Sitting of 10 July 1969

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION
    Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Dundee Corporation, presented by Mr. William Ross (under Section 7 of the Act); and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday, 16th July, and to be printed. [Bill 194.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

    Company Chairmen (Salaries)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the increases made last year by company chairmen in their salaries of up to 50 per cent; and to what extent the Government's incomes policy now applies to them.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): In its report on top salaries, the Board said that the salaries of individuals could be judged properly only in relation to the salary structures in which they are placed. My right hon. Friend is considering the reference to the Board of the salary structures of individual firms and will be consulting the C.B.I. and T.U.C. in due course. The income policy applies to all incomes.
    Mr. Jenkins: Will my hon. Friend comment on the claim of the C.B.I. that it
    1548
    is persuaded that this reference should be in general rather than particular terms? Will he refer particular cases of, for example, Mr. Hawkins of P. B. Cow and Co., Mr. Chapman of Group Lotus Car companies and the £40,000 to £45,000 increase for Sir Val Duncan of the Rio Tinto Zinc Corporation?
    Mr. Walker: I have said that my right hon. Friend is considering reference to the Board of salary structures of individual firms, but it would be improper for me to comment on individual cases. As to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, consultations we have about references to the Board are, of course, in confidence, but the C.B.I. attitude was publicly declared at the time as one of general opposition to the references.

    General Electric and English Electric Companies (Reorganisation)
    Mr. Ogdenasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what action she is taking to ensure the provision of acceptable alternative employment for those made redundant by reorganisation at the English Electric group of companies on Merseyside and in Lancashire.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. E. Fernyhough): My local officers will be making special arrangements to help redundant workers who require advice or assistance in obtaining other employment. The majority of those involved have some skill or technical qualification and there are good prospects of their finding other work. On present evidence it appears unlikely that the measures for reorganisation announced by the General Electric and English Electric Companies Ltd., will lead to any significant increase in local unemployment in Merseyside and Lancashire.
    Mr. Ogden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he satisfied with the co-ordination between his Ministry, the Board of Trade, the Department of Economic Affairs and other Ministries involved? Is he aware of the very real concern on Merseyside about the threatened closure of the Netherton plant?
    Mr. Fernyhough: I assure my hon. Friend that all the Ministries concerned

    1549
    about employment keep closely in touch. The Netherton factory is one of the group currently under review, but so far I am not aware of any firm decision having been taken.
    Mr. Tilney: When companies are amalgamated for greater efficiency, what action is taken by the Minister to urge concentration of work in development areas rather than in areas where there is no unemployment at all?
    Mr. Fernyhough: The whole policy of the Government has been directed towards that end. There would be something very unbusinesslike and uncommercial in any firm in a development area transferring its work to an outside area and thus losing the very good financial benefits which accrue through our regional policy.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that this work concerned with diesel engines is being transferred to Colchester and Lincoln and that the firm can guarantee only 130 personnel being transferred to those factories? As we have a most serious unemployment problem on Merseyside and there is no guarantee that all these workers' skill will be employed, will he represent to his right hon. Friends that action must be taken to ensure employment for them?
    Mr. Fernyhough: The vast majority of these people are skilled or semiskilled. Our local officers believe that because of their skills there will not be any great difficulty in finding alternative employment for the overwhelming majority of them.

    Salary Increases
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what study she has made of the evidence supplied to her by the hon. Member for South Bedfordshire of salary increases of up to £13,000; and if she will take steps to ensure that all proposed wage and salary increases of £1,000 plus are referred to her Department for vetting.
    Mr. Harold Walker: I have written to my hon. Friend about the points he raised in his letter. All increases are subject to the requirements of the incomes policy, but the information to be submitted to
    1550
    my Department under the early warning arrangements is restricted to increases involving more than 100 workers. My right hon. Friend is reviewing the scope of early warning as part of the reformulation of the policy after the end of 1969.
    Mr. Roberts: Does it not have a damaging effect on industrial relations when workers who are fighting for a few shillings a week extra find that their bosses can get many thousands of £s a year extra easily? When my hon. Friend is carrying out the references to which he referred in answer to Question No. 1, will he bear in mind this enormous rise at Vauxhall Motors? In general, does he agree that the problems of British industry are basically never solved by a race of supermen but by the man working on the shop floor?
    Mr. Walker: I agree largely with the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. He must not assume that large salary increases for chairmen of companies are necessarily inconsistent with the policy. The ceiling and criteria in Cmnd. 3590 do not apply to progressions based on added experience, increased responsibility, or special effort, and N.B.P.I. Report No. 107 suggested that increases for top executives as a whole had been rather less than those within the economy as a whole.

