was against the background of an increased awareness of the need for adequate representation at Westminster that consideration was given last year to the question of what should happen to the representation of Scotland and Wales after the creation of devolved Assemblies there. In considering an Amendment to the Scotland and Wales Bill in February 1977, the other place rejected any reduction in Scottish or Welsh representation after devolution. And in passing the Scotland Act and Wales Act last Session, Parliament endorsed that view. That February vote had immediate repercussions for Northern Ireland. If Scotland and Wales deserved full representation even after devolution, how was it possible any longer to justify Northern Ireland continuing to have a deliberately reduced level of representation?
The Government decided that this could not be justified. In March 1977 my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced that he would ask a Speaker's Conference to consider Northern Ireland's representation. In the early summer of 1977 Mr. Speaker agreed to preside over this Conference. Its members included representatives of all three main Parties of both political traditions in Northern Ireland. Its terms of reference were
"to consider, and make recommendations on, the number of parliamentary constituencies that there should be in Northern Ireland".
The Conference met eight times, heard oral evidence and considered written submissions. With one vote against, the Conference recommended:
"That the number of parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland should be seventeen but that the Boundary Commission should be given the power to vary that number, subject to a minimum of sixteen and a maximum of eighteen".
This Bill will implement that recommendation. The Bill sets the target figure for Northern Ireland's representation at 17. But it allows for this to be varied to 16 or 18 if the Boundary Commission so recommends. That ability to vary is not expected to be used at first, but it may prove useful in later years to help the Commission cope with population movement in particular areas. The other Boundary Commissions already have some flexibility. The Bill also includes some
1410
additional minor provisions, all of which are consequential on the increase in the number of seats. When this Bill becomes law, there will not be an immediate increase in Northern Ireland's representation. That must wait first on the recommendations of the independent Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland which will have the job of dividing Norrhern Ireland up into the larger number of new constituencies. In due course—after perhaps two years, giving time for objections to be made and considered—the Commission will report to the Secretary of State. It will then be for Parliament to approve a draft Order in Council, giving effect to the Commission's recommendations.
That is almost all that I want to say about the Bill. But I should like to say a brief word about the criticisms that have been made of the Government's decision to introduce it. There is by now almost nothing new to say about the claim that the Bill is aimed at securing Unionist votes in the other place. Those who believe this, despite the strong denials of my right honourable friends—and of the leaders of the Official Unionists—are unlikely to be convinced by anything I might say. I shall say only that any examination of the Unionists'voting record scarcely bears out the view that this Bill has transformed them into Government supporters. A perhaps more understandable criticism of the Bill comes from those who fear that it will lead (and perhaps that it was intended to lead) to a closer integration of Northern Ireland with Great Britain. There is, in fact, no reason at all for concern on that score. The Government's decision to introduce this Bill in no way lessens our determination to work towards the creation of a system of devolved government in Northern Ireland that is acceptable to both parts of the community there. Full representation of Scotland and Wales in the other place has not prevented major constitutional changes being made for those two parts of the United Kingdom. It will not prevent such changes in Northern Ireland. There is no reason at all why fair representation in Parliament should stand in the way of political progress in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Melchett.)
3.55 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, during 1977 and early 1978 Mr. Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law considered the number of parliamentary constituencies for Northern Ireland, and the evidence which the Conference discovered provides a compelling case for the passage of this Bill. In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has given the figures for the different electoral quotas according to which part of the United Kingdom one refers. The disparity in representation shown by these figures—incidentally, the noble Lord's figures have been updated since the Conference reported—persuaded the members of the Conference to agree, by 22 votes to one, that Northern Ireland's parliamentary seats should be increased from 12 to a number, which the noble Lord explained in a little detail, that was not less than 16 and not more than 18. That recommendation is provided for in Clause 1 of the Bill.
I should like to make one observation on this. I believe that this new total will, as nearly as possible, give Northern Ireland similar representation to that for the other parts of the United Kingdom, and that is only fair. When it is considered, from the figures given to us by the noble Lord, that on average each Northern Ireland Member of Parliament represents some 20,000 more electors than each Member for an English constituency and on average over 30,000 more electors than are represented by each Scottish Member, one can see the measure of the workload which falls upon Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, and that is the extent of the under-representation of most of the electors of Northern Ireland.
In essence, that is the case for the Bill which the Government have explained to us this afternoon in greater detail. I welcome the fact that if this legislation becomes law, it will also create far more workable terms of reference for the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission. Rule 1 for the Redistribution of Seats, as set out in Schedule 2 to the 1949 Act, provides that whereas the total number of constituencies for Great Britain can be altered either upwards or downwards, within reason, and for Scotland and Wales the number of seats can be increased, the total for Northern Ireland has been fixed at 12 exactly. Therefore, as over the
1412
years the size of the electorate in the Province has increased—and since 1949 the increase in the quota for Northern Ireland has been greater than that in any other part of the United Kingdom—so Rule 1 has increasingly deprived the Boundary Commission of almost any flexibility in being able to redraw the constituency boundaries.
Therefore, the increase provided for in the Bill will enable the requirement of Rule 5 to be met. Rule 5 states that constituencies should be as near to the electoral quota as is practicable. However, there is one important question which I should like to ask the Minister. Can the noble Lord confirm that in discharging its responsibility under Rule 5, the Boundary Commission will have regard to Rule 6?— which provides for special geographical conditions to be taken into account. I ask that question because if one looks at Rule 6 one sees that it is a permissive rule. Rule 6 is obviously of special relevance in this context because Northern Ireland has large rural areas where the population is thin compared to some of the densely-populated areas in the United Kingdom. Of course, the noble Lord will know better than I that the population in the West of the Province is of a different nature from that of the density of the population in the East. It needs to be said clearly that Rule 6 will be taken into account by the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in saying that I can find nothing in the Bill which need prevent or discourage any devolution of government to Northern Ireland in the future. The Royal Commission on the Constitution, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, recommended that all parts of the United Kingdom should have their parliamentary representation decided by the same rules. Your Lordships may remember that it concluded that the number of Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland should be about 17.
If I may just turn aside for a moment and conjecture as to what conclusion a Speaker's Conference on Scottish representation in the future might reach, then my conclusion is that it would reach none. Certainly Parliament has accepted the view put forward by your Lordships'

1413
House during the Scotland Bill that some second thought is necessary when English legislation is to be passed by virtue of the votes of Scottish Members of Parliament, who are over-represented anyway in another place. But none of that has any bearing at all upon the Northern Ireland situation, for in Northern Ireland the Province is substantially under-represented, and of course there are no devolved powers at issue at the moment so far as Northern Ireland is concerned—I think to the regret of all parts of your Lordships' House.
I join with the noble Lord again in saying that I do not find anything in this Bill to persuade me that this legislation would in some way integrate Northern Ireland more closely with Great Britain. After all the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom has been confirmed in legislation on two occasions by Governments of the Conservative Party and the Labour Party since the war. The case for this Bill is not involved therefore, I believe, in any arguments either for devolution or integration. Equality of parliamentary representation rests upon its merits. Maybe noble Lords will not agree with me in this, but nor do I think that it is practicable for a fundamental change to be made in this Bill so far as the method of voting is concerned. Of course it is true that the single transferable vote method of voting is in use in Northern Ireland for local government, was used for the Northern Ireland Assembly and is to be used for the European Assembly elections. But it was possible for proportional representation to be used for local government and the Assembly elections without any need to compare the way in which people were voting in Northern Ireland with the way in which people would be voting in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Whereas the European Assembly Members in Northern Ireland, I admit, will be elected on a different system from those in Great Britain, but for the same Assembly, that, as I understand it, is almost certainly only going to be a transitory arrangement. Incidentally, it is an arrangement of which I and many of my colleagues on these Benches would not approve. However, to depart from a uniform system of voting for all parts of the United Kingdom at a General
1414
Election would be an innovation demanding consultation and, if possible, agreement between the political Parties.
The whole strength, as I understand it, of a Speaker's Conference is that when possible such a Conference is set up with agreement. There was that agreement between the main political Parties to the setting up of the Conference in another place. At the conclusion of its work the Conference was also almost unanimous in agreeing on the number of constituencies that should be redistributed in Northern Ireland. But Mr. Speaker's Conference did not consider the method of voting, and consequently the Long Title of this Bill is concerned only with the number of Northern Ireland constituencies.
It is not possible—it is clear from what the noble Lord said from the Government Front Bench—to forecast how long the Boundary Commission will need to complete its work. All we know is that the provisions of this Bill are justified and are overdue. On this side of the House, we shall give our support so that this Bill can be passed into law as swiftly as possible.
4.4 p.m.
Lord HAMPTON: My Lords, since the Education (Northern Ireland) Bill was first given a Second Reading in your Lordships' House in June 1977 there has been a real sense of accord between the three main Parties in discussions about Northern Ireland. This has been most welcome, but I fear that there is a distinct difference of opinion over this Bill today. I look forward to hearing the Alliance Party's views from my noble friend Lord Dunleath, and also the views of other noble Lords from the Province and from the Republic.
The history of Ulster has not been happy, I need hardly tell you this. The Liberal Party agree that it would be disastrous to bow to the "Brits out" call by threatening to withdraw our troops in a hurry. Westminster has all too often shown a tragic lack of concern for the problems of Ireland, and it would be to follow a counsel of despair and supposed self-interest if we were abruptly to withdraw and leave a divided populace,

1415
literally perhaps to fight the matter out in a bloody civil war. Tensions have built up over a long time and they cannot be resolved overnight. We must help the people of Northern Ireland to work for a happier future. We must not deny them reasonable help. We, too, do not forget that in the long run we want to make it possible for Northern Ireland again to be self-governing, and we want it to take its place alongside the regions and nations of a federal Europe.
As for the Bill we are considering today, the Liberal position is virtually unchanged from when we gave evidence on the subject to the Speaker's Conference in October 1977. First, we then argued and agreed that Ulster was clearly under-represented at Westminster, and simple arithmetic suggested that an increase of four extra Members would be almost exactly right. The present probability of an increase by five we have no intention of opposing, but we take this opportunity to remind the Government that the task of a Boundary Commission, seeking to change the representation in single-Member constituencies, would be much harder than in multi-Member constituencies.
The precise location of boundary in single-Member constituencies can sometimes swing the vote between one Party and another, while the location of boundaries for a multi-Member constituency, whose Members are elected by proportional representation (PR), does not in itself govern the Party proportion of seats. For this reason, agreeing boundaries is made much easier. We should like to see four multi-Member constituencies rather than 17. I hope that your Lordships will at least agree with me that it should be much easier to divide the present 12 by four rather than by 17.
We stated, secondly, in 1977 our firm belief that common fairness demanded not only that there should be more Members for Northern Ireland at Westminster but that these Members should be elected by the method of proportional representation known as the single transferable vote. And here, I fear, I must cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, when I submit that the Government have not been playing altogether fair; but I shall of course listen with great
1416
interest to what the noble Lord the Minister has to say when he winds up at the end of the debate.
I have two points. First, the imposition of direct rule in 1972 caused renewed demands for more seats, but these demands were regularly resisted by Governments of both Parties until March 1977. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has commented that some people have suggested that this is a policy of convenience. I will not put that point. Secondly, the Irish Times of 10th October 1978 said this:
"The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Mason, has promised the SDLP that he will seriously consider the possibilities of introducing PR for Northern Ireland in future Westminster elections. Such a move, if it did come about, should enhance the chances of non-Unionist Parties winning seats".
The article continues:
"Mr. Mason gave his assurance at a private dinner party with the SDLP's six top officials at Stormont Castle … according to reliable sources in Belfast. His guests, especially past chairman Mr. Denis Haughey, put up a spirited case for changing the present straight vote system to PR.
The Secretary of State listened to their arguments, then while stressing that he could not promise anything, gave an undertaking to study the proposal seriously".
I might add that it seems extraordinary, or odd, to say the least, that this Bill was drafted in such a fashion that there was no way in which the other place could introduce what the Secretary of State had said he would consider so seriously.
In the Second Reading debate of 28th November last year in the other place, the Secretary of State said at column 243:
"It is right that Northern Ireland should now have its fair representation".
He meant only, it seems, the proportion of MPs to electorate, for later he said at column 246:
"It do not think that this is the time to discuss proportional representation, which is a major constitutional issue deserving of quite separate consideration".
The number of seats is to be increased by nearly 50 per cent., which is a very large change, and such a large change in the electoral conditions makes a very suitable occasion for a change here also.
I therefore hope the Minister will say what occasion—I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is not on our side—the Government think would be

1417
appropriate for discussing PR for Members for Northern Ireland at Westminster. When a Statement on Northern Ireland representation at Westminster was briefly debated in your Lordships' House on 19th April 1978 the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made it clear that the Government viewpoint was—
"that it would not be desirable to have elections to another place in some parts of the United Kingdom held 0:1 one basis and in other parts held on a different basis".—[Official Report, col. 1174.]
I submit that if the question is looked at from the point of view of Northern Ireland, the logical deduction might well be different. After all, elections by PR (Lord Belstead mentioned this, too) have been held over there in all these cases: for university MPs from 1921 to 1965; for the Assembly in 1973; for the Constitutional Convention in 1975; and for local councils in 1973 and 1977. The elections in Northern Ireland to the European Assembly this year, as has been said, are also to be held by PR. Thus, the only important elections in Northern Ireland which are not by proportional representation are the elections to Westminster. It can be added that in Great Britain, anyway, the elections for certain university seats at Westminster from 1918 to 1945 were also by PR, and it seems that that has worked extremely well.
To sum up on this point, Northern Ireland will have had elections by PR—by the single transferable vote—in 1973, 1975, 1977 and 1979 and it will be the elections to Westminster by X-voting that will be the exception rather than the rule. Further, it is difficult to see how the Government justify a supposed mandate here based on 38 per cent. of the votes cast or 29 per cent. of the electorate. As Miss Enid Lakeman, that expert on How Democracies Vote, wrote on the February 1974 election:
"The result of that election might have been designed to illustrate all the anomalies of the single member first-past-the-post system and to demonstrate that it cannot be relied upon to fulfil any of the purposes for which an election might be designed".
We are concerned in this debate with Northern Ireland. What some noble Lords may not realise is that in February 1974—and the October election was only marginally fairer—the United Ulster Unionist Coalition, the Vanguard Unionist Progressive Party and the Democratic
1418
Unionist Party had a bare majority of 51·1 per cent. of the votes cast but won 11 out of 12 seats; that is, 92 per cent. Mr. Brian Faulkner's pro-Assembly Unionists won 13·1 per cent. of the votes but won no representation at all. I believe it is perhaps even more vital in Ulster than anywhere else that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done.
A final comment. The British electoral system is often defended on the grounds that although admittedly unfair—based on simple arithmetic—none the less it leads to strong and stable government. I would, with respect, ask your Lordships to consider that view very seriously in the light of our present national predicament.
4.15 p.m.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, in the political context of Northern Ireland, I believe the arguments for and against the Bill have been much exaggerated. Apart from the considerable coverage in the media, especially the media in Ireland, the Second Reading and Committee debates in another place were contained in over 292 columns of Hansard. However, it is perhaps important to remember that in Northern Ireland every matter of proposed political change can take on an incredible symbolic significance, and it is perhaps that symbolic significance that I should be dealing with more than the context of the Bill.
It is my view that the Bill itself will not form a basis for reconciliation and any significant progress in Northern Ireland; nor will it place any great obstacle in the way of such reconciliation and political progress. Nevertheless, it would be naive not to recognise that the Bill is a clear and unambiguous expression of the commitment of the United Kingdom Government to uphold the constitutional status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. As such, it is natural that the Bill should be looked on with dismay by those who feel that the logic of events in Northern Ireland over the past 10 years might have suggested that, with direct rule and the formal recognition of the Irish dimension, those were steps towards disengagement rather than what now appears to be the case; namely, a closer integration of the Province within the United Kingdom.

1419
Successive Governments and Secretaries of State have committed themselves to the view that any pattern of government in Northern Ireland must be acceptable both to the Parliament of the United Kingdom and to both sections of the community in Northern Ireland; and, since Northern Ireland shares a common border with the Irish Republic, a commitment to the view that there is an Irish dimension must also be taken into account. In the Labour Party's last Election Manifesto, in October 1974, it was stated:
"There must be some form of power-sharing and partnership, because no political system will be secure, or be supported, unless there is widespread acceptance of it within the community. There must be a genuine participation by both communities in the direction of affairs".
Moreover, that Manifesto contained no reference to increased Northern Ireland representation at Westminster. It will be noted, however, that the demand for more seats for Ulster at Westminster came earlier in 1974; it came from a conference held at Portrush, County Antrim, on 26th April 1974. That conference was comprised of delegates from the three Ulster loyalist Parties—the official Unionists, the DUP and the VUPP—together with representatives from the two Protestant para-military bodies, the Ulster Vanguard Force and the Ulster Defence Association.
As well as the demand for additional seats, that conference also called for the abolition of the power-sharing Executive, an end to the idea of a Council of Ireland, and for the re-establishment of a regional parliament. Two of those objectives were achieved a month later, in May 1974, despite the fact that power-sharing and the cross-border dialogue were supported by every Party in the United Kingdom Parliament and in the Republic of Ireland.
With the granting of the extra seats at Westminster and with the talk by Opposition spokesmen of local government powers being devolved to a regional council, it is not at all surprising that some people of goodwill suspect that what is afoot is nothing less than a return to the past and a complete retreat from the principles of reconciliation and the building of non-sectarian political structures in Northern Ireland. I wish to say firmly that I do not share those views, for while I believe there are many in Northern Ireland, perhaps too many,
1420
who have learned nothing from the 10 years of civil strife and suffering—and who have perhaps forgotten nothing, either—I am convinced there is now a substantial body in the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Parties at Westminster who will not allow either community in Northern Ireland to be abandoned by institutionalising the permanent ascendancy or dominance by one community over the other in Northern Ireland.
Nevertheless, the issue does not turn on the "original sin" of some of the Bill's supporters; nor should it be considered in the context of a possible recurrence of the 1964 election result, when, (as has been suggested in another place) had an additional five Ulter Unionist seats been available, they could have secured the return of Sir Alec Douglas-Home as Prime Minister. The pages of history might have been different; today we share and benefit from the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, in this House. So, while some may speculate and some may postulate about what might have been in the past, and what may be in the future, I should prefer to accept the position expressed by the late Archbishop of Ireland, Cardinal William Conway, when in a similar political situation he advised:
"Let us take the action that in conscience appears fair and just, and leave the rest to history".
Indeed, the issue is a simple one. It is simple once we accept the pledge given on behalf of the United Kingdom Government by Clement Attlee in the 1948 Government of Northern Ireland Act. The pledge was that the people of Northern Ireland would not be coerced out of the United Kingdom against the wishes of the majority. That pledge has been reiterated by successive United Kingdom Governments. It has also been accepted by the Governments of the Irish Republic, and by the Northern Ireland Social Democratic and Labour Party.
The issue is also simple when we reflect that, in the so-termed "border poll" held in Northern Ireland in 1973, 591,820 electors in Ulster voted to remain citizens of the United Kingdom, and only 6,463 voted to join the Irish Republic out of an electorate of 1 million. So long as the right is accepted that Northern Ireland remains within the United Kingdom, it is

1421
entirely consistent that a Labour Government should accept Northern Ireland's entitlement to an equitable share of seats.
I know that there are some doubts cast on the integrity of the Government, and indeed on the Speaker's Conference Report in regard to this matter. However, I would argue that once the Kil-brandon Constitutional Commission—and indeed Parliament itself, in February 1977—accepted that the principle of devolution does not justify under-representation, there is no way, in logic or in principle, in which the Government could resist the demand for greater representation. As well as this, had the Government refused to act on the additional seats issue, there would be little hope of preserving the bipartisan approach to Northern Ireland matters, since the Conservative Party is already committed to the proposal for additional representation.
In another place, the Northern Ireland Secretary of State has already declared that, with the increasing role of central Government, the people of Northern Ireland are no less entitled to a say in the decisions of the sovereign Parliament. This point has already been made this afternoon by the Minister from the Front Bench. There is also the fact that constituents should have greater access to more representation; each MP having an easier work load in terms of numbers.
Arising from doubts expressed concerning the possible impartiality of the Boundary Commission, I welcome, and wish to draw attention to, a reply by the Minister of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Concannon. He said,
"It is up to the Boundary Commission to make recommendations and to hear appeals, but it will be Parliament that will have the final say on the boundaries for the new seats".
This point, too, was referred to by the Minister in introducing the debate.
I agree with a point made by many of those who spoke when the Bill was debated in another place. The point is that we cannot consider Westminster representation in isolation from all the other aspects of the Northern Ireland problem. I am indeed sorry that the Government were unable to realise the expressed hope of the previous Northern Ireland Secretary of State that this additional seats proposal would be considered along with the proposal for a wider acceptable form of. local administration.
1422
Indeed, while it may not be the fault of the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that these two issues—additional seats and devolved government—have been divorced, in parliamentary discussion terms, it is unfortunately being interpreted as a victory for the very people who are unwilling to support the kind of local administration which would meet the approval of this Parliament. Nevertheless, I believe that, paradoxically, the Bill should now make it more difficult for those politicians who are opposed to participation by the minority in Government and to the recognition of the Irish dimension. It will make it more difficult for them to do as they did in 1974 and persuade large sections of the Northern Ireland population that partnership government and some form of a Council of Ireland are part of a plot to submerge the majority, against their wish, into an all-Ireland Republic.
The measures in the Bill take nothing away from any section of the Northern Ireland community. What the Bill can do is to provide a basis for confidence and trust for those of the majority community whose fears have been exploited in the past—exploited by those who, for narrow Party political gain, wish to destroy any attempts at reconciliation, the fostering of goodwill within Northern Ireland, and the promotion of genuine cross-border co-operation.
Increased representation firmly underpins the guarantees which have been given to the Northern Ireland people. It demonstrates that there is no ambiguity on the part of any political party at Westminster. It resolutely confirms the position of the United Kingdom Parliament concerning the men of violence: that their methods are without hope, and that the bomb, the bullet, and intimidation cannot succeed in creating progressive change of policy on the part of the United Kingdom Government. I believe that this position is also shared by the Government of the Irish Republic.
It appears to me that the time may now be opportune to achieve agreement between the main political Parties in Northern Ireland. I realise that hitherto the SDLP has opposed more representation at Westminster. The Unionist Parties have opposed partnership government and cross-border co-operation.

