Lords Sitting of 3 April 1980

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

THE VISIT OF DR. VILJOEN
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the purpose of the visit to London of Dr. Viljoen, South Africa's Administrator General in Namibia and what were the conclusions of the discussions with him.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, Dr. Viljoen is on a private visit to London to address the half-yearly dinner of the South Africa Club. Dr. Viljoen paid courtesy calls on my noble friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs during which the negotiations for Namibian independence were reviewed.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Was it revealed in these discussions that the objections of the South African Government to the United Nations' proposal are in relation to the extent of the demilitarised zone, the SWAPO military bases, and the size of the United Nations' force? Do the Government agree with Dr. Waldheim, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, that the time has now come for definitive political decisions, despite South African differences, to allow the supervised election to take place by January at the latest?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the details of the conversations must, I am afraid, remain confidential. South African reservations about the demilitarised zone and the other matters to which the noble Lord referred have been publicised before,
1460
and what the noble Lord said is more or less accurate. As for the report, Dr. Waldheim submitted that report only a few days ago and the Government are not yet in a position to give a detailed reaction to it; but we agree with Dr. Waldheim that we should now move from discussion to implementation.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may we take it that Her Majesty's Government have continued to impress upon the South African Government the danger of further delay in settling the Namibian question? Secondly, may we assume that there is in the successful solution of the Zimbabwe question an exemplar for a similar solution in Namibia?
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, my Lords, we certainly hope that the settlement we have reached in Zimbabwe will serve as a good example to South Africa and Namibia. As for South African delay, we think it right that the South Africans should be given an opportunity to consider the implications of the recent settlement in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe; and we shall allow that, but we shall not allow them to delay indefinitely.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, since the assumption of the assignment by Dr. Viljoen, is it not to be understood that, contrary to the precedent in Rhodesia, there has been from among the external hostile ranks of South West Africans—of course from SWAPO members supported by Russia and also by the United Nations—a steady drift back of SWAPO intellectuals, if they can be so called, into South West Africa, where their presence now is likely to increase the chance of intimidation as and when the expected elections take place?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am not sure that I fully catch the drift of my noble friend's question. I can say that the Government do not recognise SWAPO's claim to be the sole representative of the Namibian people. That is for the people of Namibia to decide for themselves. But no doubt SWAPO will be putting forward their claim when the elections come to pass.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether his

1461
noble friend, in his discussions with Dr. Viljoen, raised the issue of those who have been detained without charge or trial, and the associated question of the allegations of torture of these detainees, as has been raised by the Parliamentary Human Rights Group?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, as I said earlier, I am not in a position to give the detailed conversations between my noble and honourable friends and Dr. Viljoen, but I can say that that matter was raised and that Dr. Viljeon's reaction was satisfactory.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, did my noble friend see the interview on BBC television last night about this matter, and can he say whether we are to make representations, as a result of these discussions, about the SWAPO bases in Cuban-occupied Angola? It is this threat to the independence and free elections which looms large in South African minds, though clearly from the interview last night they have moved following the Zimbabwe results towards a desire to get on with free and fair elections as soon as possible.
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, my Lords. The SWAPO bases outside Namibia is a matter which concerns all the parties to this matter and clearly must be solved in the context of an overall agreement.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, would not the demilitarised zone on the Angolan border stretch 600 miles in width and be 60 miles across, and would not that prevent any intervention by Angola, as has been suggested?
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, indeed, my Lords; the demilitarised zone is a most important part, indeed I think I would say the most important part, of the United Nations' proposals. As the noble Lord says, it is about 600 miles long and 100 kilometers wide.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister a second supplementary question on this matter, which is so important to the whole of Southern Africa? With regard to the vast demilitarised zone proposed on both sides of the frontier with Angola, may I ask whether it is to be
1462
understood that the responsibility for patrolling this vast area will be entirely with the proposed United Nations force, or is it to be by combined operations with the forces, military and police, of the Republic, which forces are paid entirely by the Republic?
Lord TREFGARNE: No, my Lords; the demilitarised zone will be patrolled by United Nations troops both on the ground and in the air, and to facilitate the United Nations task of monitoring the cease-fire and protecting the border, it will be established as soon as possible after the cease-fire.