    Australians (Work Permits)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many Australians, whether already in this country or outside, in 1968 and in the first quarter of 1969, respectively, applied for work permits in Great Britain and were refused.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Employment vouchers are issued only to persons outside this country. In 1968, 507 applications were made and 97 rejected; in the first quarter of 1969, 184 and 39, respectively.
    Mr. Tilney: Why does the Home Secretary refuse to grant an extension of a work permit for an Australian about whom I have written to him, who is a member of a British trade union and who has asked for the extension in a job in which there is no unemployment? As Australia takes so many immigrants from

    1551
    Britain, should there not be a little more reciprocity?
    Mr. Fernyhough: I believe that there is reciprocity. There is a constant to and fro between both countries. As the hon. Gentleman did not give me notice that he would raise this specific case, I am not able to comment on what he thinks is the unfavourable decision he has had from the Home Secretary.

    Scotland (Unemployment)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what are the latest figures for unemployment in Scotland; and what is her estimate of the number of long-term unemployed, who through no fault of their own are unable to work.
    Mr. Fernyhough: At the latest count on 10th June there were 75,000 persons on the unemployment registers in Scotland, including 71,000 wholly unemployed. On 14th April, the latest date for which I have comprehensive statistics of the duration of unemployment, 35·5 per cent. of the wholly unemployed had been on the registers for six months or more. To judge from past studies, I would say that a substantial proportion of these would find difficulty on personal grounds in getting work.
    Mr. Dalyell: At a time when, thanks to Government policy, the Scottish unemployment figures are extremely healthy and favourable, would not this be the moment, when no one can accuse of gerrymandering, to alter the presentation of the statistics?
    Mr. Fernyhough: I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no gerrymandering with figures, whether they are favourable or unfavourable, so long as I have to answer about them. I am glad that my hon. Friend has noted the improvement in the Scottish employment figures. I hope that the numbers of unemployed will continue to decrease, because this will be a good reflection of the success of our regional policy.
    Mr. R. Carr: The Under-Secretary has just referred to the success of the employment figures in Scotland. Have not the numbers actually employed in Scotland fallen compared with the position a few years ago?
    Mr. Fernyhough: In total, yes. If anybody believes that we could have inherited a coalmining industry, a steel industry, and a railway industry in the state in which hon. Members left them and then not have experienced a substantial decline in those industries, they do not know what has been happening. Of course there has been a decrease. Right hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench have made it clear in recent speeches that they failed to take cognisance of the rundown in the basic industries. Therefore, we should not be accused of being too responsible for the decrease.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what study she has made of the extent to which Scottish unemployment figures are artificially swollen by the fact that over the past three years more men and women are taking longer between leaving one job and taking another, to try and make certain that the job to which they go is suitable.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Over the three years up to June, 1969, the percentage of persons on the unemployment registers in Scotland for eight weeks or less fell from 38·8 to 34·6. This may in part be due to a more selective attitude on the part of registrants in deciding what jobs to take but the general level of unemployment would also influence the figures.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it more than possible to guess at the cause of the selective attitude?
    Mr. Fernyhough: I think that the introduction of our wage-related benefits and redundancy payments have meant that the unemployed man is not down immediately to the poverty level; therefore, he has a right, and takes advantage of that right, because he has the economic support, to look round a little longer so that he can find a job which is appropriate to his talents and which he believes will be satisfying.