1423
I believe that the relevance, or irrelevance, of the Bill will be judged in years to come by its effect on the two basic issues now facing those who represent the people of Northern Ireland. The first is that, now that the representation of Northern Ireland is to be enhanced at Westminster, will the Unionists now move some way towards guaranteeing the form of participation in local administration to allay the fears of the minority, and thus obtain devolution from Westminster?
The same position can apply to the second issue; namely, cross-border cooperation, or the Irish dimension. There is no doubt that from 1969 to 1974 many peace-loving people in Northern Ireland were genuinely afraid that a United Kingdom Government—probably a Labour Government—would declare their intention to reunite Ireland by abandoning Northern Ireland.
The fact that a Labour Government have conceded the case for additional seats at Westminster demonstrates that the Ulster people have nothing to fear, and much to gain, from more direct and designed cross-border co-operation. It is quite farcical that in June this year Ireland will be sending representatives from Northern Ireland and from the Irish Republic to meet on the Continent of Europe, and yet if they met in Belfast or in Dublin, to consult on matters of mutual benefit, some politicians could be calling for sections of workers to disrupt industry and public services, or possibly for even harsher forms of action.
In terms of cold logic, the Bill does little to hinder or promote political solutions to the Northern Ireland problem. In terms of the symbolism which is so potent a force in Irish politics, it may be represented as a victory for the majority, and consequently a defeat for the minority. But let us direct this force into something more positive. The controversy and discussion arising out of the Bill could provide a new opportunity to proceed earnestly to achieve a normal, healthy society.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Roy Mason, in a speech on 2nd January last, said:
"Devolution is there, and ready to be grasped"
Is it too much to hope that Her Majesty's
1424
Government will achieve a generous and statesmanlike response in the negotiations with the Northern Ireland MPs, some of whom have in the past so blatantly misrepresented the Government's intentions with regard to partnership government in Northern Ireland, cross-border co-operation, and the additional Westminster seats for Northern Ireland? Let us hope that our Northern Ireland political leaders will themselves make progress towards solving our own Northern Ireland problems in a spirit of fairness, justice and honourable politics.
4.30 p.m.
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, first of all I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blease, on having joined us in this House. Unfortunately I was not able to be here when he made his maiden speech, so perhaps I might, instead, congratulate him on his speech and on his presence, and to congratulate the Government on being wise enough to ensure that what I might describe as the working voice of Belfast should be heard in your Lordships' Chamber. Secondly, I should like to say to the Minister that, owing to a previous engagement, I may not be able to be here when he winds up the debate.
My Lords, I shall confine my remarks largely to the question of proportional representation, and first, if I may, I will do so on a national basis. I have to declare an interest. I have for some time now been a member of CAER, which, for those of your Lordships who do not know, stands for Conservative Action for Electoral Reform. I am also a member of the National Committee for Electoral Reform. Incidentally, both these organisations sit under a Tory Peer. Lastly, I was a member of Lord Blake's committee (which I think helped to change the climate of opinion in Britain), which sat under the aegis of the Hansard Society some three years ago; and Lord Blake, too, I would remind your Lordships, is a Tory Peer. So those who feel that proportional representation is some dangerous, new-fangled idea which nobody should consider for a minute, should bear in mind the facts. They should also bear in mind the fact that immediately after the First World War both Houses at Westminster came out in favour of proportional representation; but the sad

1425
thing is that the House of Lords and the House of Commons could not agree on the method—should it be STV, or should it be some other system?—and as a result we still have the first-past-the-post system. So much, my Lords, for national PR.
Now I should like to move on to the system in operation in Northern Ireland today. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, mentioned the fact that both the Assembly in 1973 and the Convention in 1975 were elected under that system; and now, as your Lordships know, the new European Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland will be elected under that system. The Blake Committee actually recommended the additional-Member system, and I think probably that is a better system nationally, but as the single transferable vote is already in operation in Northern Ireland, obviously that would be the system to pursue if it was going to be pursued. Or—and I do not think this would be as good a way to do it—you could, I suppose, turn the whole Province into a multi-Member constituency; but I would not really advise that.
The facts are, my Lords, that the five extra seats—and let us assume it will be five—could all go to members of the majority community. I am not saying that they will or that they would, but they could. Why was PR insisted upon for Europe? It as largely to allow one Catholic to win one seat. Surely, under a system which would be seen to be manifestly fair, this system should at least be adopted for the additional seats, and ideally for all the Northern Ireland seats at Westminster. Let us consider for a moment the position of Scotland and Wales, because I always find, when discussing these matters with people in England, that they have no idea of the fact that one of the only ways in which the Labour Party wins an Election is with the assistance of Scotland and Wales.
It is for that reason (if not largely, anyway, for that reason) that that section of Kilbrandon was rejected as being impossible. I do not myself believe that we would be considering this Bill today if Lord Kilbrandon's suggestions with regard to a reduction in the number of Members coming to Westminster from Scotland and Wales, because of the fact that there might be Assemblies in those
1426
two countries, had been adopted. Of course, my Lords, there may be other pressing political reasons at the moment why we are considering this Bill, but I will not go into them. I will merely confine myself to expressing the hope that the Government will carefully consider PR as a fairer method of increasing the number of Northern Ireland seats.
4.35 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, the merits of this Bill are so self-evident, and the necessity to rectify a long-standing injustice to the people of Northern Ireland so obvious, that I wondered in advance of this debate what on earth any speaker could find to say, other than to wish this Bill a swift and unhindered passage, and perhaps to express contrition to the people of Northern Ireland for having allowed this evident injustice to continue for such a long period of time.
I should have realised that the Liberals were bound to flog their proportional representation hobby-horse. I must admit that I had not realised that the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, shared these ideas. But here I can only agree with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that it would be quite intolerable to have different voting systems for different parts of the United Kingdom for a General Election. When I use the phrase "United Kingdom", I should like to stress the word "United". Northern Ireland is already an integral part of the United Kingdom, and has been so for very many decades, as various statutes dating back well over 50 years make clear. I think there is a confusion of definition here. When we talk about closer integration, what we really mean is closer har-monisation. Integration as such is already a reality.
When referring to the continuing injustice, I used the words "a long period of time". Had a similar Bill been brought in 18 months ago, I could not have employed that phrase because it would have been an exaggeration, as then the anomaly or the injustice (call it what you will) would have applied only for not quite 5½ years—since the abolition of the Stormont Parliament in the early spring of 1972, in other words. However, the Scottish devolution legislation last year has put an entirely different

1427
complexion on things. We all know the maxim, "No taxation without representation". Perhaps we have not appreciated its logical corollary, "Itnadequate representation deserves lower taxation".
Cynics, and those hostile to Northern Ireland—I am afraid there are all too many such people—will say that Northern Ireland receives more in benefits than it contributes by way of taxation, and that therefore lower representation is justified. But precisely the same element of subsidy applies to the North-East of England, to the greater part of Wales, to Scotland and, indeed, to other peripheral parts of the United Kingdom. Do we find below-average representation in these areas? We do not. The average electorate per Glasgow constituency is less than 44,500. In contrast, the average electorate per Belfast constituency is over 73,500. The obvious injustice is easy to see. The disparity between large rural areas in Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively, is, I suspect, even greater.
The entirely different complexion that the Scotland Act has put on this problem stems from the evident determination of two of the three major political parties in this country to maintain Scottish over-representation in the event of a Scottish Assembly coming into being. The attitude of the third major political party is equivocal, but I doubt that one could expect swift or positive action from that quarter in the event of their coming to power. In other words, the principle has been established, for the time being, at any rate, that the existence of a devolved Parliament is no barrier to the full and, in some cases, excessive representation of a particular part of the United Kingdom at Westminster. This being so, it is clear that the injustice of under-representation for Northern Ireland has continued not just for almost seven years but for over 57 years. I welcome this Bill and I hope that it will speedily become law.
4.40 p.m.
Lord KILBRACKEN: My Lords, it was such a pleasure to hear the Belfast accents of my noble friend Lord Blease ringing out across the Chamber; and what he said on the wide range of subjects that he covered had a great emotional appeal to me. Like him, I cannot oppose the
1428
proposal that the number of seats for Northern Ireland, so long as it remains a part of the United Kingdom, should be increased, as is proposed, from 12 to 17 or thereabouts for the reasons that have already been given. These are not based on the fact that Stormont or some devolved Government does not for the time being exist, but because when there is a devolved Government in Scotland and in Wales the electoral quota will still be less than it is in Northern Ireland, whether there is a devolved Government or not.
My one regret is that we are still left with some doubt as to the number of constituencies that there will be. This is left to the Boundaries Commission. I should have thought that it was a matter that could have been decided upon by Her Majesty's Government and the precise number put into the Bill. We already have all the relevant facts: we know the number of electors and we should be able to calculate the correct number of seats—which, in my opinion, should be 17.
But, my Lords, I find that I cannot support the Bill because I feel that there is no adequate safeguard that the minority community will be properly represented under the Bill as it stands at present. It is impossible to tell how the different Parties will be represented when the number of seats has increased. The Secretary of State in another place suggested that four or five of the 17 seats could well go to anti-Unionist Parties. If that were the case, it would still give the Unionists two extra seats in the House of Commons compared with the anti-Unionists.
Although one can only guess at the number of supporters that there are for each Party—and I know that we can completely dismiss the EEC poll of which the Secretary of State made so much in his broadcast the Sunday before last, because it was completely unrepresentative and one-third of the people taking part in it did not reply to the vote—my own opinion is that if there were at Westminster a democratic representation for Northern Ireland, there would be at least six or seven anti-Unionists; and among them I include members of the Alliance Party who are represented in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. It seems to me that the obvious solution in a case like this—and I am glad that in this we have the powerful support of the noble Lord,

1429
Lord O'Neill of the Maine, to add to that expressed by the Liberal Party through the noble Lord, Lord Hampton—is proportional representation with the single transferable vote in one form or another, whether there are six constituencies, four constituencies or a single constituency.
My Lords, it has been pointed out over and over again that the precedents for that now exist in elections which have taken place in the past and in elections that will take place in the future, not only for the European Assembly but, we are given to understand, for any future form of devolved Government in the Six Counties. Since Parliament is, after all, omnipotent, I cannot see any reason why Amendments to such an effect cannot be put down, as was decided in another place. I will certainly say, particularly in view of the support that this proposal has had, that should the Liberal Party or noble Lords of any other Party put down Amendments to that effect, I would give them my small support.
My Lords, if proportional representation is not employed, then the whole matter is in the hands of the Boundary Commission. Although what the Boundary Commission recommends is subject to parliamentary approval, there is not really very much that we can do about it if we do not agree with what it proposes. The Boundary Commission has extremely wide powers and really very few limitations, except only that electoral quotas should be more or less equal in the 17-odd constituencies and that constituencies should not cross local government boundaries. But this is absolutely at the heart of the matter because the important question is whether the minority community and the members of the Alliance Party are adequately represented. Given the situation that exists in the North at present, and given the very few limitations placed on the Boundary Commission, I would guarantee to be able to sit down and so draw the constituencies that, on the one hand, the anti-Unionist Parties get two out of the 17 or, on the other hand, they get eight out of the 17. It is simply a matter of gerrymandering or, as it is sometimes called in Northern Ireland, through what has so often happened in that city, "Derrymandering".
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying in advance that the Boundary Commission, under an eminent lawyer, is in fact going to gerrymander the seats? I find that very hard to take.
Lord KILBRACKEN: My Lords, the noble Viscount is misrepresenting me. I did not say that the Boundary Commission is going to do that; I said that I should be quite confident that I should be able to do it. I am saying that it is possible to do it. I am saying that we do not know how the Boundary Commission is going to act. Although its chairman is Mr. Speaker—and no one for a moment would impute any partiality to him—and although the deputy chairman is a judge of the High Court, Mr. Justice Murray, and one assumes that he also is impartial, we do not know how the Commission works or how it deliberates or how it makes its decisions. The Commission has five other members. I tried to find out more about them. They are possibly all known to the noble Viscount and to noble Lords and, certainly, to the Minister. I have only discovered the names of the three assessors and the two nominees of the Secretary of State. I know nothing about them but I can certainly say that, from their names and the positions that they hold, they look much more likely to be Unionists than to be anti-Unionists.
There are so many matters that can be decided one way or the other. Are Fermanagh and South Tyrone going to remain as one constituency or are they going to be two? This is of great interest to the noble Viscount. Will Armagh be one constituency? Will it be divided into North and South Armagh, which will certainly give one seat to the anti-Unionists? It can be divided in so many different ways. Previous Boundary Commissions have not been wholly satisfactory, and certainly I would say that the support of the Unionists for this proposal and the general opposition of the SDLP would indicate that the minority community will be even less fairly represented than they are already. My Lords, in view of these uncertainties in how the subsequent elections will work out, I fear that I cannot give my support to the Bill.
4.50 p.m.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope that it will not be considered amiss if I, as an English Back-Bencher, say a few words on this Bill. I welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction particularly since, during the prolonged devolution debates in this House, I supported the view that, so far as possible, the four parts of the United Kingdom should have a parity of representation according to population. On the assumption that Northern Ireland will obtain 17 seats, Northern Ireland will then be virtually on the same footing as the United Kingdom as a whole; a bit better off than England, slightly worse off than Wales but considerably worse off than Scotland. Indeed, a quite respectable argument can be made to give Northern Ireland up to 20 seats so as to compare equally with Scotland, especially as Northern Ireland—unlike most of Scotland—is separated from the mainland by a stretch of water which creates obvious transport and communication problems. I do not think Northern Ireland has very much cause for great celebration on this Bill because there is no question of them obtaining these extra seats until, at any rate, around 1984.
I should like to comment on the closing remarks on Second Reading, of the Minister of State for Northern Ireland in another place, Mr. Concannon, who said that the Bill arises from the acceptance in the light of devolution proposals for Scotland and Wales that the people of Northern Ireland were under-represented at Westminster. The Bill provides for an increase in seats in Northern Ireland to the same pro rata level as that in the United Kingdom.
Northern Ireland, with an average electorate of 86,000, has been grossly under-represented for many years—some may say ever since Ulster was set up in 1920, certainly ever since the abolition of Stormont. I do not see what devolution in respect of Scotland and Wales has to do with that. In any case, there is every chance, the way things are going, that the devolution proposals for Scotland and Wales will be rejected. What happens then? Is Northern Ireland going to revert to having only 12 seats? It may be that Northern Ireland will one day get its own Assembly or Parliament, and what is going to happen then?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. What my right honourable friend the Minister of State said in another place I said at rather greater length in introducing the Bill. The point was that once Parliament have accepted the principle that a part of the United Kingdom that might have a devolved Government in the future should nevertheless retain the same level of representation at Westminster as other parts of the United Kingdom, that fundamentally alters the position which, up to then, had been accepted by everybody so far as Northern Ireland representation is concerned.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I accept that. My point has been that Northern Ireland has been under-represented even before devolution for Scotland and Wales was seriously thought about. My main justification for speaking is just this. I believe in the very simple premise that Members of another place should represent, no matter from where he or she comes, roughly the same number of people. This was the conclusion of the Kilbrandon Royal Commission Majority Report in 1973. I accept, of course, that there are obvious geographical arguments and other considerations which mean that it is not always possible or desirable to reach an absolutely exact mathematical quota for every constituency, or that the four parts of the United Kingdom should have absolutely equal representation according to population.
However, I cannot believe that for much longer we can continue the system which creates such an enormous imbalance between the size of various regions in the United Kingdom, particularly between England and Scotland. I think that my noble friend Lord Monson touched on that. The average size of a constituency in England is 66,400 electors and in Scotland it is 53,600 electors. If—Heaven forbid!—Assemblies in Wales and Scotland are set up, the position will be far worse. Northern Ireland in that case will have every right to feel a deep grievance even despite this Bill. It is something that England will never put up with. Within the lifetime of a Parliament something will have to be done.
One national newspaper this week described the Prime Minister as a "cynical