CIVILIAN GALLANTRY: RECOGNITION AND REWARD
11.15 a.m.
Earl ALEXANDER of TUNIS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider giving greater reward and recognition to those members of the public who act with bravery whether in natural disasters or bringing criminals to justice.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the existing awards for civilian gallantry, which include the George Cross and the George Medal, the Queen's Gallantry Medal and the Queen's Commendation for Brave Conduct, relate to acts of gallantry in various circumstances. Her Majesty's Government are not aware of a need for further recognition, but if the noble Earl has some particular proposal in mind, I will certainly see that it receives proper consideration.
Earl ALEXANDER of TUNIS: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he would agree that it might deter would-be robbers and bank robbers if they knew that by-standers were more readily willing to intervene, should there be substantial rewards, both monetary and otherwise, in those circumstances?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I entirely agree with the general view of my noble friend about the desirability of members of the general public taking on these responsibilities when they feel they can do so. My noble friend might be interested to hear that in the year 1978–79, 233 members of the public were compensated for injuries incurred in circumstances arising from attempts to arrest offenders or prevent offences or in assisting constables engaged in such activities. So far as financial compensation is concerned, there is of course the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund.

ZIMBABWE INDEPENDENCE CELEBRATIONS
11.17 a.m.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether consideration could be given, at the independence celebrations in Zimbabwe, to the commemoration and recognition of the part played by all races in the Rhodesian forces who came to Britain's assistance in the last war, and in particular that country's contribution to victory in the establishment of the first Empire Air Training Scheme in Salisbury.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the independence celebrations are a matter for Mr. Mugabe and his Ministers. The important contribution of those many Rhodesians who served alongside us in the last war was given appropriate recognition at the time.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that in 1940 this small country of Rhodesia provided 12 contingents of black and white Africans to the armed forces who served in that capacity, and they served in many lands and on many fronts? Is he aware that of the 14,000 black Africans who served, 146 made the supreme sacrifice and gave their lives to the service of freedom? Is he further aware that out of a total population of 65,000 whites
1464
in Rhodesia at that time, 8,500 men and 1,500 women joined the armed forces, and 746 gave their lives? Is not that a worthy cause in the interests of freedom, and are not the independence celebrations soon to be held in Zimbabwe a worthy way to remember them?
Lord TREFGARNE: My noble friend is entirely right, my Lords; in fact he slightly understated the numbers. The total number of Rhodesians who served with various units of the armed forces during the last war, was no fewer than 26,121, of whom more than 9,000 were white males and 15,000-odd were Africans. I think, however, that the appropriate method to recognise that splendid service was what was done at the time, when a very large number of gallantry awards were made.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I say that from this side of the House there would be very warm support for the spirit motivating the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Gridley. May I also thank the Minister for giving us those impressive statistics and facts about the contribution made by Rhodesians of all creeds and colours at a time when the democracy which has now been set up in Zimbabwe was last challenged.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, are the Government aware that as the Minister who was responsible in those far-off days for the administration of the Empire Air Training Scheme, I found that whenever we asked Rhodesia for any help, be it financial, manpower, technical, Rhodesia, though our smallest partner in that great enterprise, never failed to be in the forefront of assent and help to this country; and that we owe them a debt that we can never repay in full?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, my noble friend is of course quite right. In fact I see that no fewer than 10,000 aircrew of one form or another were trained by the Empire Air Training Scheme in Rhodesia.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, from what the noble Lord has said, may we take it that the right of these men to honour their dead at the Cenotaph on Armistice Day will be restored?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am sure that it will be.

TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS: OFFICIAL INTERCEPTION
11.21 a.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the senior judge to be invited to review the powers of official interception of telephone conversations will have access to Post Office installations and equipment in considering the system of warrants issued by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made it clear in another place on 1st April that the person appointed will have the right of access to papers and the right to request additional information from the departments and organisations concerned (including the Post Office), who I am sure will be ready to give him every facility he requires.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply, especially because the tasks of tapping and recording are carried out by the Post Office who, the judge must surely satisfy himself, should not exceed their directives through zeal, or for any other reason. Will the judge be expected to report on any private eavesdropping that comes to his notice, such as the activation of telephones by detective agencies, or for commercial espionage? While deliberate intrusion into privacy is naturally resented, none the less would it not be foolish for anyone to regard the telephone system as secure for confidential information, in view of the number of crossed lines which many of us encounter almost daily?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising a point which I do not think arose during the exchanges on this subject two days ago in another place. My noble friend asked me whether the judge will be expected to report on any telephone tapping that he comes across undertaken by commercial organisations or private agencies. As the senior judge to be appointed will
1466
have terms of reference covering only the arrangements for interception under the warrant procedure, I do not envisage that such occasions as my noble friend has mentioned will arise. Naturally, if the person appointed became aware of illegal activities, it would be his duty to reveal these to the police.
Lord HOOSON: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the original Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was directed towards access to equipment and installations? The noble Lord's reply seemed to say that the learned judge, whoever he will be, will have the right of access to papers. Does that mean that he will not have access to installations and equipment?
Lord BELSTEAD: No, my Lords. I thought that I made it clear in my original reply that, in addition to the right of access to papers, there would be the right to request additional information from the departments and organisations concerned (including the Post Office), who I am sure will be ready to give the person appointed every facility he requires.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the question my noble friend has put? What about access to equipment and installations? Is the answer, yes, or, no?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I have nothing to add to what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, is there not a case for extending an inquiry, though not necessarily by the senior judge, into unofficial access to, and unofficial interception of, communications carried out by commercial, inquiry or other agencies?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I would not in any way disagree with what the noble and learned Lord has just said. May I add to the noble Lord who previously asked a question, that I think it is right to bear in mind that the function of the senior member of the judiciary will be to monitor the general system. However, in case that sounds vague, do not let us forget that each individual interception requires the personal authorisation of my right honourable friend the Home Sec-

1467
retary, or the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the paralysing, frustrating thing that happened to a punter who had the winner of the Grand National but could not get through because of a crossed line? Is he entitled to compensation?
Lord BELSTEAD: No, my Lords.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I regard his answer as meaning that, if the senior judge is not given the facilities for which he asks, he will make this clear in his first report, which is to be published?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I cannot forecast what will be in the first report of the senior judge which, as my noble friend has said, will be published. May I add that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it quite clear in another place that after that the Home Secretary will of course keep Parliament informed, as he has always done in the past.
Lord BRUCE of DON INGTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that there are possibilities, technically, for carrying out remote interception, which can be prevented only by substantial screening under proper supervision? Will he look into that aspect of the matter which, if it exists on any scale, may completely frustrate any monitoring procedures which Her Majesty's Government might think fit to set up?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord has said; but what is at issue here is not the actual or potential capacity of technology, but the effectiveness of the warrants procedure, which requires individual authorisation by my right honourable friend for each individual interception.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will the Government consider keeping secret the name of the senior judge who is to conduct the inquiry?—because if his name is disclosed, we might find that someone will tap his telephone.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I shall certainly take note of what the noble Lord has said.
Lord RENTON: My Lords, in view of the use of the word "monitor" in relation to the senior judge, will my noble friend make it clear whether this is to be a once-and-for-all inquiry, to be followed by a report, or is it to be what could otherwise be called an ongoing exercise?
Lord BELSTEAD: It is to be on a continuous basis, my Lords.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, in view of confirmation given in the other place about Members of another place, will the noble Lord confirm that no Member of this House is having his telephone tapped in this way?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I have nothing to add to the Statement which was made in 1966 by the right honourable gentleman Sir Harold Wilson, when he was Prime Minister. I think that it would be best, in order to get it straight from the horse's mouth, if the noble Lord would care to glance at that parliamentary Statement made some years ago; and the practice which was set out then has never subsequently been changed.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Statement by Sir Harold Wilson in another place couples my name with a responsibility, and that although my knowledge may be out-of-date, I personally have every confidence that what takes place takes place properly and is wholly concerned with the security of the State?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, bearing in mind the demands upon judicial manpower, is not the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to be thanked for making a senior judge available for this purpose?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, we are always indebted to my noble and learned friend.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
11.30 a.m.
The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to education in Scotland with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Bill has been committed that they consider the clauses and schedules of the Bill in the following order, viz.:—