    Companies (Registration of Procedural Agreements)
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of of State for Employment and Productivity how many firms have now been

    1553
    asked to register their procedural agreements; how many have done so; if she is satisfied with the rate of progress; and if she will make a statement.
    The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): So far, 35 companies employing more than 5,000 in a single establishment have been invited to register. These companies employ between them over one-and-a-half million people. Twelve companies have already registered their agreements and a further 14 have indicated that they are well advanced in preparing their replies. I shall shortly be inviting a further 250 companies each employing more than 5,000 people to register. I am pleased with the overall response so far from companies and with the co-operation I have had from both C.B.I. and T.U.C. Moreover, there are indications of growing interest in improving procedures, no doubt due to knowledge of the invitations from my Department.
    Mr. Ashley: I welcome that reply. When my right hon. Friend approaches the further 250 companies, will she ensure that firms with a record of bad industrial relations are not allowed to evade agreement or to prevaricate?
    Mrs. Castle: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's aim. The invitations to register are as yet on a voluntary basis and, therefore, until we have legislation putting it on a statutory basis, I have no power to enforce compliance. I have found that firms are responding well so far, and I hope that they will continue to do so.

    National Minimum Wage
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the consultations she has had with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry about the Departmental Report on a National Minimum Wage.
    Mr. Harold Walker: My right hon. Friend will be consulting the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry on the future form of the policy for productivity, prices and incomes. The position of low-paid workers will be considered in the light of
    1554
    the inter-departmental report on a national minimum wage, the information becoming available from the new earnings survey and the question of equal pay for women, who form the majority of the low paid.
    Mr. Ashley: Are not the questions of a minimum wage and equal pay separate but related? Are not the Government already committed in principle to the question of equal pay? Would they care to give a similar commitment in principle to the question of a minimum wage?
    Mr. Walker: I cannot commit the Government on the question of a national minimum wage. The importance of equal pay in this connection is that the great majority of the lower paid are women and the implementation of equal pay would go a long way towards solving the problem of low pay.
    Mr. Shinwell: What is this interdepartmental report on a national minimum wage? Can hon. Members be acquainted with the details? Is my hon. Friend aware that on two occasions—in 1946 and in 1948—there were submitted to the Attlee Cabinet proposals for a national minimum wage? Are they available in the Department? Can we have information about this?
    Mr. Walker: As I understand the position, the report should be available in the Vote Office. I will check to make sure that it is. If it is not, I will ensure that it is made available to hon. Members. The purpose of the report was not to commit the Government on a policy but to provide a basis for a more informed discussion on the subject.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend agree that, on the basis of the report, there is an unanswerable case for introducing fairly speedily a national minimum wage, bearing in mind that many males, as a result of the Government's policy on redundancy payments and related supplements, can receive more money when they are unemployed? If we as a Government are not prepared to give an incentive, shall we not make things difficult for the lower-paid workers?
    Mr. Walker: As I said in reply to an earlier supplementary question, the purpose of the report was to provide the basis for a more informed discussion

    1555
    and not to draw conclusions. However, if I may draw a subjective conclusion representing purely my own attitude, it seems to me that there are strong indications in the report that we might misuse resources by introducing a national minimum wage at this time, and those resources might be better used through the existing social security arrangements, the provision of family allowances, and the like.
    Dr. Winstanley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the introduction of a national minimum wage to protect badly organised industries is a necessary preliminary to a move from nationally negotiated wage agreements to plant and company bargaining? Will he consider the introduction of a national minimum wage for that purpose?
    Mr. Walker: As regards industries in which the general level or the tendency is towards low pay, this is the sort of question which, among other things, exercised the mind of the Royal Commission, which made recommendations, for example, about the need to develop more effective collective bargaining machinery in those industries, particularly those covered by wages councils. Its recommendations are currently the subject of consultation between the Department, the T.U.C. and the C.B.I.

    Young Persons, Caerphilly (Unemployment)
    Mr. Fred Evansasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many young persons were unemployed in Caerphilly at the latest available date.
    Mr. Fernyhough: On 9th June, 1969, 72 young persons were registered as unemployed at careers offices in the Caerphilly area.
    Mr. Evans: Will my hon. Friend appreciate that in areas of high unemployment such as this and many others like it, juvenile unemployment must be a cause for grave concern? Can he tell me what the situation is, taken at the nearest convenient date, as compared with a year ago? If there has been an improvement, does he estimate that the trend is likely to continue, and what is his prognosis for juvenile unemployment during the coming winter?
    Mr. Fernyhough: As I said in my original Answer, there were 72 young persons unemployed at the last count, and in the corresponding count last year, there were 135, which shows a substantial improvement. I know my hon. Friend's deep concern about the matter, but I think that he will be happy to know that all known Easter school leavers have found employment, and we feel that the prospects for those leaving at the end of term this July and August are reasonably good.