1433
old horse-trader". Not for nothing the word "gerrymandering" has been replaced by "Callaghmandering". I must say that "Derrymandering" is new so far as I am concerned. I could hardly believe my ears when I heard the Prime Minister's speech on Monday night in Glasgow, when he said that a Scottish Assembly would in no way impair Scottish influence at Westminster. Surely, it is just because of the dawning realisation on the part of the Scottish people that their influence and representation at Westminster would inevitably be reduced that the forces supporting the rejection of devolution are gaining ground. The Scottish people are realising that they are voting on a false prospectus.
I mention this because devolution and the setting up of Assemblies has a profound effect on Ulster. However, all I wish to say, apart from that, is that I fully support the Second Reading of this Bill which I feel puts right a gross injustice to Northern Ireland, something which should have been put right a long time ago. Northern Ireland only having 12 Members at the present time, must present an intolerable burden to them, particularly with all the troubles and conflicts there, and the sooner that there are a few more Ulster Members in another place to keep Members there better informed about what goes on in Ulster, the better. I wish this Bill a speedy passage.
4.58 p.m.
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, before I proceed to speak on the Bill which is the subject of this debate, perhaps your Lordships will permit me to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, said, in expressing my pleasure at seeing the noble Lord, Lord Blease, here. I, too, was unfortunate enough to miss his maiden speech; but it was a great pleasure to hear him speak today. I think that I should be out of order in referring to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, as "my noble friend" because he is not a Member of my Party. However, if it is not a presumption, I shall say that he has been my "ignoble" friend for a good 15 years. I have been an admirer of his for very much longer than that. It is the noble Lord's personal influence and leadership which has resulted in our having a trades union movement in
1434
Northern Ireland which is second to none for reasonableness, constructiveness, fair-mindedness and absence of sectarianism or racialism of any sort. The day that the noble Lord was elevated to your Lordships' House was one of the best that Northern Ireland has had for many a year. I personally am delighted to see the noble Lord here.
The Party which I represent in your Lordships' House, the Alliance Party, of which I am Leader in this House, Chief Whip and chairman of the Back-Benchers Committee, in its submission to the Speaker's Conference in October 1977 advocated that there should be an in crease of seats in Northern Ireland from 12 to approximately 20. My demographic research unit tells me it would take about 20 to achieve parity with Scotland and Wales, although, as noble Lords have said, Scotland and Wales are perhaps over-represented by comparison with England—
Lord KILBRACKEN: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? I have done that sum and worked out that if there were 20 the electoral quota would be 51,600, so that Northern Ireland would be much more over-represented than even Scotland or Wales.
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention. I would suggest that consideration should be given to the amending of line 10 on page 1 of the Bill so that it would read:
"Not greater than 20 or less than 16".
That would give the Boundary Commission more latitude if they should see fit to increase the number to perhaps 19. However, I would not pursue that matter further at the moment. I might possibly consider tabling an amendment for consideration in Committee, but will respectfully wait to hear what the noble Lord on the Front Bench has to say in his winding-up speech.
The additional seats, as has already been said, would not in any way undermine the argument for a devolved Assembly or Parliament in Northern Ireland, because there is the likelihood that Scotland and Wales will receive such devolved powers in the foreseeable future; but the important thing is that with the serious economic and social problems we have in Northern

1435
Ireland, full representation really is essential in the other place. I quote, for example, this matter of the cost of energy and it was because that was in my mind that I presumed to intervene during Question Time and put a question to Her Majesty's Government about the matter of an under-sea pipeline to convey gas from the Scottish grid to Northern Ireland. This is the sort of thing which is adding burdens to the people of Northern Ireland and it is the sort of thing for which we really need full representation in another place, to make sure that a fair deal is received.
The size of the constituencies at the moment in Northern Ireland is such that I just do not know how the MPs can manage. It keeps me busy enough looking after a small local government constituency; and how they can manage, coming to Westminster once a week and trying to look after a constituency of 100,000 or so, I just do not know. Therefore, in the interests of democratic representation, I have no reservations at all about the principles of this Bill.
The Alliance Party's attitude has been entirely consistent over this, unlike the official Unionists, who advocated a reduction in Northern Ireland's representation in Europe from three seats to two, but who are advocating an increase in representation at Westminster. Then, too, the Social Democratic and Labour Party do not wish to see increased representation at Westminster but do wish to see it in the European Parliament. I am sorry to have to say that it seems that these Parties are putting their sectional interests before those of the Province as a whole.
My main point, which has been touched on very effectively by other noble Lords, is that we have consistently from the beginning advocated that elections should be carried out on proportional representation, single transferable vote. We have said we thought it would be desirable not only for Northern Ireland but that it should be done also throughout the United Kingdom. I realise that Her Majesty's Government and also, I think, Her Majesty's Opposition, are not entirely in favour of this—though I am sure they will not hesistate to correct me if I am wrong—but we do most strongly advocate this for Northern Ireland. We have been voting in local elections and in
1436
provincial elections on the single transferable vote system of proportional representation since 1973 and it has worked extremely well. There were many fears that voters would be confused and that they would put down Xs instead of 1, 2, and 3. That has happened in the odd case, but on the whole it has gone down well and I think it has worked well. Here again, with respect, I shall wait to see what the noble Lord on the Front Bench says, but I may table an Amendment for consideration in Committee. The argument can be put forward that this would mean there would be different forms of voting for the same election: there would be the first-past-the-post system in Great Britain, but STV in Northern Ireland. Well, that is the way it is going to be for the European elections, and if it is going to work for those I do not see why it should not work for Westminster as well.
My next main point is this. As I think has been admitted, inevitably there will be a quite considerable delay in the implementation of this Bill because the Boundary Commission are going to have to carry out their deliberations and then I think a period of two years was suggested as being the length of time that would have to elapse for objections and revisions to be reviewed. Therefore, I should like to make what perhaps may be considered as rather a surprising suggestion: that is, that whatever number of additional seats are initially agreed upon—whether it be 17, 18 or, as I am suggesting, 19—those seats should be granted for the next Election which has to take place before October. I would suggest that whereas the 12 existing seats should be voted for on the first-past-the-post system, the way it is at the moment—it would be too soon to change that—the additional five, six or seven seats, or whatever it may be, should be elected by proportional representation, by single transferable vote, treating the entire Province as one constituency. Therefore, any future deliberations of the Boundary Commission would not be prejudiced and it would mean that we should get our extra representation in the quickest, most efficient and most democratic manner.
In making that suggestion, I find it difficult to envisage how the Unionists could disagree with it because, after all, it would be meeting their wishes in bringing about increased representation at as early a date as possible. Similarly, I find it

1437
difficult to envisage how the Social Democratic and Labour Party could object, because we are advocating proportional representation, which they favour; and so hopefully this could be a compromise for the benefit of Northern Ireland and it would be a compromise which would be acceptable to the major political Parties, of which I count mine as being one. Again, I shall listen with interest to what the noble Lord on the Front Bench says about that. My Lords, I have thought this through pretty carefully and if there are any snags to my proposal which I have not appreciated, I should be most grateful if they could be pointed out to me and I will certainly think about it again and consult with my colleagues before deciding to take part in the Committee stage of this Bill. So I am certainly in favour of the Bill. My party backs it, and with those three possible Amendments in mind we look forward to hearing what the noble Lord on the Front Bench has to say.
5.10 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, may I join with other noble Lords in saying how extremely pleased I am that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, is here, and a little later I shall have something to say about some other people who ought to be here. I approve of proportional representation in devolved legislatures. I think that the case for it is extremely good, and I am sorry that the PR system was not put into the devolution Bills for Scotland and Wales. I must remind the House that, from 1968 to this day in Northern Ireland, the Unionist people have been subjected to a continual barrage telling us that our standards are not British standards. In the space of 18 months, in the Government of Northern Ireland of which I was a Member, we passed a mass of legislation bringing in ombudsmen, and goodness knows what, until now we have more protection for minorities than any other part of the United Kingdom.
Indeed, I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, a citizen of a foreign State does not crusade for the introduction of ombudsmen, and all the other safeguards which we have in Northern Ireland, for his State of Eire. But on this question of proportional representation, we must have British standards. I know that I speak for the
1438
Unionist population, when I say that they would consider anything else an insult, a further deprivation of our British standards, so we should not consider the question of PR for Northern Ireland separately from the rest of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that this Bill is of constitutional importance and that the way was laid open for the increase in seats by the passing of the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill. I certainly wish this Bill a very speedy passage. I believe that it strengthens the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and it is seen in that light by people in Northern Ireland who support the union. It is one of the first tangible things that has come out of Parliament since the destruction of Stormont in 1972. If it took us 18 months to pass all that legislation, it is a pity that we were not facing this Bill and rendering this justice, for I consider that this Bill is giving justice to the people of Northern Ireland. It has taken from 1972 until now to reach this stage, and it will be another two years before we get fair representation. It will bring fairness back to the Mother of Parliaments.
We had the phrase Derrymandering and gerrymandering. What greater gerrymander could there be than for Glasgow to have a Member with an electorate of 20,000, and for South Antrim—and I saw the Member for South Antrim here—to have an electorate of 126,000. It is a great injustice and a total denial of civil rights, and it has taken this Parliament far too long to remedy that situation. This Bill will also ease the burden on the existing Northern Ireland Members of Parliament. After this Bill is passed, they may find it easier to go into the Lobbies with a clear conscience judging only the issues of the day, such as the future of the present Government. I hope that by speeding this Bill through we shall make it possible for them to take a more balanced view.
We have covered a fairly broad field in the debate today and I should like to follow that trend. Here, may I say what a tremendous job the Secretary of State has done, in giving confidence to people in Northern Ireland by his last television appearance, which was a magnificent performance and, certainly, a performance which was totally required. One of the problems in Northern Ireland, when you

1439
talk about reconciliation, is the question of confidence in the future of the United Kingdom. In spite of the Secretary of State's optimism, I believe we must now accept that local Ulster politicians will be unable to manufacture a system of government, of institutions, which has the acceptance of parties in Westminster, and which also has widespread acceptance and support in Northern Ireland. I am afraid that the possibility of that is very remote indeed. Every time that the Government try and fail to bring parties together to produce an acceptable solution, the parties end up further apart.
The problem in Northern Ireland is that the Government have no body, elected for that purpose, with whom they can consult and discuss, except the party caucuses; and I wonder how representative party caucuses are throughout the community. I am not referring to one party or another. But are party caucuses really representative? Therefore, we in this Parliament should take the precedents of Scotland and Wales and. after a Royal Commission or a Commission of Inquiry, enact a devolution Act which should be submitted to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum. But it should be made absolutely clear that, if the people of Northern Ireland refuse that devolution, then there should be no further talk about it, because that would not be constructive. I believe that there should be no further discussion of devolution for 10 years, or some period such as the length of the Border poll, and then, if the people of Northern Ireland said that they accepted devolution, politicians would be freed from any tie they had to convention reports, or what have you, and they could get ahead and work it. That will take a certain amount of time.
I think that many members of the Government, certainly those in another place, do not really approve of this House but we are a bicameral Parliament, and we should remember that in dealing with the question of under-representation. Ulster has done badly in regard to Life Peers and, on the other side, we have only the noble Lord, Lord Blease. I believe that we should have experts from every field, from both sides of industry, from agriculture and from the professions, to help us with the deliberations in this House. That would vastly improve the debates
1440
and the help which people could give to the Government. We had a complicated order before us today and, certainly, I did not feel that I could contribute to any great extent on that. As well as that, we should use Parliamentary devices to try to remove a lot of the detailed work from the Floor of the House.
As I have said before, it is not realised how catastrophically bad the reorganisation of local government was in the situation in Northern Ireland, when we lost our devolved Government. If there is a hole in a road on a housing estate, it is the job of the Department of the Environment, whose Minister is a Westminster Minister, to fill in that hole, but if there is litter in the hole it is the job of the local council to deal with that litter. That may be a ridiculous example, but that is what goes on and on and, in spite of the tremendous efforts of the Northern Ireland Office, to whom I pay tribute, under the present Secretary of State, it is an unsatisfactory situation. We must recognise this and develop direct rule in order to make matters more efficient and more responsive, and to ease the burden from Ministers who are very far travelled. Having said all that, I support the Bill.
5.19 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, may I start by welcoming what, I think, was support from all noble Lords who spoke for the principle that Northern Ireland should have additional representatives in another place, although there was clearly some disagreement either with the content of the Bill or, more often, with things that were not actually in the Bill, to which I shall come in my remarks.
If I could deal with the point which has just been made by the noble Viscount regarding your Lordships' House—because again this is rather outside the scope of the Bill—I would say only that successive Governments have recognised that a number of people from Northern Ireland should receive peerages and they have come to your Lordships' House. At least two of them have spoken in the debate today. However, it would be quite wrong and impracticable to suggest that any region of the United Kingdom containing 1½ million people should have a particular quota of people who should

1441
come to your Lordships' House, regardless. Other than that, the existing system is probably the only one that is likely to be workable until we come to look at the composition of your Lordships' House on a rather wider basis and, indeed, at its future as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked me a particular question—and I am grateful to him for his support of the Bill and its contents—about Rule 6 which governs the procedures under which the Boundary Commission work. As the noble Lord pointed out, Rule 6, which covers the Commission's taking into account geographical factors, is permissive. The Bill does not change that. The Boundary Commission, therefore, may take special account of geographical considerations but they are not under an absolute obligation to do so. That is probably right, and I think that probably it should continue. In other words, the Boundary Commission, in this as in a number of other matters, have a degree of discretion and I am sure—I shall be returning to this point about the Boundary Commission—that we can rely upon them to discharge their functions very carefully and responsibly. The procedures for the publication of their proposals and for local inquiries into them, if there are objections to their proposals, will ensure that those kinds of factors are taken into account, whether the Boundary Commission themselves, in their initial work, do or not—and, as I say, I am sure that they will.
My noble friend Lord Kilbracken and the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, both raised questions about the number of seats mentioned in the Bill, although I think it is fair to say that the proposed number or 17 seats received fairly wide acceptance from the noble Lords who spoke. My noble friend asked me why we could not be completely precise about the number of seats: why should we give the Boundary Commission power to recommend? May I emphasise that the Boundary Commission simply recommend to the Secretary of State, who then has to lay an order before Parliament. It is Parliament who decides, not the Boundary Commission or the Secretary of State. However, the Bill gives to the Boundary Commission the power to work within a flexible framework of from 16 to 18, while making it clear in Clause 1(2) of the Bill
1442
that 17 is the number that they are working on. To some extent, therefore, my noble friend's point is met by Clause 1(2). The reason why some flexibility is given is that if in future there are major population movements in one part of Northern Ireland—for example, a move from one part of a city to another part of the same city—it will be possible for Boundary Commissions to alter some constituencies without altering all of them—probably by reducing, say, three constituencies to two, or by increasing one or two constituencies by one. It will be possible to organise the new constituencies without having to redraw the boundaries of all 17. As I said when I introduced the Bill, this kind of flexibility is available to the Boundary Commissions in England, Scotland, and Wales. It was recommended by the Speaker's Conference, and in the Government's view this is a sensible provision to include in the Bill.
I have touched on the fact that Clause 1 (2) makes it clear that 17 should be the number of seats that the Boundary Commission work towards. The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, suggested that the Bill should have a much wider range of flexibility. Unless the noble Lord is suggesting that Clause 1(2) should be amended, I do not think that in practice this would make very much difference. It would simply extend the flexibility which the Boundary Commission might have in future to increase the number of seats, should population movements and other things make that desirable. However, the degree of flexibility that is already given in the Bill accords with the kind of flexibility that is available in England, Scotland and Wales, although it is not precisely the same. Therefore, the only way that the noble Lord is likely to get an increased number of seats being recommended by the Boundary Commission is if he tells the Boundary Commission to work to a different total figure. Therefore, it would not be a question of altering the range. It would be a question of altering the figure in Clause 1(2) from 17 to some other figure and still having a range of one on either side. The Government's opinion is that we should accept the near-unanimous view of Mr. Speaker's Conference on the number of seats which would be given to Northern Ireland.
My noble friend mentioned the composition of the Boundary Commission. If

1443
I heard him aright, I do not think that he had the composition quite correct. The position is that Mr. Speaker is the chairman of all four Boundary Commissions: the Boundary Commissions for Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. The deputy chairman is appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and is, as my noble friend said, Mr. Justice Murray. The other two members—and I think that this is where I may have lost my noble friend—are Mr. Ewing, who is Registrar of the New University of Ulster, who was appointed in 1973, and Mr. G. P. Duffy, a company director who was appointed in October of last year. They are the members of the Boundary Commission and, as I have already said, I am sure that they will carry out their duties with the utmost consideration for the rules which are laid down for them to do so and without any hint of bias or any other kind of thing which my noble friend suggested that he might be capable of but which I can assure my noble friend the Boundary Commission will not be capable of.
Lord KILBRACKEN: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for those remarks, but for the information of the House could he explain what are the functions of the three assessors, Mr. Kerr, Mr. Farr and Mr. Boston.
Lord MELCHETT: Yes, my Lords. The assessors are there simply to give expert advice to the Commission on particular points. I am not sure which assessors represent which particular expertise, but they are there to give expert advice on particular aspects of the Commission's work. They are not members of the Commission and they do not have any say in the deliberations and conclusions which the Commission reach.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, suggested an ingenious way of circumventing—if that is a fair word—the length of time which I think he rightly recognised the Boundary Commission will take to do their work. He asked whether anybody could see any snags in what he suggested was an efficient procedure. Of course, the main argument against the use of proportional representation in Northern Ireland for elections to the House of Commons is that it would be wrong to
1444
use different methods of election for people coming to the House of Commons from different parts of the United Kingdom. If there is any weight at all in that argument—and the Government see considerable weight in it—surely it must be even more forceful an argument when applied to one region of the United Kingdom where, under the noble Lord's suggestion, one would have 12 Members of another place elected by one method, and five by another. I confess that I do not think that this would be likely to be simple, easily understood, efficient or without snags, were we to attempt to introduce it sometime between now and next October when the General Election, as noble Lords know, is likely to take place.
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that there is going to be a different form of election in Northern Ireland for the European Parliament from that which is going to be effective in the rest of the United Kingdom? Would not the noble Lord agree that, whereas local authority elections in Northern Ireland have been held under the proportional representation system, Westminster Elections have been held under the first-past-the-post system, and in the event this has not resulted in a great deal of confusion? Perhaps the people of Northern Ireland are not quite so stupid as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I was not aware that I suggested, nor would I dream of doing so, that the people of Northern Ireland are stupid and I hope that the noble Lord will not attempt to put such unworthy and unlikely words into my mouth. Certainly I agree, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, reminded us, that the European Elections are being held under a number of different systems in different countries of the EEC for the first time when elections to the European Parliament take place, but the clear intention is that this should be an interim stage and that a common method of election should be laid down for all people elected to the European Parliament, as I understand it, in subsequent elections. So I do not think that this is a particularly good analogy. Certainly it is true that different methods of election have been used in different elections in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord has suggested

1445
to your Lordships that different methods of election should be used in the same election: electing people to the same place.
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, to Europe.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, No. The noble Lord says "to Europe", but he was speaking about elections to another place and was suggesting that there should be two different methods of electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons from Northern Ireland in the same election. So far as I am aware, that has not been tried before anywhere in the world, and I think that it might prove to be complicated, however intelligent the people of Northern Ireland may be.
Lord HAMPTON: My Lords, may I just say, as I said earlier, that university members have been elected before to Westminster by a different method of voting and it worked very satisfactorily.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I confess that, coming from a Party as dedicated as I know the noble Lord's party is to the principles of democracy, the use of university seats, which I had imagined the noble Lord, along with members of my own party, would not have looked on all that kindly as an example of the way of securing democratic representation in this country, I have found that analogy a difficult one to follow. It may be that the noble Lord sees some advantages in the existence of university seats which escaped, as I understood it, many of his colleagues up till now; but I confess that I do not think that they provide a very sound basis on which to give Northern Ireland adequate democratic representation in another place.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would not agree that there is a great deal of difference between the question as to whether the universities were entitled to representation and the question as to whether the particular system used worked satisfactorily, because it was the latter point that my noble friend was making.
Lord MELCHETT: Yes, my Lords, I follow that, but I was trying to make the
1446
point, as kindly as I could, that at the time when there were separate methods of election for university representatives and another method of election for representatives of the rest of the community, I do not think that those of us who believe in democracy thought that was a satisfactory system. As I understand it, that is why those seats were abolished—and a very good thing, too. I do not think it would be wise to start introducing that sort of complication and lack of democracy into Northern Ireland. It is clear that as the Bill proceeds we shall have the opportunity to discuss the issue of proportional representation for all the seats, which is a separate issue. As I have said, the Bill implements the recommendations—and only implements the recommendations of an all-party Speaker's Conference; and the terms of reference agreed by the major parties when the Speaker's Conference was set up did not include the method of election, but simply included the number of constituencies for Northern Ireland. That is why the method of election is not considered at all by the Bill, and I think there are strong arguments for suggesting that it would not be right to consider different methods of election to another place.
Perhaps I may now turn to the question which a number of noble Lords have raised, about who the extra seats are likely to go to. If I may say so, it is quite impracticable to speculate on this simply because past experience in Northern Ireland shows that very often this depends on the existence, or lack, of pacts between different parties representing the minority community and different Unionist parties. That has been a much more fundamental factor in some seats in recent elections than has the relative balance betwen those communities in the particular constituency. However, it is clear, looking at the existing constituencies and their boundaries in Northern Ireland, that, if there are 17 seats, the electoral quota, which will have to be as close as possible for all those seats, will be just over 60,000. Thus, for example, Londonderry with an electorate of some 95,000 will be affected just as, for example, will North Down with an electorate at the moment of 99,000. I would, therefore, expect to find that the number of both Unionist and non-Unionist Members in another place will increase if this Bill becomes law.