Clauses 1 and 2

Schedule 1

Clauses 3 to 6

Schedule 2

Clauses 7 to 10

Schedule 3

Clauses 11 to 20

Schedule 4

Clause 21

Schedule 5.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness the Minister for the arrangement of the clauses and schedules. It is of great help to those who are taking part in the Committee stage, and, of course, is of help to the House generally.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DISTURBANCES AT BRISTOL
11.31 a.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by
1470
my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"The Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset has informed me that serious disorder occurred yesterday evening in part of the St. Paul's area of Bristol. The trouble started when police officers visited a club to execute a search warrant in connection with suspected drink and drug offences. A hostile crowd gathered outside the club and threw stones at the police, who were obliged to call for reinforcements. Police reinforcements arrived, but were heavily outnumbered by the crowd, which had grown to some two to three hundred and which pelted the police with bricks, stones and bottles. A running fight developed in which a number of police cars were overturned and set alight.
"The chief constable, who had taken personal charge of the operation, decided temporarily to withdraw his officers from the area, pending the arrival of further reinforcements. As soon as reinforcements were available the police moved in with riot shields and secured the area. Order was restored by midnight. The police are continuing to patrol the district to prevent further trouble. During the course of the evening considerable damage was done to shops and other premises; a bank was set on fire; and looting took place.
"Some 21 police officers and nine members of the public were injured, none seriously. Twenty-one arrests have been made so far, mainly for looting. It is not yet possible to assess the extent of the damage to property. The chief constable has announced that he is making full inquiries into the incident, and I have asked him to report to me urgently. He is in close touch with the local community relations council".
That, my Lords, is the Statement which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made in another place.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, your Lordships will be very grateful indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for repeating this Statement, and for taking this early opportunity to report to

1471
the House—and particularly for doing so at what is not the most convenient of times. Your Lordships will clearly be deeply distressed at the deplorable events in Bristol yesterday, which must have come as a shock to people in many parts of the country. We on this side of the House —and I am sure this feeling is shared in all parts of your Lordships' House—regret all the injuries sustained; and we note, too, the large number of police injuries in these incidents. Obviously, whatever we say here in this House, it is in Bristol that the local problem itself will be solved. We note that the police inquiry is taking place as a matter of urgency, and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, may be able to assure your Lordships, perhaps, that he will keep the House informed as more material emerges.
As to the actual events, it is obviously too early to form judgments on these, but perhaps as a preliminary point it might be said that it is clearly difficult for a police force to react if it is not organised to deal with situations, particularly untypical situations, of this kind. The events of yesterday of course raise certain questions, including certain very basic questions, not the least of which—and I am not suggesting for one moment that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will be expected to tender even a preliminary answer today—is clearly: What were the underlying causes here? One does just wonder whether in fact a police inquiry, if inquiries into this matter are limited solely to that, will be adequate to cover points of that kind.
Another question which clearly emerges so far—and no doubt this is a question which will be considered in the course of the investigations and inquiries—is whether it is true that leaders of the communities in the Bristol area have been warning for some time, as has already been suggested in some reports, that trouble was simmering; and, if that is so, whether and what action was taken about it. Of course, in posing that question we nevertheless also have in mind that on occasions like this there is a great deal of benefit from hindsight, which suddenly reveals itself to people after events of this kind.
I would ask just two further questions of the Minister. Would he not agree
1472
that these matters suggest it is time that perhaps we talked more about race relations and less about immigration and swamping? For one thing, whatever else one can say apparently about the Bristol situation, that is certainly not a part of the country which evidently has been in any way swamped, considering the size of that city. Again, would the Minister not also agree that we must continue to tackle very urgently the problems of the inner cities, and that there is a very great need to maintain expenditure on urban programmes, not least to combat further problems of this kind?
Those are the only points that I wanted to put to the Minister. The only other matter which I would suggest to him at this stage, without necessarily seeking an immediate answer, is this—and it arises from a point which I ventured to make earlier about whether the police inquiry was adequate. It is whether he and his right honourable friend would not close their minds, if the need seems to suggest it, to widening the inquiry at a later date.
11.39 a.m.
Lord HOOSON: My Lords, I am sure that, while the whole House deplores the violence and the looting that took place last evening in Bristol, the House is also greatly disturbed by it, because it brings to an end the period of comparatively sustained calm in this area. Would the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, not consider recommending to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary the wisdom of having an immediate, fairly high-powered inquiry into the matter, for this reason? I think the public need to be reassured, and there is a great danger of various people jumping to (as it were) preconceived explanations of this trouble yesterday evening unless a fairly high-powered inquiry is set up. Because it is very disturbing for the country as a whole that this violence has taken place in an area where there has not been as much immigration as there has to other cities in our country.
There is also another aspect of the matter which I think needs inquiry other than a police inquiry, and that is that, on the face of it, the decision of the chief constable to withdraw his forces (which