    Local Government Training Board
    Mr. Moyleasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will seek powers to place the Local Government Training Board on a statutory basis under the Industrial Training Act.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): My right hon. Friend is considering the advisability of seeking such powers.
    Mr. Moyle: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present voluntary levy is bringing in only about half the money necessary for a comprehensive training scheme in local authorities, and will not this lead to a considerable wastage of potential skilled manpower unless a statutory scheme is introduced?
    Mr. Hattersley: There is by definition some difficulty in running an effective training board on a purely voluntary basis, and this was one of the considerations which my right hon. Friend and other members of the Cabinet have had to consider. In fact, much of the provision which is properly under the aegis of other industrial training boards covers local authority employees.
    Dame Irene Ward: This is an important matter for a large number of people. If action is not to be included in the next Queen's Speech, could something be done under a Ten Minute Rule Bill or in some other way to set things going?
    Mr. Hattersley: Precisely because it is an important matter covering a large number of people, our final decision about such a board has to be preceded by adequate consultation.

    Women (Night Work)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what studies she has undertaken of the increases in output to be achieved by legislation to enable women to work overnight shifts in industry and commerce; what is her estimate of the number of women willing to undertake nightwork; if she will take steps to give women this freedom; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement about her policy regarding night and shift working for women.
    Mr. Fernyhough: The restrictions on night and shift working for women in factories are under review at present following the Report of the Working Party of the National Joint Advisory Council which was published at the beginning of March. Consultations are now going on between officials of my Department and the various interests concerned. The restrictions do not extend to commerce.
    Mr. Roberts: Will my hon. Friend accept that, whereas the great majority of women would not wish to work at night and the great majority of us would not wish to see them working at night, legislation which discriminates in this way on sexual grounds is completely Victorian and has no place in 1969 society?
    Mr. Fernyhough: I might be a bit of a square in relation to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, but I ask him to accept that it will not be easy to secure complete unanimity on this matter among all those who have a right to be consulted before the existing law is changed. Consultations are taking place, and we shall take account of what the various people have to say before we make a decision about whether to change the law.
    Mr. Allaun: In those consultations has not the T.U.C. opposed it, certainly until equal pay and special security provisions have been obtained? As one who has had a belly-full of night work in two industries, I ask my hon. Friend whether
    1558
    he is aware that many of us regard it as outrageous for women and consider that production and profit should not be put before all human needs.
    Mr. Fernyhough: The existing law is that they can work nights in factories only provided that an exemption is obtained, and exemption is granted only on the basis of increased efficiency and production and provided that the women are willing. This is not imposed on unwilling women workers, and I cannot imagine that it will ever be so in future because no employer will introduce night work for women if it means that his factory is stopped in consequence.

    School Children (Work Experience)
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (1) what progress has been made in plans to change the law controlling work experience for school children;
    (2) when she will give permission to the children of Bideford to take part in work experience.
    Mr. Fernyhough: I am not yet in a position to add to the replies given on 22nd May and 12th June to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts).—[Vol. 784, c. 629–30 and 1644–5.]
    Mr. Mills: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that work experience could be a real step forward in interesting young people to go into industry and could be of particular value in areas to which new industry is brought but in which the local people have no actual experience of industry? Will not he encourage it and ensure that the law is changed so that advantage can be taken of this vital step forward?
    Mr. Fernyhough: I know the interest taken in this matter particularly in the hon. Gentleman's constituency because I know something of the report by the sub-committee of the Bideford Youth Employment Committee. It will need new legislation. We are aware of what the Newsom Committee had to say on the matter, and we shall be talking about whether any change can be made with all the interested parties, which include not only employers and trade unions but the local authorities.
    Mr. Fred Evans: Will my hon. Friend accept that the weight of feeling in the teaching profession is growing in favour of this kind of experience, and will he further accept that many in the teaching profession regard it as unrealistic to raise the school-leaving age to 16 and not have as a component of the course between 15 and 16 just such training for adult life?
    Mr. Fernyhough: I appreciate that there is growing interest and concern. It will be much easier to persuade those who are now opposed to this principle to look at it afresh once we guarantee that every child receives a classroom education until he is at least 15, and the year from 15 to 16 can then be a period when we try to introduce this reform.