1447
I should like to join, rather late in my speech, with other noble Lords who have welcomed my noble friend Lord Blease to your Lordships' House. I have not had an opportunity of doing so before today. I do not think I could possibly add to the tributes which were paid to him by other noble Lords, and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine. If I may say so, I strongly agree with one thing that my noble friend said. This Bill is not, and does not pretend to be, taking a step towards reconciliation in Northern Ireland but, as my noble friend said, it is not taking a step away from that, either. It is clear that the system of government in Northern Ireland should be a devolved Government. It should be one which is acceptable to Parliament and acceptable to both communities in Northern Ireland. As I said in introducing the Bill, there is nothing in giving Northern Ireland a fair number of representatives in another place which prevents our introducing a system of devolved government in Northern Ireland, and the fact that Scotland and Wales now have the opportunity for devolved Government I should have thought would make that perfectly clear.
If I may finish on a slightly acrimonious note, for which I apologise, and particularly as the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, as he said in his speech, is not able to be here. He, and, I think, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, referred in their speeches to the fact that there might be some other reason for introducing the Bill now than the one I gave in my opening speech. The noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, referred to "other pressing political reasons." As I made clear, and I should like to repeat, the reason that the Bill and the reference to a Speaker's Conference became a necessity was the decision by Parliament that Scotland and Wales should maintain their existing representation even if they had devolved governments. It is the policy of all major parties in your Lordships' House that Northern Ireland should have devolved government.
In the past it has been accepted widely that with a devolved government Northern Ireland needed less representation at Westminster, but that view clearly became quite untenable once Parliament made the decision about the level of representation in another place of Scotland and Wales.
1448
That is why the Government referred the question to a Speaker's Conference and that is why this Bill is now before your Lordships' House. There have been no deals, no pacts and no other pressing political reasons of any sort, and if anyone wants confirmation of that, as I said in opening this debate, they have only to look at the Unionists' voting record in another place.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I do not think that I abused the Government. What I said was that it would ease the conscience of the Unionist Members in another place so as to enable them to vote clearly on the issue at stake and not on any issue of delaying the defeat of the Government.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I hope I may come to the end of my remarks. I do not think that the Unionist Members in another place, if one takes them as a whole, have shown a particularly consistent record of voting together on any particular issue. Whether or not this Bill will help them in that, I do not know, but I doubt whether it will make them any more opposed to the Government than clearly they are already.
Lord KILBRACKEN: My Lords, may I return for a moment to the question of the Boundary Commission? When the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, interrupted me I had not got the Act in my hands, as I have now, and I find that according to Schedule 1 to the Redistribution of Seats Act 1949:
"The Commission of Northern Ireland shall consist of the Chairman, Mr. Speaker, the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages,"—
which is Mr. Kerr—
"the Commissioner of Valuation for Northern Ireland"—
which is Mr. Farr. A later Act of 1958 included a judge of the High Court. So that these are members of the Commission as well as those officers which the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I have given my noble friend the information that I have as affected by the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts 1949 and 1958. As I said, there is a deputy chairman, Mr. Justice Murray, and two members of the Commission. So far as

1449
I know, that information is absolutely accurate, but if I find anything to the contrary I will let my noble friend know.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE BILL [H.L.]
5.40 p.m.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LAND REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and the Prince of Wales as Prince and Steward of Scotland to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Land Registration (Scotland) Bill, have consented to place their interests so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord McCluskey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Registration.]
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 27, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) The creation over a registered interest in land of any of the following interests in land—

(i) a heritable security;

1450

(ii) a liferent;

(iii) an incorporeal heritable right, shall be registrable; and on registration of its creation such an interest shall become a registered interest in land.

(4) There shall also be registrable—

(a) any transfer of a registered interest in land including any transfer whereby it is absorbed into another registered interest in land;

(b) any absorption by a registered interest in land of another registered interest in land;

(c) any other transaction or event which (whether by itself or in conjunction with the recording of a deed in the Register of Sasines or with registration) is capable under any enactment or rule of law of affecting the title to a registered interest in land but which is not a transaction or event creating or affecting an overriding interest.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, which I beg to move, will have the effect of replacing Clause 2(3). It is in essence a change in the drafting of that clause. The new drafting emphasises that certain interests in land are registrable and become registered interests on being created over interests which are already registered. Amendment No. 3 is consequential upon this. I think it is proper that I should make some general remarks about the new clause if these Amendments are accepted.
Under the clause with these Amendments, subsection (1) would deal with what is the first registration of unregistered interests in land. Subsection (2) excludes certain special cases from subsection (1). Subsection (3) deals with those special cases, namely, heritable securities, life rents and incorporeal heritable right, which exist only in relation to another interest in land. So, if that other interest is registered, the creation of one of these related interests is registrable. Subsection (4) deals with the situation once interests have been registered. Any subsequent transaction is registrable. The subsequent transactions are specified and I shall deal with them shortly: they are transfer, absorption or other events affecting title. Subsection (5), as it would be, provides for the time when a great many interests in land have been registered as a result of some transaction or event covered by subsections (1), (3) and (4), and the Secretary of State, or one hopes the Executive Member of the Assembly, decides—obviously after receiving advice

1451
from the Keeper among others—that the time is ripe for having all interests in land on the Register.
At Report stage the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, asked about a particular matter, namely, how the operational areas would be brought into play. I think it would be convenient, as I am mentioning subsection (5), as it will be, of Clause 2, to deal with that now. There is planned a nine-year introduction to cover all the counties of Scotland. I talk of the counties; the old counties still exist for the purposes of the Register of Sasines and this Register, though not for certain local authority purposes. In year 1, the first county to be dealt with will be Renfrew, where the pilot scheme is presently operating; in year 2, it will be Glasgow; in year 3, Lanark and Dumbarton; in year 4, Midlothian; in year 5, the central belt between Strath-clyde and Midlothian; in year 6, Strathtay—that is to say, Perth, Kinross, and Angus—and Grampian, including Aberdeen; in year 7, Ayr, Dumfries, Galloway; in year 8, the southern rural areas; and in year 9, the last year, the northern rural areas. That is the scheme at the present time. Certain adjustments may fall to be made during the nine-year introductory period.
Of course, in each case, we are talking about the year in which registration starts; so, by the end of year 9, it is probable that a great many properties, for example, in Renfrew will have changed hands or otherwise been the subject of some transaction which has resulted in registration, whereas for Ayr, for example, or the northern rural areas, only a minority of interests in land will have entered the Register. So the lapse of nine years will be the end of the beginning, but also ushers in the beginning of the end.
Clause 2(5), as it is now to be, taken along with Clause 30(2), permits the Minister to prescribe the completion of registration area by area, to stagger it, so to speak. It is difficult to estimate the likely final date when the last order will fall to be made, but at present it looks as if it might be about the turn of the century.
My Lords, I hope I shall be forgiven for that rather lengthy explanation, but Clause 2 taken with Clause 3 is really the linchpin of the Bill. I hope that that explana-
1452
tion will help to satisfy the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for explaining this redrafting of a very large part of Clause 2, which, as he has just said, is the important part of the Bill. We are also grateful to him for taking the opportunity of making a statement about how the Bill will be brought into effect and which parts of Scotland will, in order be brought into its scope. Renfrewshire seemed the obvious starter, as the pilot scheme is operating in that area.
This is a redrafting by the Government, and we have about four pages of Government Amendments before us. The Report stage was only last week. I know that the Government have tried to meet almost all the points raised in your Lordships' House or by the Law Society of Scotland. They circulated the Amendments in good time for today, and, as I say, there are over four pages of redrafting by the Government. On this Amendment and some others there may still be some scope for improvement in the wording in detail. There has hardly been time for full examination of some of these complicated Amendments in the last day or two, and there has certainly not been any time for any consequent changes. I have been able today to inform the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey of some drafting comments, and I will gladly provide any further comment on possible adjustments.
On this Amendment I shall say only that we accept it, but in the hope that the Government will look at the particular point in the Amendment where the wording might be changed, to which I have drawn attention. There will be plenty of time before Committee and Report stages in the Commons, so that adjustments can be thought out and tabled there if they are thought worthwhile. It would not be appropriate for me to pursue these matters at this final stage in this House, but it might be helpful if I were to say that this applies not only to Amendment No. 1, but also to Amendments Nos. 2, 14 and 20. The Law Society of Scotland are a body representative of solicitors engaged in conveyancing in Scotland, and the Government will no doubt remain in close touch with them

1453
on these matters. There could as a result be some further adjustments of the wording in some of these long Amendments which are before us. I hope that the Government will accept that. It means that I need not revert to this point on each Amendment, but can stick to points of more substance.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and I entirely agree that that approach is one that we should recommend to the House. If there is scope for further improvement in detail, we shall be happy to consider any further comment that comes from the Law Society of Scotland, as indeed we have been happy in the past to have their help. The timetable has not permitted everything to be done, but we hope to resolve these matters with them, and if it becomes necessary or desirable to improve the wording we shall certainly do that at some other stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Effect of registration]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) It shall not be necessary for an uninfeft proprietor of an interest in land which has been registered to expede a notice of title in order to complete his title to that interest if evidence of sufficient midcouples or links between the uninfeft proprietor and the person last infeft are produced to the Keeper on any registration in respect of that interest and, accordingly, section 4 of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1924 (completion of title by person uninfeft) shall be of no effect in relation to such an interest in land.
This subsection does not apply to the completion of title under section 74 or 76 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 (procedure on compulsory purchase of lands).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2 which reproduces the substance of Clause 15(3) (a) in so far as it deals with notices of title by uninfeft proprietors of registered interests in land. It is more appropriate that this subject matter should form part of Clause 3, as being an effect of registration, rather than forming part of Clause 15, which is concerned with the simpli-
1454
fication of deeds relating to registered interests in land. Clause 15(3) (a) will, therefore, be superfluous if this Amendment is approved, and its deletion from the Bill is proposed by Amendment No. 11.
The last sentence of Amendment No. 2 contains a disapplication. Where an owner from whom land is compulsorily acquired under the 1845 Act, cannot or will not grant a conveyance of his property to the acquiring authority, that authority will still require to expede a notice of title in order to complete its title. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Completion of registration]:
5.50 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5, line 2, leave out from beginning to second ("of") and insert ("section 2(4)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this consequential Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Rectification of the register].
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendments Nos. 4 to 9:
Page 8, line 11, leave out ("which has been omitted") and insert ("or enter a land obligation")
Page 8, line 13, at end insert ("or to a land obligation")
Page 8, line 16, at end insert ("or")
Page 8, line 19, leave out from ("possession") to end of line 22.
Page 8, line 24, leave out ("(iii) or (iv)") and insert ("or (iii)")
Page 8, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) "land obligation" has the meaning assigned to it by section 1(2) of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 is associated with Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, and with the leave of the House I shall move them en bloc. This, I hope, takes us to or towards the end of a matter that has been discussed on a number of occasions. The use of the word "un-

1455
just" in Clause 9(3)(a)(iv) of the Bill and, indeed, perhaps the whole cast of this paragraph, has caused the Law Society and some noble Lords some unease. The terms of this paragraph, they fear, might open up the possibility of the exercise of an equitable jurisdiction which however appropriate in England would be an unwelcome addition to the law of Scotland.
Clause 9(3)(a)(iv) is to the same effect as Section 82(3)(c) of the Land Registration Act 1925. We believe, and the Chief Land Registrar in England confirms, that the subsection has never been used to oust a proprietor in possession. The only use that we, in fact, envisaged for rectification under Clause 9(3)(a)(iv) in Scotland would, as in England, be to add to the Register omitted land obligations in circumstances where it would be against public interest not to include them in the relative title sheet. For example, if an obligation to pay an equal share of maintaining the roof had been omitted from the title sheet of a tenement house, it would be reasonable to insert it, otherwise at common law that share would fall to be paid by the proprietors of the top flats in addition to their own shares. The Keeper, of course, might have to pay indemnity to the proprietor in possession in respect of the insertion in his title sheet, but that is a valuable consequence of registration of title.
However, in view of the unease felt, and the restricted use envisaged for the provision in Scotland, agreement has been reached with representatives of the Law Society of Scotland as regards the deletion of Clause 9(3)(a)(iv) and the amendment of Clause 9(3)(a)(i) to include the necessary references to entering a land obligation. Any reference to prescription in Clause 9 is, we believe, now unnecessary.
So, these Amendments taken together—and I need not explain the precise effect of each one in detail—represent, I believe, an agreed solution to the perceived difficulties and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I simply rise to confirm that this is a matter which has caused some disquiet, especially as regards the Law Society of Scotland. I understand that
1456
the Amendments which the Government are now proposing are satisfactory and generally welcome among those who were previously worried.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 10 [Positive prescription in respect of registered interests in land]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 8, leave out from beginning of line 31 to ("at") in line 43 and insert—
("10. Section 1 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 shall have effect as if—
(a) after "followed" in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) there were inserted "(i)" and for the words from "then" to the end of that subsection there were inserted", or
(ii) registration of that interest in favour of that person in the Land Register of Scotland, subject to an exclusion of indemnity under section 12(2) of the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979,
then, as from the expiration of the said period, the validity of the title so far as relating to the said interest in the particular land shall be exempt from challenge.
(1A) Subsection (1) above shall not apply where—

(a) possession was founded on the recording of a deed which is invalid ex facie or was forged; or

(b) possession was founded on registration in respect of an interest in land in the Land Register of Scotland proceeding on a forged deed and the person appearing from the Register to be entitled to the interest was aware of the forgery at the time of registration in his favour.

(b)."").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10. Again, I hope that we reach the solution of a problem which has exercised the House on previous occasions. The significant elements in the Amendment concern the limitation of the running of prescription, first, to possession on a registered title from which there has been an exclusion of indemnity and, secondly, where the registration is induced by a forged deed. I should like to quote from one of the best, and certainly standard, text-books in Scotland—namely, Gloag and Henderson on the Introduction to the Law of Scotland, in the Seventh Edition. At page 160 it says:
"Good titles have no need of prescription".

1457
It therefore follows that if the State guarantees a title there is no need for prescription to operate on the registration thereof. The amendment to Section 1 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 therefore makes it clear that the running of prescription is limited to a registrtaion which is subject to an exclusion of indemnity under Clause 12(2) of the Bill.
To turn to forged deeds, a forged deed which has been recorded in the Register of Sasines will never be a foundation for prescription. In registration of title, however, where one of the cardinal features is the protection of the bona fide proprietor in possession, a registration induced by a forged deed may be a foundation for prescription if the registered proprietor is, himself, in good faith. If the registered proprietor is the forger, or otherwise had knowledge of the forgery at the time of registration, prescription will not operate in his favour.
While it appeared to us that the existing provisions of the Bill were adequate to prevent prescription fortifying the title of a party to a forgery, the Law Society did seek clearer expression, and the added Section 1(A) to the 1973 Act thus states the situation both as regards a forged deed recorded in the Register of Sasines and a registration proceeding on a forged deed. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord will recall I raised the question of forgery during a previous stage of the Bill. Therefore, I am glad to see that the Government decided to make sure that the situation was perfectly clear and the Amendment acceptable.
I should like to raise an associated point. It seems that some provision is probably now needed in Clause 9—the previous Clause—for the Register to be rectified in favour of an owner. I ask the Government to consider whether any Amendment needs to be made to Clause 9, because if so that could be done when the Bill is in another place.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, we shall certainly be happy to consider that along with any of the other matters to which reference has already been made.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Simplification of deeds relating to registered interests]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 13, leave out from beginning of line 28 to first ("in") in line 31.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already dealt with this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 13, leave out lines 36 and 37.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are associated. In fact, Amendment No. 13 disapplies provisions of the Acts referred to relating to deduction of title in cases where Clause 15(3) (6), as it now is in the Bill, makes deduction of title unnecessary. Amendment No. 12 is a drafting Amendment to remove unnecessary references to Section 3 of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1924 and Section 12 of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970. Those references are out of place here as a result of Amendment No. 13. I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 13, line 40, at end insert ("and, accordingly, section 5 of and Form 1 of Schedule A and Note 2 of Schedule K to the said Act of 1924, as well as the said section 3 and the said section 12, shall not apply to such a deed.").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 13, line 40, at end insert—
("(4) It shall not be necessary, in connection with any deed relating to a registered interest in land, to include an assignation of any obligation or right of relief or to narrate the the series of writs by which the grantor of the deed became entitled to enforce that obligation or exercise that right if the obligation or right has been entered in the title sheet of that interest and, accordingly, section 50 of and Schedule M to the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1874 (form and effect of assigning right of relief or other right affecting land) shall not apply to such a deed.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14. We believe that this Amendment is in fulfilment of an undertaking made by the

1459
Government to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, to table an Amendment making special provision for assignations of obligations and rights of relief. The Amendment which was proposed at the Report stage by the noble Lord—No. 35—was withdrawn and was aimed at this particular point.
If carried, Amendment No. 14 would have the effect of further reducing the content of a deed relating to an interest in land which has been registered. Provided the title sheet of that interest already contains a reference to any assignations of any obligations or rights of relief and the like, any deed relating to that interest need not repeat such reference by means of a clause of assignation. Nor will it be necessary to narrate the links in title between the original parties to the right of relief or obligation and the grantor of the deed which, apart from the provision, would need to contain this lengthy linking back.
This springs from a suggestion from the noble Lord—and the Law Society made the same point. We believe that it takes the simplification a little further and should help to shorten and simplify deeds, and, we hope, will save expense. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Tenants-at-will]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 17, line 4, leave out ("other than") and insert ("additional to").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15. The Amendment simply deletes words which were thought to be too disjunctive in the context and which might convey the wrong sense. The words which replace them reflect the intention of the subsection, which is to enable terms and conditions to be adjusted between landlord and tenant, in addition to those specifically provided for in subsections (3), (4), and (5) of Clause 20. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 17, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) In this section and in sections 21 and 22 of this Act, "tenant-at-will" means a person—
(a).who, not being—

(i) a tenant under a lease;