1473
I have no doubt was taken in entirely good faith) in the face of a crowd of 200 or 300 does seem to be a rather odd decision. It may be entirely right. For example, I think that the greatest mistake is to jump to conclusions on insufficient evidence. But I think the public need to be reassured as to why it was done, why it was necessary to leave the area without police for some hours. These matters need to be inquired into immediately, sensibly and at a fairly high level. With great respect to what has been said today, I think it would be better for the Home Secretary to consider setting up his own inquiry immediately.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Boston of Faversham and Lord Hooson, for what they have said on this very difficult matter. Both noble Lords, in essence, have asked me to give an assurance that the House will be kept informed. I can certainly say to your Lordships that I know that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will consider whether it will be helpful for him to make a further Statement to the House in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, said that certain basic questions arise from this and both he and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in terms, asked whether there had been prior warnings. Lord Hooson said that this area appeared to be one which had been absolutely quiet. I should like to say on this that there have been reports, I understand, of statements that relations between the local community and the police were not good and that trouble was inevitable. I am bound to say to your Lordships that these reports conflict substantially with the information available to my right honourable friend. I believe firmly that it would be wrong to come to a hasty judgment about the reasons for the trouble that occurred.
Both noble Lords have asked me whether a police inquiry is enough. I fully understand the reasons why both noble Lords have asked this. There must be most careful investigation into the cause of the disturbances. In the first instance, my right honourable friend will be receiving an urgent and full report from the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset. My right honourable friend will want to
1474
consider carefully, in the light of that and other reports, what further action may be appropriate. I think that I am right in saying that it is the intention of my right honourable friend to ask his Minister of State to go immediately to Bristol to see at first hand and to talk at first hand about what has happened.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, put to me the point about the importance of race relations. I entirely agree with that, and also with the necessity for bringing help, where possible, to inner cities. The Government are trying to do that through the enterprise zone concept. Finally, there was the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, about the tactics of the police. I am sure that the noble Lord with his experience would agree that we must place great weight on the operational judgment of the chief constable as the man on the spot who must cope with the situation with the forces at his disposal. I think it right to say that the police showed both courage and coolness in ensuring that order was restored without loss of life or serious injury.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, there is another matter that I would venture to put to the noble Lord. In doing so, I should like to thank him for the forthcoming way that he dealt with the questions so far raised. Can he say anything at this early stage about the question of compensation for the victims of the events of yesterday? Obviously, we all deeply deplore the violence that occurred and which resulted not only in the injuries about which he has told us but also in the great damage which appears to have been done. I am sure that, at an early stage, at any rate, it would be helpful if anything can be done to indicate to people what the position is there. May I add that we all very much share in what he has said about the courage of the police and, most notably, of the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset (who, I think, has been fairly recently appointed) and who, if the reports are correct, was right in the thick of things from as early an opportunity as was possible throughout yesterday.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his final words. I agree with him on his first point

1475
that compensation is a matter of concern; but it is not a matter for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Any claims will be against the police authority.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, the Minister made some promise of a further Statement. Can he be sure that in it there will be reference to the proportion of those apprehended who are non-white? Further, from the fact that in the area under consideration it is understood there is a very substantial population coming from the West Indies, will he ask his right honourable friend to give further consideration to the proposal that has been made that there should be established a substantial fund which would permit voluntary repatriation in view of the fact that there is likely to be a great deal of unemployment in this country?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I would hope that I speak for all sides of the House when I say that we are all concerned that in those areas (particularly inner city areas) where there are many different communities, relations should be as good as possible. I am not going to jump to any hasty conclusion as to the exact causes of this particular trouble, except to draw to the attention of the House the fact that my right honourable friend's Statement does not make any reference at all—and quite deliberately so—to who actually caused the trouble, because at the moment we simply do not know. So far as my noble friend's second question is concerned, this is a matter that he and I have discussed before now outside this House. I think that I must repeat what I have said previously and privately to my noble friend: that the point he is putting to me is not Government policy.
Lord HOOSON: My Lords, on a point arising from the Lord Belstead's reply, I am not disputing in any way that the chief constable on the spot must take the decisions. What is disturbing to the public is the reason why he had to take that particular decision. It is a serious matter in a British city if the police have to be withdrawn for a number of hours because of any disturbance. The reasons underlying that are truly disturbing.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I fully understand the noble Lord's concern; but
1476
I think that we ought to await the report from the chief constable.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, would the Minister agree that on all sides of the House there has been in the past and is at present much worry about the underlying reasons which bring forth an incident such as happened yesterday? Would not the Minister agree that the last Government set up a committee of inquiry called the Rampton Committee into the education and training of children of ethnic groups, concerning also the work and unemployment of those children; and that the present Government have continued with this committee of inquiry and have added members to it? Would not the Minister agree that the first part of the report is to be on the needs of the West Indian community?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the information that she has given to the House.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that while his request to postpone judgment is essentially reasonable, he, himself, with the support of speakers from other Front Benches, has jumped the gun by assuming that what happened in Bristol yesterday was associated with race relations? In saying that, is he not aware that when I was Member of Parliament for Dudley in the early 1960s, we had the first real trouble in this country on a substantial scale? What came to light eventually is that, although it looked to be a race riot, it was nothing of the kind. There are deep-seated underlying causes of such a spontaneous eruption. The reasons for it we do not know and should not pretend that we know. We should try to do some fundamental research to find out what went wrong.
I should like to make a suggestion, and I speak with deep feeling on this matter. When the Dudley riots occurred I went and had a look, and I am sure that the troubles were aggravated by the actions of the media. On the second or third night in Dudley market place the television cameras were already there. They were in Bristol last night, and for the moment it is the duty of all of us to quieten this down and not to try to dramatise the situation and to blow it up.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, advises that we should not jump to conclusions. That is good advice, which the Government have already taken. I said earlier that my right honourable friend's Statement makes no mention in any line that this matter was connected with race relations. We must await what will come out of the report by the chief constable. After we have had the full report from the chief constable, which my right honourable friend is receiving as a matter of urgency, and after the Minister of State has been to Bristol to see the situation on the spot and to discuss the matter, my right honourable friend will, as Lord Wigg wishes, consider carefully in the light of that and other reports what further action may be appropriate.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to ask his right honourable friend to make representations immediately, this morning, to the governors of the BBC and to ITV to remind them of their responsibilities, so that they will not try to blow up the situation in the hours to come? In my judgment, which is not without complete knowledge, what underlies the situation in Bristol underlies another place, too. These things have a habit of catching on. The media now have a great responsibility to put the situation objectively, and certainly not to dramatise it and to blow it up.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, programme content is a matter for the governors of the BBC and for the members of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, within the terms of the Charter and the Independent Television Act. However, I shall draw the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of the chairman of the governors of the BBC and the chairman of the IBA.
Lord HUNT: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are other areas in our inner cities, including certain London boroughs, where the situation which arose in St. Paul's district of Bristol last night has been for some time more predictable than what happened in Bristol, and potentially more dangerous? Does this not add powerful weight to the case for instituting a wider inquiry following the police inquiry into the events in Bristol?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I repeat that my right honourable friend's mind is in no way closed on the way in which he should proceed, once he has received the reports to which I have already referred.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am sure that every Member of this House deplores what has happened. wishes to express sympathy with the injured and supports compensation for those victims who are not covered. I wish strongly to support the proposal for a public inquiry. It is not enough that there should be an investigation within the police force. We want an inquiry and a report which will have the confidence of the black people as well as of the white. I strongly urge that that should happen.
I have been impressed by the view taken by the community workers in the area to the effect that this was not a racial conflict, that the relations between whites and blacks in the area have been good and continue to be good, and that the real reason is the frustration of the young blacks, born in this country, who leave our schools only to find that they have no jobs to go to. They become anti-social, they regard the police as the embodiment of authority, and they turn their minds against the authorities. May I remind the Minister that 13 years ago the Hunt Commission warned us of this danger? However, very little has been done, and the position today is worse than it was then.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I agree with much of the noble Lord's remarks and I do not wish to add to them significantly, except to take up his last point. I remind the House that there are agencies, of which the police are one, community relations councils locally are another and other people working in the field are a third, who will have been involved in the St. Paul's area of Bristol. My information is very much the same as the information which has come to the noble Lord and to which I referred in a supplementary answer. The reports received by my right honourable friend indicate that relationships between the local community and the police, for instance, were not bad; they were in fact good.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, may I intervene for one moment? I know that the Order Paper for today is not absolutely crammed full and that this is an important subject. However, the House has now been dealing with it for a long while. I remind the House that this is only a Statement and many noble Lords have asked not one question but have taken two bites at the cherry. Therefore, I think it might be appropriate for the House to move on to the next business.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
HUMBERSIDE BILL [H.L.]
Report from Her Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
FRIENDS MEETING HOUSE (REIGATE) BILL [H.L.]
Examiner's Certificate that no further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with: Ordered to lie on the Table; Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
LIMITATION AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments: the said amendments to be printed.

ROYAL ASSENT
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
1480

Highlands and Islands Air Services (Scotland) Act,

Education Act,

Competition Act,

Cheshire County Council Act.

Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I should like to wish noble Lords in all parts of the House a happy Easter and a well-deserved rest.