(ii) a kindly tenant; or

(iii) a tenant or occupier by virtue of any enactment,

is by custom and usage the occupier (actual or constructive) of land on which there is a building or buildings erected or acquired for value by him or any predecessor of his;
(b) who is under an obligation to pay a ground rent to the owner of the land in respect of the said land but not in respect of the building or buildings on it, or would have been under such an obligation if the ground rent had not been redeemed; and
(c) whose right of occupancy of the land is without ish.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16. This Amendment fulfils an undertaking by the Government at Report stage to try to provide a definition of "tenant-at-will" for tabling at Third Reading. As noble Lords will see, it is largely based on Amendment No. 47, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, at Report stage.
The main difference between this Amendment and that earlier Amendment is that the definition is not restricted to land not exceeding one decare in area used principally for residential purposes or purposes ancillary thereto. It is not considered that a tenant-at-will of commercial property exceeding one decare in area should be denied the same opportunity of obtaining a title from his landlord.
The new Clause 20(8), which was contained in Amendment No. 47 of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, to which I referred, proposed special compensation provisions for non-residential tenancy land. As the present Amendment seeks to deal with residential and non-residentail property on the same basis, no equivalent provision has been made in this Amendment.
The new Clause 20(9) in the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, proposed on Report, made provision for disputes to be taken to the Lands Tribunal. The substance of this is now to be contained in Amendment No. 17, which proposes an amendment to Clause 21. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we must rejoice in the achievement of a definition which is acceptable to the Government and which is now moved for inclusion in the Bill. It had seemed a difficult and daunting task after the Bill was first published; indeed, the Government more or less issued a challenge to the world to try to produce such a definition. However, in the meantime it has become clear that solicitors who have to deal with this kind of tenancy, which is largely to be found in the North-East of Scotland, considered that this part of the Bill would be improved by a satisfactory definition being included.
As the noble and learned Lord has reminded us, at Report stage I moved what I described as a first draft, arrived at as a result of consultations with some of those who are most familiar with these tenancies. I said that it was a draft for consideration. Therefore, I am extremely happy to welcome the Government's version, because to have achieved a satisfactory definition at all is, I think, something of a triumph.
I should just like to add one point. On Report, I had to draw attention to an unusual word in my Amendment. I am interested to see that it has survived in the Government's Amendment. It is the last word of all: it is the word "ish", which is not frequently encountered in English prose or poetry. As I explained, it is a Scottish legal term used in leases.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I think that I have heard it used in this House. In fact, I have a distinct recollection that at the conclusion of our debate on that occasion the noble Lord the Lord Chairman said "Ish it your Lordships' pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?", but I may have misheard him! I rejoice with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. If I thought that every challenge I issued in this House would meet such a positive response, I should certainly issue many more.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Provisions supplementary to section 20]:
6.6 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 17, line 20, at end insert—
1462
("( ) whether a person is a tenant-at-will;")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17. This Amendment, we believe, follows a suggestion which emanated from the noble Lord and the Law Society of Scotland to give the Lands Tribunal for Scotland jurisdiction in questions arising as to the existence of a tenancy-at-will. This will form a logical addition to the matters already within the Lands Tribunal's jurisdiction in Clause 21(1). I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord has said, this Amendment is consequential upon the previous Amendment. Although accepting that it is intended to be so, I must point out that it does not seem to fit neatly into the place proposed in Clause 21. The purpose of Clause 21 is to provide for the settlement of disputes by the Lands Tribunal of Scotland. The wording is not "dispute"; the wording is, "Any question arising under Section 20", the previous clause, "dealing with tenancies-at-will".
There could be more than two parties to such a dispute—a dispute perhaps as to who is the tenant-at-will. This does not seem to be allowed for by the words "either party" which appear in Clause 29. Those words provide for only two parties to a dispute. Therefore, I wonder whether the Government have considered the kind of cases that could come under this proposed new paragraph (a). On questions arising from Clause 20, the Lands Tribunal might find itself dealing with a wider range of cases than the Government now contemplate. So in accepting this Amendment, I ask the Government whether they will take another look at the wording in the light of my comments.
Lord KINROSS: My Lords, while joining in the rejoicing expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, at the introduction of a definition of a "tenant-at-will", I should like to support what he has said about an extension of Amendment No. 17. I understand that a number of people might claim to be the tenant-at-will, one of whom might not be the true claimant. Therefore, I would suggest that in the interregnum between now and when this Bill goes to the House of Commons, consideration might be

1463
given by the Government to extending this definition, to give power to the Lands Tribunal to determine the validity of a claim to a tenancy-at-will. That might very well be done in an extension to Clause 21. This would solve the contingency to which I have referred.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, we shall certainly consider the point. Perhaps I should add that we must leave something for another place to do. If we did all the work, someone might think of abolishing them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Appeals]:
6.10 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21:
Page 20, line 26, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (2A) and (3)")
Page 20, line 30, after ("(2)") insert ("Subject to subsections (2A) and (3)")
Page 20, line 32, at end insert—
("(2A) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall enable the taking of an appeal if it is, under the law relating to res judicata, excluded as a result of the exercise of any right of recourse by virtue of subsection (2) above; and nothing in subsection (2) above shall enable the exercise of any right of recourse if it is so excluded as a result of the taking of an appeal under subsection (1) above.")
Page 20, line 33, after ("lie") insert ("under this section, nor shall there be any right of recourse by virtue of this section").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 18 is in fact associated with Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21, and with leave I beg to move these Amendments en bloc. Clause 25 is intended to give a would-be appellant the option of taking an appeal from most decisions of the Keeper either to the Lands Tribunal or to the courts, if an appeal lies there under any other existing right. Amendment No. 20 is designed to make it clear that when a case has been dealt with by the Lands Tribunal it is res judicata so far as the subject-matter of that case is concerned, and that an appellant cannot thereafter take the same matter to a court of first instance. The appellant is similarly restricted from taking a matter on which the court has reached a decision to the
1464
Lands Tribunal. The remaining Amendments, Nos. 19, 20 an 21 are really consequential upon that main Amendment, and I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
An Amendment (privilege) made.
6.12 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. It is right that at this final stage I should take a moment or two to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and indeed to other noble Lords for their valuable assistance in getting this Bill into its present condition. I am equally happy to acknowledge the great help that the Government and the Bill team, and I myself, have received from the Law Society of Scotland. Many changes have been made, and I believe that many improvements have been made both in the content and in the form. But in saying that I do not want the officials, the Bill team, and the draftsmen to think that I am in any way criticising their work in producing the original Bill.
The spirit in which we on the Government side have approached any suggestion from the Law Society, or from noble Lords in this House, has been that the Bill should be not just effective in achieving its policy aims but as acceptable as possible in form and substance to the conveyancers of Scotland who are going to have to live with it, possibly for centuries. Where the Law Society, or any noble Lord, was able to suggest any change that would help in this direction we were happy to accept it provided the Bill lost nothing in its effectiveness.
May I on a personal note say that one commentator suggested that I was anxious to please the lawyers. Indeed I am, but that is not quite the point. What I was anxious to do was to end up with a Bill which would enable land registration to be introduced as smoothly and efficiently as possible: as I am sure it will be. But the principal beneficiaries will be the public. Lawyers thrive when the law is obscure and systems are complex, but the public pays the price. But if the system is freed of unnecessary complexities and lawyers can operate it with familiar ease, then the public gain both in terms of cost and certainty. This Bill will not change the world but it will, I believe, confer a real,

1465
tangible and lasting benefit on people in Scotland, and I am privileged to have had a part in it.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, who introduced the Bill and took it through its Second Reading, and later the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for the consideration which they gave to proposals for amending the Bill. As a result, the Bill has undergone considerable redrafting by agreement. The people who will have to work most closely with the Bill after it has been enacted are solicitors in Scotland; in particular they had hoped for definitions, where this was possible, and clarity. I believe that the Amendments that have been made have all been in this direction.
The Government have listened to the advice which was given to them and they responded with changes. As I indicated at the beginning of today's proceedings, I am particularly grateful for what has been done within the comparatively short space of time between the Committee, Report, and Third Reading stages. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lord Selkirk and Lord Kinross, qualified in law in Scotland as they are, I am not, for the help which they have given both here and outside. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, who has participated in and given his knowledge and experience to our deliberations. Above all, I should like to thank the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who has borne the brunt of this process since the beginning of this year.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ARBITRATION BILL [H.L.]
6.16 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 1 [Judicial review of arbitration awards]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, after ("aside") insert ("or remit").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor technical Amendment to deal with a possible loophole which has only recently been noticed. I hope therefore that your Lordships will not object to my moving it at this late stage. The abolition of the court's jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to an arbitrator's award for error of law or fact on its face, which Clause 1(1) is, among other things, intended to achieve, appears to be arguably incomplete, because that subsection refers only to the court's power to "set aside" on those grounds.
Theoretically, at any rate, the court might therefore still have jurisdiction on a motion under Section 22 of the Arbitration Act 1950 to remit an award to the arbitrator where an error appears on its face. This Amendment is designed to deal with that possible loophole. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.18 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 24, at beginning insert ("in any case where an award is made without any reason being given")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this too is a minor Amendment. Your Lordships will recall that Clause 1(6) was introduced into the Bill by an Amendment which I moved on Report following suggestions made in the House.
That subsection gives effect to what I think was a generally agreed principle, namely, that an arbitrator should not be required to give reasons, perhaps a long time after an award had been given, when he had kept no record of the proceedings or the reasons for his award. It was felt that this could be burdensome and embarrassing to the arbitrator in those circumstances.
However, on further reflection a further point has emerged. Where an arbitrator even though no prior notice has been given to him by a party, none the less gives reasons, but they are insufficient reasons,

1467
I do not think that the same argument about fairness and embarrassment to the arbitrator applies. And rather than leave the parties (and, if one of them appeals, the court) in doubt about the arbitrator's reasons, it would seem sensible, in a proper case, to enable the court, as it were, to ask the arbitrator to perfect them.
This Amendment is therefore intended to have the effect that where an arbitrator has given some reasons, as opposed to no reasons at all, a party will not be prevented from applying for an order under Clause 1(5) requiring the arbitrator to give further and sufficient reasons for his award, even though he had not given prior notice to the arbitrator that a reasoned award would be required and had no special reason for not having done so. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Exclusion agreements affecting rights under sections 1 and 2]:
6.20 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 36, leave out from ("agreement") to ("unless") in line 37.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient to consider Amendment No. 4 in conjunction with this Amendment. Your Lordships will recall that on Report I put down an Amendment which was in exactly the same terms as this Amendment, the purpose of which was and is to define a "domestic arbitration agreement" for the purposes of the Bill in such a way as to ensure that the domestic or non-domestic character of an arbitration agreement is determined once and for all at the time the agreement is made. The present definition is formulated by reference to Section 1(4) of the Arbitration Act 1975. I think the convenience of assimulating the two definitions as far as possible will be agreed, although there is no necessary functional connection between the two provisions.
However, the defect of this method of providing a definition in the Bill as it now stands is that, by incorporating the 1975 Act formula, it would result in the domestic or non-domestic character of an
1468
arbitration agreement being determined at the time the proceedings commenced. The result would be that a fortuitous change in the circumstances of the parties after the agreement was made might result in an arbitration agreement becoming, or ceasing to be, a domestic arbitration agreement for the purpose of determining whether the parties had or had not validly excluded applications to the court under the Bill. That, your Lordships may think, would be undesirable.
However, I withdrew the Amendment on Report stage because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, indicated that the definition in Section 1(4) of the 1975 Act, which was tailored for the separate purpose of international enforcement of arbitral awards under the New York Convention, might itself be defective in relation to the power of the court to refuse to stay proceedings where such international enforcement was involved. While I am willing to consider as a separate issue and apart from this Bill any problems which may have arisen in that field, in my view it would not be desirable to alter the definition in the 1975 Act merely to accommodate this Bill, which concerns a different area of the law and which uses the concept of a "domestic arbitration agreement" for a different purpose. I beg to move.
Lord RAWLINSON of EWELL: My Lords, I wish, first, to apologise for the absence of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone who, owing to other commitments, cannot be here. I was absent overseas when these matters were discussed in Committee and on Report, so I cannot help the House in this matter. All I can convey to noble Lords is the support of my noble and learned friend for the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 40, at end insert—
("(7) In this section "domestic arbitration agreement" means an arbitration agreement which does not provide, expressly or by implication, for arbitration in a State other than the United Kingdom and to which neither—

(a) an individual who is a national of, or habitually resident in, any State other than the United Kingdom, nor

1469

(b) a body corporate which is incorporated in, or whose central management and control is exercised in, any State other than the United Kingdom,

is a party at the time the arbitration agreement is entered into.")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Exclusion agreements not to apply in certain cases unless entered into after commencement of arbitration]:
6.25 p.m.
Lord DIPLOCK Lord DIPLOCK had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 9, after ("unless") insert ("either (a").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient if, with this Amendment, we take at the same time Amendment No. 7. These Amendments were designed to deal with a point originally raised in Committee by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce, and reiterated by me, perhaps a little out of order, on Report. This is designed to deal with a point which from time to time arises in maritime contracts where the parties select, as the law governing their contract, a foreign law, particularly, for example, French law, the law of New York State, as in a New York Produce Exchange form of contract which is widely used.
If disputes arising under that contract were left to go to a court, the normal forum would be the French court or the New York State court, but not infrequently the parties, because they like London arbitration, put in London arbitration as the forum for their disputes. If they had gone to the French court in that rare case where, under the doctrine of renvoi as applied by the French courts, or to the New York State courts, then they would have accepted the view of the French court or the New York State court as to what the English law was. If they accept, instead of the French court or the New York State court, an arbitration as the better way of solving their disputes and choose a London arbitration, then, if they are content to accept the view of the arbitrator as to what English law is in the event of it being applicable under French law by the doctrine of renvoi, there seems no reason why they should not be allowed to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, mentioned during the debates on this matter that there was a strong feeling among American lawyers—I can confirm this—that the risk, when they have chosen a foreign law, of having the case come before the English courts should be eliminated. This is designed to do that because I can see no reason, either in principle or practice, why one should not accede to their wishes.
Having said that, your Lordships will observe that Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 provide the same thing in a more elegant way and, having seen those Amendments, I do not propose to move my Amendment, No. 5.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
6.28 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 9, after ("unless") insert ("either (i)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, has most graciously conceded the greater elegance of Amendments Nos. 6 and 8, which really effect the same purpose as was embodied in his Amendments Nos. 5 and 7. I am most grateful to him, to the noble and learned Lord Lord Wilberforce, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, all of whom raised this question with me in the course of the debates. As our purpose is to remove, as far as we can, obstacles in the way of bringing these arbitrations to London, and as there seem to be circumstances where, if these Amendments were not included, some obstacles would in some cases remain, I have willingly agreed, now that I have fully understood what it is all about, that this change should be made in the Bill.
Lord WILBERFORCE: My Lords, I rise only to indicate my welcome for the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I should have been quite happy with the Amendments tables by my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock, but I am even happier with those of the Lord Chancellor. I would only add that inserted, as this Amendment necessarily is, in a fairly complicated clause with

1471
negatives and exceptions, it makes a rather complicated subsection, but I do not think there is anything to be done about that at this stage. However, clearly the side note will have to be shortened or lengthened, whoever has the duty to deal with it. If it is lengthened, it will be almost as long as the subsection. I ask the indulgence of the House in drawing attention to a matter which is, strictly speaking, outside its responsibility. Apart from that, I welcome and support the noble and learned Lord's Amendment, and thank him very much for considering this rather obscure and perhaps esoteric, but not unimportant point.
Lord HACKING: My Lords, I rise merely to express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 12, at end insert ("or (ii) the award or question relates to a contract which is expressed to be governed by a law other than the law of England and Wales").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.32 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. The Bill, as I think we all hope and expect, will enhance the attractions of London as an international centre for arbitrations. It is agreeable to be told, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and others have told us in the course of our discussions, that parties, and particularly foreigners, are anxious to arbitrate in London where, in their view, the expertise of our judges, lawyers, and arbitrators, as well as our highly developed commercial law, ensures that disputes are competently and fairly dealt with. However, it has emerged that there is an existing hindrance in our present arrangements; namely, the ability of parties who wish to do so to abuse the right of recourse to our courts of law, and to do so as a means of delay. It is also thought that the penalty in costs is no longer sufficient to deter such abuses. The Bill, I am confident, however, will go far to abolish such abuses.
1472
In addition, where parties have recourse to the courts the Bill would allow the matters raised to be more speedily and satisfactorily disposed of by a straightforward appeal, rather than by the special case procedure. That is an aspect of the Bill which perhaps, in our concern to deal with present abuses and to attract business from abroad, has not received the emphasis which, in my view, it deserves.
We have also gone wider in the Bill by striking at delays generally, and have given the arbitrator a potent weapon to discourage parties who try to delay the arbitration proceedings themselves. In future, with the court's authority, the arbitrator will be able to proceed with the arbitration where a party defaults in complying with his directions. For example, he will be able to make a valid award in default of a defence if the party concerned is dilatory in presenting it.
I know that there are feelings in some quarters that the Bill does not go far enough, while in other quarters there are complaints that it goes too far, and so one is left with the reassuring feeling that therefore it must be about right. Those questions relate to the way the Bill deals with the parties' right to exclude intervention by the courts. I do not underestimate the concerns which have been expressed, but my feeling is that the Bill represents a reasonable compromise, and in regard to the much debated "special category disputes" it maintains a desirable flexibility of approach for the future by allowing the law in those cases to be modified, if necessary, when some experience has been gained of the new procedures. That, in my view, is the best practicable arrangement, and, as your Lordships know, it implements the recommendation of the highly representative committee on whose report the Bill is based.
I have been strengthened in this view since my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade has recently made some inquiries in arbitration circles, and has, I understand, been assured by a number of major bodies that the treatment in the Bill of the "special category disputes", when coupled with his power to modify the Bill's effect upon them, is both acceptable and satisfactory.
In conclusion, I wish to thank those of your Lordships from all parts of the

1473
House who have taken a vital and valuable part in our discussions on what has been a very technical piece of legislation, and I confess to having been enormously assisted myself. Happily, there is considerable expertise in this House in this field, and this has been made readily and generously available. We have had the benefit of advice not only in the House itself from your Lordships, but also in correspondence and in informal discussions, and I know that the Bill is all the better for those exchanges. In particular, I once again express my gratitude and that of the Government to Mr. Justice Donaldson and the other members of the Commercial Court Committee, without whose report it would be extremely unlikely that a Bill of this kind would have seen the light of day for a very long time.
I have been surprised to learn that in some quarters we have been criticised for moving too fast in this matter, though most criticism has been the other way. I can only hope that after the efforts of your Lordships, and myself, and those advising me, to get the Bill right and to send it to the other place in what is I think an agreed form, it will be approved of quickly there. I believe, as I think we all do, that the Bill's enactment will help to maintain London's position in the forefront of arbitration business, and will thus contribute to those essential invisible earnings which bring so much benefit to this country and to its economy. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
6.38 p.m.
Lord RAWLINSON of EWELL: My Lords, as I said a little while ago, I was absent while much important work took place on the Bill following Second Reading. Having spent many years in another place, and, as a Law Officer, having had to introduce Bills of a similar nature, I cannot but reflect upon how essential it is that such Bills should start in this House, because in another place one would not have had the assistance of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Diplock and Lord Wilberforce, or of course the noble Lord, Lord Hacking; one would not have had the assistance of such expertise so as to have been enabled to consider
1474
a Bill of such importance and such technical complexity. I hope that following all the work that has been done on the Bill in this House it will, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, go through another place speedily, though I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, say, when dealing with another Bill earlier today, that we ought not to do all the work in this House, otherwise there will be a case for the abolition of the other House, which is in contrast to what some people suggest from time to time.
I wish to congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having introduced the Bill into the House and for having been enabled, with the assistance of the noble and learned Lords and the noble Lord to whom I have referred, to present the Bill now to the other place. The Bill may or may not cure all the defects which we have heard about, regarding arbitration law and the practice of arbitration in this country, but it certainly goes a considerable way towards doing that. Therefore, like all who have spoken on the Bill, I hope that it will attract back to London—the place where so much arbitration ought to be held—arbitrations which in recent years have gone elsewhere. In conclusion, I again congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor upon having intro duced the Bill.
6.40 p.m.
Lord DIPLOCK: My Lords, during the progress of this Bill through this House I, in common with others of your Lordships who have taken an active interest in it, have received a number of helpful letters, which have resulted in some of the Amendments which have been made. But some of those letters have shown a misunderstanding, as I think, of the way in which the Bill will be operated in practice. Since I was in on the discussions which led to the recommendations by the Commercial Court Committee on which the Bill is based, and have been in close contact with Sir John Donaldson, as chairman, and the other judges of the Commercial Court who are members of the Commercial Court Committee and who will be responsible for giving effect to its provisions, it may be helpful if I were to give my understanding of how,

1475
in certain respects about which fears have been expressed, it is intended to apply the Bill in practice.
My Lords, the substitution, by Clause 1, of an appeal to the High Court on a question of law arising out of an award for the statement of the award as a special case is to prevent misuse of the procedure for purposes of delay. The essential difference is that a special case is unenforceable until the decision of the High Court on the question put, even where the award is one in which, whichever way the question goes, the plaintiff is entitled to recover something under it; and, in addition to that, there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from the High Court as a matter of right. Under the new procedure, the award becomes enforceable as soon as it is made. If the appellant wishes to appeal on a question of law and prevent enforcement, he must apply promptly to the court; and what is important is that the court is given wide powers to impose conditions on leave to appeal on a question of law.
Such conditions, which I expect will be frequently imposed, are that there should be payment into court of the whole or part of the claim, or payment into a joint account, or the provision of security for the amount of the award; and I anticipate with every confidence that that power will be exercised robustly by the court in any case where there are grounds for suspicion that the appeal is intended for the purpose of delay. Furthermore, under the new procedure there is very limited power for further appeal. It is not of right; there must be a certificate by the judge that the question raised is sufficiently important to justify a further step. However, under Clause 2 the Bill conserves the consultative case, and that involves delay. But it is only where there would be a substantial saving in costs, which normally would be a case of eliminating a great deal of expensive and lengthy evidence, that the court has power to grant what will now become an exceptional method of appeal on a point of law.
The second point I wish to make (because a fear to the contrary has been expressed) is that the new procedure will not increase the number of cases which are brought to be reviewed by the High Court on points of law. The whole effect of it
1476
will be to reduce the number. Under the present procedure, it is difficult for an arbitrator to refuse the request of a party, sometimes backed by leading counsel, to state his award in the form of a special case for the opinion of the court; and, if he refuses, it is difficult for the court, in the absence of an award, to decide whether the case is one in which it is appropriate to grant the leave which the arbitrator has refused. In the result, under the present procedure it is very seldom that an arbitrator in fact refuses the right to go to the court, with all the consequent delay.
Under the new procedure, where you have to obtain the leave of the court unless all parties agree, the court will not give leave unless there is a good arguable case that the arbitrator has gone wrong in law; and where it does give leave, it has the power to make these robust conditions to which I have already referred. If I may be permitted a prediction, the effect of the change to the new procedure will be that there will be brought before the court fewer cases with the consequent delay before the award of the arbitrator can be enforced.
The next point I want to make—because I think there is a great deal of misapprehension on it—is that the Bill does not make the giving of reasons compulsory in all cases. In the great majority of domestic arbitrations and many international arbitrations in the commodity markets, there is no dispute as to the law applicable: the question is a question of fact. They are what I described, I think, at Second Reading, as quality arbitrations, not "holiday" arbitrations as was printed in Hansard. There, the questions are: Are the goods up to contract quality? Or, in a construction contract, a building contract: Are the materials and workmanship of good quality? What is a fair price for the variations?—and the like. It is very rare in practice, in cases which are not maritime, commodity or insurance cases, that, today, the parties ever ask for the award to be stated as a special case. Indeed, when I gave a lecture on the special case to what is now the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, many of the most experienced arbitrators there—in construction work, in house building generally and in council work—had never in their lives been asked

1477
to state their award as a special case. So there is no compulsion to state reasons in cases which are purely quality arbitrations.
Another piece of reassurance which I think it is desirable to give is that when reasons are given they can be very simply expressed in ordinary language and not in this rather technical form which case-stated cases now take. England is almost unique in not requiring arbitrators to give reasons, however short in summary they may be, for their awards; and it is generally satisfactory for the parties to know why the case was decided in the way that it was. But this Bill will not require elaborate reasons to be given; that can be done very simply, very shortly, in nearly all kinds of arbitration. The arbitrator, under the Bill, as a result of the Amendments which have been made, will know when reasons are required. He will know when there is a point of law which the parties may want to have reviewed by the court; and I have no doubt that in practice the parties who contemplate a possible appeal upon a point of law will ask the arbitrator to deal with it in his award.
Next, may I come to special category disputes. All these are in an area where the greatest contribution has been made, and is still being made, to the development of English and worldwide commercial law. That is the reason why today English law is chosen as the law to govern so many commercial contracts between foreigners who have no connection with this country. It is the reason that has made London arbitration pre-eminent in the commercial world. There have been many suggestions for inclusion or omission of various other kinds of contract from the special category. The compromise—for it was a compromise—is, I think, right at present, bearing in mind that omission from the special category is for ever. A fresh Act of Parliament would be required to put another category of contract into the special category; whereas inclusion in the special category—and I should like to emphasise what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already said, and as the Commercial Court Committee has already emphasised—is for an experimental period during which it will be possible to see how the new system works.
1478
Once abuse of the case-stated system has been cured by the new system, as I believe it will be cured, commercial interests may wish to retain the new procedure for reviewing a question of law either for all the contracts put initially into the special category or for some of them—for instance, for contracts which are in standard terms. The commercial interests involved will have the opportunity of making representations to the Secretary of State if, as a result of experience, they think it is desirable that either all the special category contracts or some of them should be removed from it. The period which the Commercial Court Committee had in mind as being the experimental period was a period of two or three years. It seems to me that it is a prudent policy to take the opportunity of seeing how the new procedure works before abandoning the possibility of a review of an award by the High Court on a question of commercial law—something which has served the development of the commercial law in this country so well for more than a hundred years.
Finally, a small point on which I think there has been misunderstanding; that is, on the new powers in Clause 5 conferred upon the court to empower arbitrators to proceed ex parte in default of appearance or the taking of some steps by one of the parties. In many domestic arbitrations today, arbitrators do proceed ex parte either under the specific rules applying to the arbitration or under their inherent powers at common law. Clause 5 in no way diminishes those existing powers. They are expressly preserved by Clause 5(5); and arbitrators—and this is a typical example—under the National House Builders' Council arbitrations can rest assured that they can continue to proceed ex parte as, under their present practice, they do in what I am told is quite a considerable number of cases.
Those are the points on which, from the letters I have received, it appeared that there had been perhaps some misunderstanding. In view of what has been said about the various advice which noble Lords have received from interested parties, I am in a position to say today that the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators fully supports the Arbitration Bill, as now amended; and, looked at with proper understanding of how it is intended to be applied in practice, I can wholeheartedly

1479
commend the Bill as a valuable reform of the procedure in domestic and international arbitration and as one which is calculated to preserve and enhance the pre-eminence of London as a centre of international arbitration. I should like to add my thanks to those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, to the Lord Chancellor for promoting this Bill.
6.59 p.m.
Lord HACKING: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has remarked, this is a moment for thanks. I should like to extend my personal thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for bringing this measure so swiftly—a matter not for criticism—before this House. I should like to couple with those thanks the senior officers of the Department of Trade and of the Lord Chancellor's Department, most conscientiously and patiently led by Mr. Michael Kerry and Mr. Thomas Legg and my special thanks to the Government and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, personally, for giving me such easy and open access to his advisors. In recent weeks and, indeed, in recent days, they received telephone calls from all over North America. Outside this House, thanks and credit are also due to Mr. Mark Littman of the London Arbitration Group whose first meeting was held in the Middle Temple Hall on the afternoon of Thursday, 23rd June 1977 and to those who have supported him—particularly Mr. Reuben Clark, an American lawyer in London, who spent a great deal of time and effort in support of the work of that group. Finally—and not least—thanks, as have already been attributed in this House, are due to Mr. Justice Donaldson and the Commercial Court Committee over which he presided.
Having moved 29 reasonable, sensible, and constructive amendments to this Bill, and having had all 29 rejected in the form that they were moved, I am not able to advise the House that the Bill is better without these good Amendments; but I recognise that there must be give and take, and I recognise too—as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explained—that there must be a balancing of conflicting interests. As I shall can-
1480
didly admit, I was probably wrong on some of the points that I made. But if I did not persuade, my Lords, I have been persuaded. Compromise, especially over the treatment of special category disputes, despite the conflicting words in which the Secretary of State for Trade has referred to the noble and learned Lord, has led this Bill still into waters which I believe may cloud its future.
My sole endeavour was to contribute to the forming of a Bill which would make for improvement of all arbitration in the United Kingdom, but especially international arbitration which will not come to us unless we provide an attractive forum in the form of speed, efficiency and fairness. In recent travels which I have undertaken during the passage of this Bill, I can confirm that there remains an increasing need for good, international arbitration forums.
Secondly, I can confirm that there is an increasing interest in all international arbitration forums and I am able to refer your Lordships to a seminar—indeed there are many of them—which the International Chamber of Commerce held in Paris in January, and I attended another seminar on Tuesday of this week at the Los Angeles County Bar Association in California. Thirdly, I can give an assurance from my travels that there remains a high preference to come to London for the settlement of international arbitration. In giving that confirmation, I shall read an extract from a letter, other parts of which I have read to support various arguments that I have presented to your Lordships during the course of the debates on this Bill. Having made points of criticism about English arbitration the writer says:
"It believe that most American lawyers would concur in my view that in every other respect, an English arbitration forum is considered most attractive and desirable. The quality of the legal profession generally and of arbitrators more particularly in England is well-known and well-founded. The sophistication and fairness of English law, where no other law is designated by contract, is widely recognised. The support services required for a major commercial arbitration are readily available in London. As an English speaking nation, the United Kingdom provides a neutral forum for disputes between many other English speaking nations of the world. And finally, London is geographically and logistically a convenient middle ground for parties on most continents ".
Using the terminology of American colleagues, the best summation that I can

1481
give on the Bill is from another American lawyer, Mr. Robert L. Clare, a senior partner of Schearman and Sterling in New York. This is what he says:
"I still think the Arbitration Bill is a forward step and should enable those of us engaged in international practice to have the luxury of conducting our arbitrations in England, with English barristers, and in a language and a culture which we understand and admire".
Despite whatever imperfections this Bill may have, it presents the opportunity for courts and arbitrations to make our Arbitration law work better and to make a further contribution to the development of our commercial law.
I shall therefore leave the House with two thoughts: first, the hope that our friends in the other place will recognise that compromise there must be and that the Bill is in the interests of the United Kingdom to the disadvantage of no sector of our community. It is not a Bill for the big to the disadvantage of the small. Secondly—and this is my final point to your Lordships—I express the hope that this Bill may provide the foundation for an international arbitration centre based in the United Kingdom, in London, in whatever form that association may take, with a well-equipped building, arbitration halls, conference rooms and a library; an efficient secretariat and a service for reporting arbitrators' decisions. It is not only in the reforming of our law wherein lies our future in international arbitration work. In the meantime, I have no doubt that everybody, our widely qualified arbitrators, our judges—both sitting on the bench of the commercial court and as judge arbitrators—our lawyers and their clients will try very hard to make it all work.
On Question, Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

ASIAN DEVELOPMENTS: POLICY
7.6 p.m.
Lord ALPORT Lord ALPORT rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement of policy with regard to the developments now taking place in Asia. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it has been an unusual experience to be present at a Second Reading debate at the
1482
stage that the Bill do now pass; but I hope that I shall not detain your Lordships for too long in referring to a matter which is very far away from the subject that we have been considering.
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. In the debate on the Address last November, when we discussed foreign affairs, neither the noble Lord the Leader of the House, nor my noble friend Lord Soames from the Front Benches made any mention of the situation between the Red Sea and the Bay of Bengal as it was then developing. Since then, we have been hard put in this House to find sufficient legislative trivia to fill our Order Paper. Yet, day by day events are taking place in Asia which will alter the balance of power on which our security depends, which will have a profound effect upon the economic stability of the whole of the Free World and which, if things go awry, could germinate the seeds of a Third World War.
It is totally wrong that consideration of this matter at this time should be relegated to a Private Member's Unstarred Question in your Lordships' House. We have here a greater concentration of experience in international affairs—and particularly in the affairs of the half of the world with which this Unstarred Question is concerned—than any other Assembly in the West. If my fears (which are widely held) are wrong, then more knowledgeable speakers should put them to rights. If my fears are justified, then surely it is the duty of this House, within the limits of such influence as we possess, to make our warnings clear.
My fears are these: that the establishment of Russian control in Afghanistan has been the first step towards a penetration of Soviet influence into Iran with the object of gaining control over the oil areas of the whole of the Arabian peninsular. I shall not bore your Lordships with the evidence that exists of a prolonged Russian campaign of subversion in Iran, of the activities of the Tudeh party whose leadership is—or certainly was until recently—in Moscow, or of the Marxist part in the present violent revolution which is graphically depicted on our television screens and led to the assault on the U.S. Embassy yesterday.
I do not argue that an Islamic Republic in Iran, whatever form it now takes, will be Communist in the Russian context; but the facts, as I see them, are these: in the 1980s the Soviet Union will face an energy crisis comparable with that of the West. Since Stalin's day, and indeed long before, Iran and the Gulf have been regarded by Moscow as their direct sphere of influence, only denied to them first by American opposition since 1945 and, latterly, by the Shah's Government. Control over that area will not only solve for the Kremlin the mounting Russian energy problem but will also give the Soviet access to a warm water port from which their fleet can exercise domination from Singapore to the Cape of Good Hope. It will also enable Moscow to dictate the price and quantity of oil coming from that part of the world to the West. For Russia, frankly, control of that area is something of far greater importance than the achievement of nuclear superiority; it is the key to world domination on the cheap.
As I have said, I do not think the new Islamic Republic of Iran will become immediately a Soviet satellite like Afghanistan, but the situation there is going to remain unstable. Pro-Russian elements will be increasingly active. The new leaders of Iran are elderly. The taste for power by revolution in the streets is beguiling. The millions who shouted for the Shah two years ago and for the Ayatollah today—who may they be shouting for in two or three years' time? Your Lordships can be quite certain that over the next two or three years the security forces of Iran, the administrative services—slowly no doubt now being re-established—and economic life, particularly in the oil industry, will be penetrated by Russian-trained experts and Marxist sympathisers. How do I know this?—because it is as obvious as the vulnerability of the Shah's régime was obvious during the last five years to any experienced observer and even to somebody like myself. Nor is it insignificant that the first of the major Powers to recognise the new régime in Teheran was the Soviet Union.
With Afghanistan a Soviet satellite and Iran in turmoil, the next move will be to promote the de-stabilisation of Pakistan.
1484
Baluchi and Pathan irredentism are immediate cards of entry for the Kremlin. Also there is the fate of Mr. Bhutto. We do not like hangings in this country, and least of all of Prime Ministers who were educated at Oxford. I attended, many years ago now, an international conference in Karachi as a Minister in the old CRO. Among the Turkish delegation was the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Menderes. He was a very agreeable and very attractive character: he was later hanged with two other members of his Cabinet. Such, my Lords, are the hazards of politics in Asia.
What impresses me is that, whatever the fate of Mr. Bhutto may be, he has been tried by due processes of law—law which, I would remind your Lordships, is probably the greatest legacy we have bequeathed to the sub-continent. He has been judged by a Chief Justice who was one of the last entrants to the ICS and a judicial bench trained in the traditions of the British legal system. Contrast that, my Lords, with the revolutions in Afghanistan and the Yemen, where the heads of State, with the whole of their families and many of their supporters were brutally wiped out by coups in both places, manipulated by the Government in Moscow. I do not know what will be the outcome of Mr. Bhutto's case but, whatever happens, it must have a profound effect on Pakistan in the immediate future; and with the situation in Pakistan, as Vice-Premier Teng said quite recently in Tokyo, are bound up the political prospects of the whole sub-continent.
The success of Russian policy in Afghanistan has therefore opened the way for them and for their political invasion of the whole of Southern Asia, and I do not think it would be too far-fetched to assume that the planners in the Kremlin whose foresight, frankly, I admire, are looking forward by the end of the 1980s, and perhaps much earlier, to a linking-up of their three political fronts: the Yemen, in the West via Arabia, Vietnam in the East via Thailand and Iran in the centre. And all that can be accomplished without a single Russian division being moved from the Warsaw Pact forces in Europe and without a single division being moved from the Russian forces facing the Chinese frontier opposite Sinkiang—given time, of course, and the contemporary lassitude of the free world.
China: even two or three days in Peking last September confirmed to me the attraction which that country and its people have for the Westerner. Our flight over the first 100 miles of the Karakoram Highway, brought home the closeness of China and its importance and significance to the contemporary focal point in the conflict of interest between Russian and the Free World: Afghanistan, Iran and the Gulf. China is obviously a factor in the Asian situation, particularly after the American-Chinese detente. But we must remember two things: First, the new policy which has led to a sudden opening up of Maoist China is largely the creation of one remarkable statesman well into his seventies. Secondly, other undeveloped countries which have made a supreme effort to absorb modern technology quickly have found the strain too much and have collapsed in political confusion.
In surveys of this sort one could go on for hours. My aim has been to say to anyone who will listen, here or outside, that I believe the danger signs for this country and for the Free World are flashing, and that if nothing is done to stop the present development of Soviet imperialism now, sooner or later it will have to be resisted by force. I am not thinking in terms of the next year or two. It is perhaps a good thing that so many countries in the world are ruled by men whose lifespans have already exceeded three score years and ten. But when that generation leaves the stage we must surely ensure that the new generation of leaders inherits a balance of power that will last well into the 21st century. The foundations of that balance must be laid now by the policies and the efforts of this generation.
My questions to Her Majesty's Government are these: how far do you accept the basic arguments which I have offered to your Lordships? And, if they are accepted, what is the policy of the Government today? There are three more things I should like to say. My judgment is not influenced by my antipathy to Communism; it is conditioned by my understanding, rightly or wrongly, that Russian imperialism today is motivated by the same policies as it was under the Tsars. To some extent the methods are different and the ultimate objectives are on a global rather than a continental scale, but the
1486
fears I have expressed would be precisely the same if the developments in Asia were now taking place with the Romanovs still enthroned in Petrograd.
Secondly, it is difficult for anyone in the dominantly Christian West properly to evaluate the significance and the power of Islam over the millions of believers, deriving from the contemporary Islamic revival. There are some who argue that this great movement will confront and can resist the spread of the materialist religion of Marx. Its strength, so some believe, may produce the first fissures in the monolithic structure of imperialist Russia, through the Moslem millions whom the Tsars incorporated within its frontiers. I do not know. I believe, however, that we in the West should not allow our social prejudices or our historic memories to reinforce the barriers which time has created between this predominantly Christian country, and the millions of our fellow men and women whose faith imposes on them stricter disciplines and different social values to those we are prepared to accept ourselves.
Lastly, when Kipling's contemporaries were playing the "great game" and Lord Curzon occupied Government House, Calcutta, it was the responsibility of the British Government to contain the southern sweep of Russian imperialism. To this end, we fought three wars in Afghanistan and at least two in Persia. The memorials to our dead can still be seen on the Khyber Pass and beyond. We realise that, today, our mantle has passed to the shoulders of the Government of the United States—the super-Power of the free world. We no longer claim to be that.
But let me be quite frank. If the overrunning of its embassy in Teheran and the murder of its ambassador in Kabul are accepted by merely removing the remaining American citizens from those countries, if it appears to well-disposed Governments that the United States Government is prepared to kow-tow to mob revolution—Russian inspired—in areas of vital importance to America and to the free world and if President Carter plans to replace the energy resources of the Middle East with those available in Central America, then we are, indeed, engaged in what our transatlantic cousins would call a "new ball-game."
But if the United States with its power and wealth, if the newborn European community, if the Commonwealth, or many of the Commonwealth countries, have the will to take the risks and make the sacrifices which, over so many centuries, have represented the price which men must pay for freedom and fulfilment, then I think that the world may be made safe, not perhaps for democracy, but, at any rate, for a better life amid the infinite variety of belief and culture for the millions who may, in the next generation, aspire to enjoy the security, modest prosperity and influence over their individual destinies which mankind the world over has always sought to attain.
7.23 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I am sure that the House would wish me to thank my noble friend Lord Alport for his extremely interesting and profound analysis of the situation which is facing many countries in Asia today. We are indeed grateful that we have had the opportunity to talk about this matter this evening, and to ask the views of Her Majesty's Government. It is undoubtedly one of fundamental importance in the geopolitical world situation, to which our attention has been sharply drawn by the current situation in Iran.
As my noble friend pointed out, events in Asia in recent years underline a change in the approach of the Soviet Union to acquiring world domination, which has always been their publicly and oft-repeated objective. We have only to think of Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, South Yemen and, coming further west, the Horn of Africa—in each case, there is evidence of the diverse tactical methods which are now being used, to which the term "leap-frogging over the West's defences" has been attributed. These methods cover three different types of activity, which are evidenced by these cases.
No longer is the military coup used, for that is replaced by diplomacy, and we can think of many treaties which have been signed and ratified by the Soviet Union, but which are not observed. Non-alignment, or anti-Western neutrality, has replaced the satellite State under the direct control of the Soviet Union. We no longer hear so much of armed threats
1488
by Russia; instead we hear of offers of arms and economic assistance. This, again, is a new way in which the Soviets are gradually infiltrating and influencing situations, particularly in Asiatic countries. These methods are being used efficaciously the whole time, while we still, apparently, accept the checkmate of détente.
My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, who very much regrets that he is not able to be here tonight, has written a few notes on this aspect which he has authorised me to quote. He mentioned the way in which the Soviet Union paid no attention to the treaties which they have signed and, if I may, I shall quote from his notes. He referred to the Control Commission Committee, which was set up in Geneva between the USSR, the United States, France and China. After 18 months of rearguard action, the Soviets agreed to a new Control Commission with strict control of arms to be used in the three countries—that is, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos—solely for policing.
The treaty was signed. Again, my noble friend says, from Day 1 the USSR began to cheat by piling in heavy arms. In 1971, yet another meeting was called in Paris. Again, a consensus was reached, but it made not the slightest difference to Russia's behaviour. They continued to subvert and rearm, and paralysed the Control Commission. That is one example which my noble friend has quoted to me, and it includes the period when he himself was in Government, so that he is fully aware of the facts of which he was writing.
He also draws attention in his notes to the tactics now being used in North Thailand. If North Thailand were to collapse, Malaysia and Singapore would be seriously threatened, and the Governments of the SEATO Powers should be giving help to Thailand in order to resist these incursions. I should like to ask the Government what initiatives they have taken, will be taking or might consider taking, with, in particular, the United States and France, to assist in sending arms to Thailand. As my noble friend pointed out, it is essential to preserve intact sea and air communications between Singapore, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand. At the same time, the United Kingdom should be exposing Russia's behaviour in Cambodia. The thought comes, in relation to providing arms for Thailand which is implicit in my noble

1489
friend's recommendations, that the contracts with Iran which, presumably, will now fall to the ground, might be diverted to that part of the world.
It may well be that the different approach of the Soviet Union towards world domination was triggered-off as regards neighbouring States in the '50s, by the attempt of the United States to create a defence organisation following the decline in Britain's defence role in the Middle East—traditionally an area of British influence. Certainly, there are some of us who very much regret the withdrawal of troops from Aden and the Far East, which has considerably weakened the possibilities of either ourselves or our allies taking any action, or being a preventive threat to any incursions by the Soviet Union by whatever methods they may be using. The Soviets apparent support of the non-aligned against the West—though, in many cases, I believe the real economic and politic interests of those countries to be in closer relation with the West than with the Soviets—has gained a foothold in many of the countries which we are now discussing.
Another point which we have to consider seriously in relation to the reactions of the Soviet Union, and the speed with which they arc now acting in these countries, either overtly or under cover, is the reaction of China and its recent stronger approach to the West, in order to get arms and to shorten the time in which it was hoping to reach a certain stage of development. I believe that this was a legitimate act of China, but this approach to the West must have had some effect on the Soviet Union and speeded up its own activities in areas which would be very much influenced by a stronger, wealthier and more modern, in military terms, Republic of China.
I should like to mention a statement made by the Foreign Secretary which was reported yesterday in the Daily Telegraph. There is a short paragraph in that statement which refers to the new régime in Iran. We know, of course, that the Foreign Secretary is away, so I have not seen the text of his statement. Perhaps, however, I may quote from page 5 of the Daily Telegraph. The Foreign Secretary
"believed the new Government wanted good relations with Britain"—
and this we certainly share and hope—
1490
"and he made it clear he saw no 'activist Soviet role in the movement which brought about the Shah's downfall".
This may not be a correct version of what was said by the Foreign Secretary, so I should be grateful if his statement could be made available to me or put in the Library. The information that is available to those of us who follow these matters is that undoubtedly there has been Marxist infiltration of a high order over a long period of time.
In connection with that, may I refer to a publication called The Campaign to Destabilise Iran, published by Conflict Studies in November 1978. Perhaps I could quote one example from page 7. The reference is to NAVID:
"NAVID provided in the summer of 1978 a remarkable insight into the Communist attempt to exploit the Muslim traditionalist revolt in Iran for their own purposes. A pamphlet produced by NAVID in June under the title of 'The Tudeh Party and the Muslim Movement' preached the necessity for an 'anti-dictatorial broad front' in which the mullahs were to play a vanguard role. 'We are ready to put at the disposal of our friends from other political groups all our political propaganda and technical resources for the campaign against the Shah' ".
Admittedly, this is only one example, but this usually very well-informed publication, which can be proved to provide incontrovertible evidence, seems to me to be extraordinary, in view of the alleged statement made by the Foreign Secretary. Therefore, I should like that point to be clarified.
If the Soviet Union are influencing the situation in Iran in any way and are going to have a say in the kind of Government that is to be formed in the near future—because nobody knows whether the present situation will hold—it is clear that we are going to lose a key position in the defence of the West, for there is a 1,600 mile border between Iran and the Soviet Union. We have always regarded Iran as a bastion which protects the Persian Gulf and the flow of oil to the West. Not only would our oil resources be severely damaged; the future of a very considerable amount of Irano-British trade would also be jeopardised, to say nothing of the influence on the price of oil for industry.
We may well ask, as my noble friend is asking the Government, how the West should react. How do these events affect the West and what answers are we getting about detente? What measures should

1491
we in Western Europe, as partners of the United States, be taking in NATO, and what should we be requiring the United States to do? President Kennedy said that Europe should be the second pillar. I do not think that this pillar has grown very high since President Kennedy put forward that idea. What have the Government done to implement this policy? And do the Government share the view that Europe should be strong in defence and in its economy so as to preserve its vital interests?
What measures are the Government considering in connection with the availability of raw materials for the needs of Britain and other Western countries? Presumably we shall be looking for alternative sources of oil, or will the Government now proceed to the quicker development and establishment of a nuclear energy industry? We hope that close discussions with the United States and our other partners as to restrictive boundaries which confine the operations of NATO will be continued. Is it any longer reasonable to expect that the whole of Western defence should be limited to a certain part of the world when it is clear that all parts of the world are subject to attack by people who are a potential threat to our freedom and safety?
In view of its key position, I should also like to ask the Government what measures they intend to take to co-operate more actively with India in commercial, industrial and trade agreements. This country was not mentioned by my noble friend, but India is a fast developing country in terms of economic growth. We have very many friends in India—far more now, possibly, than we have ever had—and they frequently look to us for advice, aid and assistance, which we should be more ready to give.
My next point is a small but nevertheless an important one: How are the overseas broadcast programmes being organised by Her Majesty's Government? Have these overseas broadcast programmes been curtailed or shortened since the Think Tank review, or have they, hopefully, been increased? When the situation is changing so rapidly in the world, surely this is the time when the voice of Britain and of the West should be heard. The voice of Britain is understood by very
1492
many countries, since the language which is used in English. I am sure that the noble Lord, who travels a great deal around the world, will confirm that people of all races and conditions look to Britain in order to hear the voice of common sense, stability and standards—things which they themselves wish to maintain or attain. Although this is a small point in the overall context of world affairs, nevertheless it is important.
As a result of the situation in Iran, the weakening of CENTO is a problem which the Government will be considering. In this context, no doubt the Government will consider it to be essential to strengthen the position of Turkey and encourage it to co-operate as a member of NATO and fulfil its obligations, thus gaining benefits from maintaining its allegiance to its Western Allies.
Finally, it seems to me that the Government should look very much more closely at the kind of trade, industrial and commercial agreements that we have with the Soviet Union. Why is it that so much grain is always readily available for sale to the Soviet Union when its harvests fail? This is never used as a lever against the Soviet Union, but there are many times when the West could use this lever for its own benefit. Why is it, indeed, that we sell so much of our science, technology and know-how to the Soviet Union—so often, incidentally, by lending them money at a very low rate of interest: far lower than the rate at which most people in this country can borrow at today. Surely this is a matter which should be considered by the Member States of the Community. There should be a common policy on our dealings and our trade with the Soviet Union.
One of the great weaknesses of the West is that this Government have not always played a full role in the European Community. I think that concerted action with our partners would benefit both this country and the Western world. Every time that we give something away to Russia they take a bit more for themselves. This is not a particularly Communist approach; it is symptomatic of the traditional, historic line of Russian imperialist expansionism.
So, my Lords, what is happening in Asia is no longer only the sole concern

1493
of those who are suffering from invasion, from revolution, from imprisonment and from execution. It is not only the humanitarian concern of the West to see human beings being subjected to totalitarian régimes so consistently attacked by the Left when those régimes happen to be in Europe but hardly referred to at all if they happen to be friends of the Soviet Union. Also, these events concern directly our economic, political and security interests. So it is in our interests also to see that every effort is made to maintain peace in that part of the world, ensuring that the links that we have built up over so many years through our Empire, and afterwards with the Commonwealth, should be maintained and strengthened and so provide employment, safety and security not only for the people in Asia but for the people in Britain; because our livelihood and our security depend on the availability of resources, on world markets and on stability. Tonight we hope that the Government will give us an answer to at least some of the questions that have been raised this evening.
7.41 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, as I think he said, the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has implicitly raised the whole question of the future balance of power in the world. Who will control the "World Island" at the end of the century, is the question before us. I would have preferred to discuss this important matter not on an Unstarred Question with only two or three people in the House, and I rather hope that before long we shall have a debate on foreign affairs, perhaps concentrating on this overall subject which is of the greatest importance to every one of us.
I echo to some extent what the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said, and I speak with diffidence in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, who I see is in his place and who knows everything about Russian motives—much more than I do—and perhaps afterwards he will tell me whether my analysis is at all correct. I suggest that there is no doubt that one of the factors in our speculations on this great matter must be the very strong desire or urge or whatever we call it of Russia, ever since the consolidation of her power under Peter the Great, to seek an outlet for her commerce, her industries
1494
and her people through what have always been termed "warm water ports", whether in the North, the West, the South or even in the extreme East. I suggest that it is rather useless to speculate on the reasons for that urge; they may not be altogether rational but rather instinctive. They may perhaps be based partly on some desire to defend the distinctive Russian culture against possible absorption by the West—the Slavophile tendency; they may simply result from the desire of a dynamic and gifted race to impose itself; they may even (as some say) be connected with the strange theory of the "Third Rome", the Cross which is possibly now substituted by the hammer and sickle waving over the top of the Church of the Holy Wisdom and Moscow in effect inheriting the empire from Constantinople.
The fact is that the urge exists: it is therefore a political reality with which we have to reckon. Given the opportunity—I repeat, given the opportunity, because the Russians are a cautious people—there is no doubt that Russia would try to exercise some control over the Finmark, the Sound and the Belt, the Dardanelles, the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Japan. If you want to look far enough into the future, you might also add the Straits of Gibraltar! Of course, this involves the whole future of the "World Island"; that is, Europe, Asia and Africa.
The urge was first evidenced by Peter the Great with the development of St. Petersburg; it was manifest in the Balkans policy of Catherine the Great; it became even clearer in the great project for a land advance towards India that came up in the talks between the Emperor Napoleon and the Emperor Alexander on the raft at Tilsit; it was near to partial achievement at the time of the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi in 1833, and although the trend was reversed by the Crimean War and what followed, it was entirely obvious in the Balkan wars and in the secret treaties of 1915; it was revealed in some detail by Molotov in conversation with Ribben-trop after the famous Pact of 1939; and it was certainly not forgotten after the Second World War, as witness Petsamo, Kars and Ardahan, the request for a mandate for Tripoli; the temporary occupation of Bornholm and Azerbaijan, the wish to retain Port Arthur, though then the need to placate America with her monopoly of the nuclear bomb resulted,

1495
as it were, in a discontinuance of these demands. And now the instinctive urge as I think has already been hinted at by a previous speaker, has probably been reinforced by a preoccupation with oil and gas.
The Western oil of the Soviet Union in Baku and around Tobolsk, I understand, is running down; the huge reserves in Eastern Siberia are, I believe, rather difficult to develop and indeed a desire to participate in the exploitation of the Gulf oil, no doubt by means of a North-South pipeline, would be quite natural, as would a wish to receive even more Iranian gas than Russia gets at present; and I believe at the moment she gets about £350 million-worth of gas through the existing pipeline. Anyhow, all this is an additional reason for what the Germans might call a Drang nach Süden.
For the last 300 years or so the West—that is, first the European powers (save when they were at each other's throats) and then the European powers plus America, have successfully resisted this instinctive Russian urge. Turkish sovereignty was maintained over the Straits and confirmed in the settlements after World Wars One and Two. The British in India for over a century warded off constant Russian attempts to advance their central Asian empire southwards and, backed by the Indian Army, a sort of intermittent Anglo-Indian protectorate was established over what might be called the "glacis" of Afghanistan and Iran. But since the independence of the Indian Sub-continent and the—here I differ from the noble Baroness—necessary evacuation of the Gulf and Aden by the British, this whole situation has become much more dangerous and the hoped-for local stability in the area has not materialised. For instance, of course, the disappearance of the Raj has now finally resulted in the establishment in Afghanistan of a Government which has signed a treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union, even if it now seems that there are some difficulties between the present Afghan régime and the Soviet Government, and it remains to be seen how much trouble it will stir up along the passes among the Afridis and the Pathans or even among the Beluchis further South.
In Iran the régime has collapsed and no one knows what will now happen or
1496
even whether simple anarchy will be avoided. The danger to all Western interests, and notably to the continued supply of sufficient oil to the West is obvious, and there is not much that we can do about that at the moment, save wait and see. In Turkey—and this of course is important—the economic and social situation is very grave and more especially as a result of the row with Greece, even continued Turkish membership of the North Atlantic Alliance is questionable. CENTO of course is no longer operative. In a word, the cordon sanitaire, or what might even be called the gladiatorial approach of the Americans to a very difficult situation, has now demonstrably failed and therefore other tactics to achieve our ends will obviously be necessary. However that may be, it must be apparent to any informed observer that the Soviet Union is likely in the fairly near future to have considerable opportunity for giving effect to the secular Russian urge if it should want to. So the next question is: Will it want to and, if so, to what extent?
Here I do not know whether I am being too optimistic, but I do not feel quite so pessimistic as I think the two previous speakers have been. The successful emergence of any new régime in the Middle East, particularly if it is accompanied by some rather militant Islamic revival, could well have some destabilising effect on the Central Asian Republics and even eventually threaten the central power, the famous "Vlast" itself. As it is thought that by the end of the century—I may be wrong, but I believe this is so—the Asian population of the present Union may actually outnumber all the Great, Red and White Russians taken together, this is surely something which should recommend a pretty cautious Soviet policy in the Middle East. We know that for quite a long time the Soviet Government seemed to be backing up the Shah, and it is even now doubtful if it is really supporting the Tudeh Party in the cities of Iran. Of course, if by any chance any régime were established in Tabriz hostile to whatever régime prevails in Teheran, the Soviet Union would be sorely tempted to recognise it, and it is rather difficult to see what we could do if that came about. The same applies to any deal over oil, including the possible construction of a north-south pipeline,

1497
that may emerge from the present chaos. But, my Lords, this does not necessarily mean that Iran will be occupied by Russian troops, like the European satellites, or some of them. On the whole, I think the chances are against this, but I feel that certainly a Sovietised Iran cannot now be dismissed as impossible.
Even such a development would not necessarily lead to war between the Soviet Union and the West, headed by America. The Soviet Union in all likelihood will pause long before supporting, still less organising, any actual oil blockade in the Gulf. For though this might not result in a nuclear exchange, even a conventional war, resulting necessarily in a rupture of all trade relations with the West, could hardly be considered by any rational being to be in the interests of Russia. Even military domination of a ravaged Western Europe, or most of it, would hardly be thought to be a thing advantageous to Moscow, for it could easily give rise to problems that might be beyond its power to control. On the other hand—this I think, is a point we should realise—it is possible that Russia may eventually succeed in so playing the oil card, or arranging for it to be played, as to weaken the solidarity of the West and notably to dissociate Western Europe from America. I think this is perhaps the chief danger that confronts us, and of course it will be much increased if there is no solution other than war to the Israeli-Arab conflict.
What Moscow must surely want, and what it no doubt one day hopes to attain, is leadership of the "world island", becoming the most important, the largest, the richest and the most formidable political entity, all others revolving round her and adopting more or less similar—that is to say, totalitarian—social systems. Two things stand in the way of the peaceful achievement of such a long-term ambition, if it is their ambition: the will of the West, led by America, to maintain its own way of life, and the possible eventual emergence of a rival power bloc in the Far East led by China. At the moment the Soviet Union no doubt hopes, in the West, by means of the process known as d¹tente, to weaken the will of the Europeans and Americans to resist its advance towards what one might call premier world power status.
1498
Thus it hopes, I suggest, to use détente, in the first place, to diminish gradually the credibility of the United States strategic nuclear deterrent and, in the second place, by ever strengthening its conventional forces and acquiring bases for deploying them all over the world, to increase the likelihood of its winning a conventional war, should it come to that, or even a nuclear one if it were confined to Europe, In spite of protestations to the contrary, it may be—and this is a danger that I fear—that SALT II will do something to further the first aim, that is to say, the undermining of the nuclear deterrent of America. At the same time, some control over the Gulf, combined with a failure to find an answer to the formidable mobile nuclear medium-range missiles now trained on Europe, would undoubtedly further the second, that is to say, the likelihood of winning a conventional war if there were to be one.
Faced with recent developments in Asia, therefore, what should the Western European powers do? Here I very much agree with the suggestions made by the noble Baroness, which seemed to me to be very sensible, but in addition I would say that what they ought to do is to strengthen and harmonise their conventional armaments, develop and deploy such weapons as the cruise missile in Europe, and thirdly, and this is important, go slow on credits to the Soviet Union until such time as agreement is reached in Vienna on MBFR. But they must also be ready and willing to negotiate with any successor Governments that may emerge in Iran or elsewhere. I see no particular reason why we should not get on quite well with the new Government, if indeed it establishes itself as we hope it will. We shall, it is true, have to go very slow on arms exports, but I see no reason why we should not concentrate on helping with housing and agriculture, an alternative market which I should think would be extremely welcome to the Government of Ayatollah Khomeini or any successor. There is no reason why the Russians should have it all their own way.
Nor is there any reason to suppose that any new régime will want to abandon all idea of industrial progress on Western lines, as seemingly recommended some time ago by Khomeini. In any new situation the European Community must, however,

1499
pursue a common policy. Unfortunately, there is a danger that its members may simply seek individual advantage and thus play into Russian hands. Here I should like some expression of Government view. Is it not high time that there was a meeting of the European Council to discuss this very grave matter in all its implications?
As for China, there is no need to see her solely as an ally against the Soviet Union. But it is true that, as she advances towards the status of a world power—which it must be supposed in the absence of a nuclear war she will attain towards the end of the century—so the world balance of power will undoubtedly alter. It is true, and we must recognise the fact, that events in South-east Asia may possibly provoke an attack on China by the Soviet Union before any real progress can be made towards great power status. But on the whole I think we must regard this as unlikely; at least, I hope so. Otherwise we do seem, as 1984 approaches, to be advancing towards the sort of international set-up that the celebrated author foresaw, with "Eastasia", "Eurasia", and "Oceania" now actually coming into physical existence under our eyes.
To sum up, we are obviously approaching a time when the whole future of this country may well be called in question and great gifts of leadership will obviously be required. To enter such a period as a divided nation, rent by suicidal internal disputes and quarrelling madly about who does what, will only court disaster. We must, in other words, have somebody to tell us clearly what the "impending dangers", in our familiar language, are, and how in order to avoid them we must, as Milton said,
"Shun delights and live laborious days".
Otherwise, it is not only our standard, it is our actual way of life that will soon be at risk. This is neither certain nor necessary, but, in the dangerous foreign field, we shall now, in order to keep our heads above water, have to be at least as clever and as undaunted as, in rather similar circumstances not so long ago, our ancestors were.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I speak in this debate with a great deal of diffidence because my mind is overwhelmed with the complexity of the problems in Asia and the cross-currents which are so
1500
diverse. There is a hardly a single nation on the Continent where there are not disturbing internal problems as well as the problems of their relations with neighbouring States. I am venturing to speak only because I am Asian-born and have a very great sense of identity with its peoples. However, I begin by emphasising that the problems are so great that it ill becomes any one of us to speak with donmatism about them.
I always listen with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Alport. I sometimes agree with him, but he will not be surprised if I say that that is not the case tonight. I thank him for opening this debate and with him greatly deplore the circumstances under which it is held. I shall be following him, in great part, in the argument which he has advanced tonight.
He began by speaking about Iran. I am not sure that we yet understand the significance of what has happened in Iran. There was the Shah, almost an absolute dictator; there was an army at his disposal, which was an elite in the community; there was a continuous denial of human rights by imprisonment of those who protested against the régime; and there was a situation where the Head of State was able to make himself vastly rich at the expense of the people whom he ruled. In that situation we have seen a extraordinary development; millions of people protesting and marching in the streets—at the beginning without arms—were able to express the desire of the vast majority of the population, so that the Shah abdicated, the army was increasingly won over and a provisional Government without any constitutional power is now recognised as leading the country. That is an amazing occurrence.
I wish to say at once that I have little sympathy with an Islamic régime. Its prohibitions and punishments seem intolerable to a liberal mind—for example, a man can have five wives, but a woman who has two men is likely to be stoned to death. However, I am, before everything else, a democrat and there does not seem to me any doubt at all that the people of Iran desire the new Government which has now been established.
I took the view, and I stated it on the occasion, that our Foreign Secretary made a mistake when he supported the Shah of Iran. All developments have indicated

1501
that a mistake was then made in view of the desire of the great mass of people in that territory. I am asking tonight why the West and this country supported the Shah. There was an absence of democracy and human rights were destroyed. Everything for which a liberal Britain stands was denied in that territory. Yet, the West, which stands for a free domecracy, and our own Government, supported the Shah in those circumstances. There seems to me to be no doubt what was the reason. We did that because Iran was strategically important in the confrontation between West and East and because of the fear of the Soviet Union which has been expressed from the Benches opposite.
My argument is that a democratic Britain should reach a decision as to which nation or Government it supports on the merits of that State as reflecting democracy, human rights and social justice. This was not done in Iran only because we regarded it as strategically important in our conflict with the East.
If we turn to the other countries which the noble Lord, Lord Alport, mentioned, it will be found that exactly the same approach is made as was made in the case of Iran. The noble Lord mentioned China. I regard China as a more egalitarian State than the Soviet Union. It is a more Communist State than the Soviet Union. Yet, we have this extraordinary situation, that the West—for example, Mrs. Thatcher, the Leader of the Conservative Party, who is so opposed to Communism, and President Carter—is showing cordiality towards China, not because they believe in the Chinese system, but again only because of the East/West struggle and the hope that China may be a strong power against any expansion by the Soviet Union.
Let us take another illustration. Only four months ago, Cambodia was regarded as one of the most evil régimes in the world. There was denunciation of its oppression; denunciation of its absolute denial of human rights; and denunciation of the power of a small elite. When there were refugees, it was said, "Go to their aid". How the situation has changed! Now it is not Cambodia, but Vietnam—which was opposed to Cambodia—which is the villain. Once more this change of mind is entirely due to the fact that Vietnam has associated itself with the Soviet Union.
1502
I believe that we have had very distorted reports of what has been happening in Cambodia. Those reports have come from Bangkok, Singapore and Hong Kong, often on the testimony of refugees who are not best able to give an objective view. I do not think that there is any doubt that the revolt against the Pol Pot régime began in strength from the people of Cambodia itself. There has undoubtedly been some support from Vietnam, but for months Vietnam sought to settle the border issue—making its proposals for acknowledging each other's borders. I have seen the exchange of documents, which were amazingly conciliatory. However that may be, the situation emphasises the point I seek to make; that is, that a decision on these issues is not made on the merits of the issue but on the attitude which one or the other takes to the confrontation between East and West, and its attitude towards the Soviet Union.
Afghanistan, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, is another illustration of this. We know of the serfdom and the power of the great landlords there; there is a revolt against it. One of the difficulties in the world today is that whenever there is a revolt by people against injustice—against their exploitation—it is always described as Communist. Because it is thought that is the Communist nations which stand behind those who revolt, the people in those territories are likely to turn their eyes towards the Communist States. Those of us who are Socialists and who are just as opposed to this exploitation as the Communists, have a great deal to blame ourselves for, in that we have not sufficiently identified ourselves with the peoples of the world who are revolting against injustice.
The plea that I would make tonight is that our policy should be decided on merits, on the ground of the extent to which a country is democratic, the extent to which a country recognises human rights, and the extent to which there is social justice in a country.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend—and he is a noble friend of long-standing—do the interests and the security of the United Kingdom and the 50 million people here count for anything in his opinion?
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, certainly. In a sense it is beyond our debate, but even in our own country the fact that we are associated with one group of the great Powers, that we have American bases here and that we have nuclear weapons here, means that our people are in greater danger should a war occur than if we did not have those associations or those instruments in our midst.
I repeat that I urge that Britain should face these issues on the merits of a country's régime and not on the advantages of strategy in the conflict between East and West. I should like to see our country unaligned—not belonging to either of the great power blocs—but seeking, on grounds of morality, justice and freedom, to express in its foreign policy the principles of true democracy.
8.14 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for introducing this debate in such a comprehensive and throughtful speech. We are indeed, in a period of great change in Asia, and much of what is happening will have a lasting impact on the rest of the world.
Events in China should be our first consideration because of China's size and importance. The Government welcome the intention of the Chinese leadership to modernise the economy of their country, and to play an increasingly active part in international affairs. This is important for world peace and security, and we particularly welcome China's willingness to begin to be associated with international disarmament. The indications that Chinese society may become more open and liberal are also to be greatly welcomed. But we are probably only at the opening scene of a period of China's history which may eventually change the balance of world relationships.
Even more immediate to our thoughts must be the developments in Western Asia. The situation in Iran has given all the friends of that country cause to grieve for the violence, bloodshed and instability of the past months. A new Iranian Government, headed by Dr. Bazargan, has now been installed and we have recognised that Government. It faces considerable tasks in restoring public order and economic activity, and in
1504
evolving a political framework which will reflect the aspirations of the Iranian people. It is in all our interests that they should succeed. We believe that it is for the Iranian people to decide their own destiny without pressure from outside or intimidation from within.
But there can be no escaping the fact that events in Iran have had a serious effect on the world economy. The reduction in oil output must inevitably distort the world oil market. Our own losses of important defence contracts and the difficulties our commercial firms now face in exporting to a dislocated country are matters which affect us directly; and for many firms and their workpeople this will mean a reassessment of their policies and a search for new markets. But we shall look to the time when political stability and effective government are restored in Iran and economic development will resume—perhaps not so fast and possibly with different priorities.
It is often tempting to regard Iran as only one part of what is now sometimes called the arc of instability in Western Asia. It is true that Turkey is at present facing problems of law and order and severe economic difficulties; and without effective solutions there could be a threat to political stability and indeed to Turkey's democratic institutions. It is true also that the influence of the Soviet Union has greatly increased in Afghanistan since the coup there in April 1978; and that this gives concern to the Government of Pakistan, itself a country facing great economic problems, and also facing political issues accentuated by the immediate question of Mr. Bhutto, and a country troubled by the relationship with its great neighbour India. But if some of the problems of these countries are similar, the circumstances are not.
Certainly the Russians have exploited opportunities that come their way to undermine legitimate Western interests. Some Soviet activities in the Third World—and not only in Asia—do not at all conform to our conception of detente as indivisible. There are many who believe—though not all agree—that the Soviet Union is pursuing a grand strategy to subvert Western Asia and thereby to threaten the Western source of oil and to dominate the India Sub-Continent. The balance of opinion is that this view has

1505
not been proved to be the case, but it is widely held. I agree with the noble Baroness that there is a wide range of opinion that this may well be so.
On the whole, the argument for that view is not conclusive. Of all the countries mentioned the only one in which the Soviet hand is clearly discernible is Afghanistan, and that country has been under a degree of Soviet influence for quite 50 years. In Iran the different interests, with the exception of the Tudeh Party and like-minded groups, have shown a distaste for Communist orthodoxy. This is markedly true of the Islamic movement; and the Soviet Union has not been the instigation or inspiration for the revolution there.
Turkey's problems offer little scope for Soviet manoeuvres. It is for the Turks to solve their own problems, but to the extent that that country's Western friends and allies can help we are anxious to do so, particularly to restore Turkey's economic fortunes. It would also be unwise to give too much weight to Iraq as a path of Soviet penetration to Middle East oil and towards the Gulf. Relations between these two countries—the Soviet Union and Iraq—have certainly been close, but there is no doubt in my mind that Iraqi foreign and defence policy is dictated entirely by that country's own interests. It is in no sense a Soviet client state.
Finally, I doubt whether many observers or Governments would accept that the degree of Soviet influence in India is indicative of a grand design. Robust in the resumption of democracy, India, under Mr. Desai, follows a genuinely non-aligned path, valuing relations with both East and West, and indeed its own influence increases thereby. I agree, however, with the suggestion that the Sub-Continent would gain much stability from the ending of the mutual wariness which unfortunately underlies the relationship between Pakistan and India. Recently there have been welcome signs of a closer relationship—the agreement to open consulates, for instance; even the visit of an Indian cricket team to Pakistan. All this is encouraging. But the crux of the problem remains Kashmir. It must be the hope of friends of both countries that the two Governments will ultimately draw together and negotiate a solution.
1506
It is entirely right that more than one speaker in this debate should draw attention to the Islamic revival as one strand in the pattern of social, economic and political change in Asia. It is a phenomenon touching almost all the Moslem world. Its origins are not easily definable, but there may be something here of a reaction to the materialism which can accompany economic development; a reaction also to conspicuous and irresponsible consumption, and perhaps unease with the foreign communities who find it difficult to identify with their host country's beliefs and way of life. There may be, too, a new-found self-confidence derived from the economic and political strength of the Moslem oil producers.
Islam is both a religion and a way of life; it is neither revolutionary nor reactionary, and the impact of the revival on the countries of Asia is as varied as the countries themselves. For us, the emphasis in some places on severe physical punishment for wrongdoing may be repugnant, as my noble friend said. But our Task is to accept and understand the deep-felt motivation of this revival, not only because of the importance of the relationship between a relatively secular Western way of life and a very large section of humanity, but also because we must have regard and understanding for the beliefs of the Moslem community in our own country.
The House knows the Government's view of Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia. My noble friend referred to the fact, as he saw it, of Vietnam being opposed to Cambodia. It was an outright invasion by Vietnam of Cambodia, and as such in total contraversion of everything for which the United Nations' Charter stands. He will have noted the many public statements of my right honourable friend and his colleagues, and our actions in the Security Council when we supported the non-aligned resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of foreign forces from Cambodia. And well my noble friend knows who stood against that otherwise unanimous resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of foreign forces from Cambodia.
Whatever our abhorrence—shared by much of the world—of the inhumanities of the Pol Pot régime, there is no excuse

1507
whatsoever for Vietnam's violation of the territorial integrity of another member of the United Nations. We have made this clear to Vietnam, and our relationship with that country cannot but be affected. But it is of deeper concern, now, that the struggle inside Cambodia should not, by its continuation, threaten the stability of other countries or draw in the two large Powers, China and Russia, by inadvertence or miscalculation. It is imperative, above all, for restraint to be exercised on the border between Vietnam and China, where a misjudged incident might have consequences affecting many more countries than just those of South East Asia.
The responsibility for seeing that this restraint is exercised lies primarily on the Vietnamese and Chinese Governments, and we have recently strongly urged on both those Governments the dangerous consequences of any escalation. But the Soviet Government cannot escape a heavy responsibility also. It was they who took upon themselves to exercise a veto which prevented the Security Council from expressing universal condemnation of Vietnamese aggression. We look to them now to use their influence on the Vietnamese to avoid further action, for this could have the most serious consequences for world peace.
In all these aspects of the changing scene in Asia the Government's tasks are clear. We must recognise the historical and frequently social reasons for change, and where necessary adapt our political and commercial policies accordingly. Wherever possible in concert with friends and allies we must reinforce stability where it exists in Asia, with constant regard for the aspirations and sense of values of the peoples of Asia themselves. CENTO has made a valuable contribution to stability, but if the three regional members think it is no longer appropriate it is for them to decide on their own security needs. If we are wanted, we would consider how best to help. Equally, with our friends we must promote stability where it is fragile or non-existent. In Iran we must be ready to work with a new Government, and we must try to promote peaceful co-operation throughout the area, recognising that our own interests are not just with the oil lands of Iran and the Arabian peninsula but with almost all the countries of Asia.
1508
This will not be easy, but there are encouraging signs. China is showing an increasing perception of world relationships despite the overwhelming predominance of the Soviet threat in Chinese thinking. The countries of ASEAN have stood four-quare and firm in the face of the alarming situation in Indo-China. India is, I believe, showing an increasing understanding of relationships with the other countries of the Sub-Continent, particularly with Pakistan—this is vital—and Pakistan is showing realism and wisdom in its continued relations with Afghanistan, a wisdom which we hope will also be seen in clemency for Mr. Bhutto.
In Iran it is significant that other countries have held aloof from the internal struggle; and we can hope that the Iranian people will now find a peaceful way out of their troubles. All over Asia we have had relationships which have changed and developed but have stood the test of time and sincerity, and this is the situation now.
I was very pleased to hear more than one noble Lord refer to the fact that in so many parts of Asia there is a great fund of goodwill for this country. It is true that many in Asia recall British colonial rule with resentment, but many more recall it with respect. The persistence and stability of the Commonwealth is proof of that. We should do everything within our power to transform the undoubted goodwill there is in Asia towards us into mutually beneficial commercial, cultural and political exchanges.
I will deal with some of the points raised in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, asked what initiatives Her Majesty's Government were taking in regard to assisting Thailand in the maintenance of its security. Thailand, which up to two or three years ago was an ASEAN democracy, a parliamentary democracy, is now, under the leadership of its General, endeavouring to find its way back to democracy. The General and the Prime Minister of Thailand saw the Prime Minister and myself the other day when we discussed precisely these questions. I know that Baroness Elles and Lord Alport will not expect me to go into details, but it was, albeit far too short an exchange, a wide-ranging one and I think very satisfactory from the point of

1509
view of the questions raised by noble Lords about how we relate ourselves to the needs of Thailand.
Baroness Elles then asked about a statement, reported in the Daily Telegraph, by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I shall certainly make the text of what my right honourable friend said available to the noble Baroness. I do not have it with me but I recall that what he said in essence was that, while he did not believe the Soviet Union had been the instigation or inspiration for the revolution in Iran, that was not to deny the fact that the Soviet Union lost no opportunity to exploit instability to its own advantage.
The question was also raised about our attitude to India, and I am glad it was. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, as the House will recall, paid a highly successful visit to India about a year ago, and Mr. Desai has since visited Britain with equal success. My right honourable friend's personal relations with Mr. Desai are excellent, as are the relations of this country with India. Indeed, I would suggest that our relations with India are better and closer today than they have been for many years. Here I join Lord Alport in what he said about the opportunity there is that, while we keep our guard up and examine and closely study the dangers, we should also identify the great sources of strength, psychological and practical, there are for us as a country, and indeed for Western democracy generally, in Asia. India is an excellent example of this. While I am speaking of India, which is of such importance, the noble Baroness will recall that by far the largest single item in our overseas aid dispensation is to India, and rightly so, because it is a vast country with vast problems.
On the question of overseas broadcasts and what has happened since the review, a working party is at present looking into the question. I entirely agree that the external services render great service in many parts of the world; they serve as the one dependable source of news in so many of the countries I have visited, and I have seen this for myself. I can therefore assure the House that there will certainly be no thoughtless cutting down on these essential services. There may well be examinations of certain vernacular pro-
1510
grammes which have perhaps outlived their effective life, and a transfer of resources, financial and otherwise, to more productive areas and purposes; but I think I can give the general assurance that the external broadcasting services will continue to be very high indeed in the priorities which this Government have in mind in projecting to the world a picture of Britain and its purpose.
I am most grateful to Lord Alport, who stands very high in the regard of this House both for his expertise and sincerity as one who has filled high offices of State with great distinction and who, whenever he speaks—and I am glad to say he speaks often in this House on foreign and commonwealth affairs—has something substantial and thoughtful to say, something that commands our attention at the moment and requires our study on the morrow.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to answer my question as to whether this grave matter will be considered by the European Council at an early date?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me about our plans for the discussion of the Iranian question, among others, in the European Council. I think that was his question.
Lord GLADWYN: And the surrounding dangers, my Lords.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, and the surrounding dangers, my Lords. He and the House will know that since the beginning of the dangerous situation in Iran, the beginning of the revolution, there have been discussions in Western circles. I cannot tell the noble Lord whether there has been a formal discussion of that particular question in the Council of Ministers. Nor can I say that one is planned. However, I can say that when I speak to my right honourable friend about what has come out of this debate, one of the points I most certainly will make is the one the noble Lord has made; namely, that the West in the Council of Ministers and in the larger form available to the West should certainly consider the situation that is developing now in Western Asia.