    Unemployment Figures
    Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she will announce the conclusions of her review of the seasonal adjustment of unemployment figures.
    Mr. Hattersley: I cannot give a date. The review is not expected to be completed for some time.
    Mr. Macmillan: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that this is the third year running in which the trend of the unemployment figures shows that the seasonal adjustments are way out? Why is it taking so long to have the new figures? Will the hon. Gentleman consider publishing the alternative figures which the Department has at the same time as the existing series?
    Mr. Hattersley: I do not think that it is possible to predict the reasons which are delaying the completion of the review. I refute the allegation that there are any errors in the existing figures, not least because the alternative schemes organised by the Statistical Office and the Bank of England show very similar trends to those about which the hon. Gentleman complained. Therefore, if a statistical error exists nobody is yet sure of its nature.

    Industrial Relations
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what plans she has for legisla-
    1560
    tion to impose penalties on employers who provoke strikes.
    Mr. Speedasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what rôle sanctions, penal or otherwise, will play in her forthcoming industrial relations legislation.
    Mrs. Castle: I would refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statement on 19th June when he said that consultations on future industrial relations legislation will continue with the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and the other organisations concerned.—[Vol. 785, c. 701.]
    Mr. Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in the course of those consultations that it has been determined on examination of the cause of strikes that in a substantial number of them the cause of the trouble was abrogation of agreed terms by the employers?
    Mrs. Castle: In the White Paper we pointed out that it was undoubtedly true that arbitrary action by an employer without proper consultation was a substantial element in the causes of unofficial strikes. That is why we included the status quo provision in the conciliation pause procedure which was outlined for the interim Bill. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to rectify this, but probably the best way to deal with it is again, as the White Paper points out, through the reform of procedures so as to allow a status quo provision.
    Mr. Speed: Can the right hon. Lady confirm that it is the Government's intention to introduce comprehensive and effective industrial relations legislation in the next Session, and that it will have sufficient teeth to bring about the necessary changes of heart on the part of both management and trade unions?
    Mrs. Castle: As I said in my main reply, the position on penal clauses was outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 19th June, and consultations on the contents of the major Bill are now going on.
    Mr. Ogden: Whilst the earlier provisions of the White Paper laid great emphasis on the improvement of industrial relations and bargaining and negotiating procedures, did not it also include provisions for the imposition of sanctions against an employer who broke the rules?

    1561
    Was not that Clause opposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins)?
    Mrs. Castle: It is true that in the interim Bill provisions there were to be equal obligations laid on employers and unions, and therefore equal sanctions were to operate.
    Mr. R. Carr: Can the right hon. Lady confirm that the question of penalties cannot be in any way part of the consultations to which she refers, because, as the country understands it, the Prime Minister has given a solemn pledge that there will be no legislation with penalties in it during the lifetime of the present Parliament?
    Mrs. Castle: The Prime Minister's statement was perfectly clear—[Laughter.] It is never any good answering questions from hon. Members opposite, because they do not wish to be enlightened. The Prime Minister made it perfectly clear that the outcome of the discussions we had been holding with the T.U.C. on the provisions outlined in our interim legislation had been successful, and therefore the undertaking had been given that those penal provisions would not be introduced in the lifetime of the present Parliament. He aded that the consultations were now proceeding on the contents of the major legislation embodying the rest of the White Paper, which we are to introduce later.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many unions are committed to observe the Trades Union Congress policy of voluntary supervision of industrial relations; and how many union rule books will require revision to satisfy the Government that this policy can be effectively imposed.
    Mrs. Castle: The undertaking given to the Government by the General Council of the Trades Union Congress applies to all unions affiliated to the T.U.C. The T.U.C. has taken up with affiliated unions the question of amendment of union rules.
    Mr. Biffen: Does not the right hon. Lady recollect that with great clarity the Prime Minister indicated that the rule book was one of the sanctions whereby the T.U.C. could apply its policy? Surely, the Government must have some idea about the present state of the rule
    1562
    book? Surely, they must be aware that the T.U.C. is trying to obtain a revision of the rule book? Surely, that is the kind of information which the right hon. Lady should be able to make available to Parliament?
    Mrs. Castle: Exactly. That is just what I have been saying to Parliament, that the T.U.C. has taken up with the affiliated unions the question of amendment to union rules. It conducted a survey some time ago on the contents of union rules, and it made the information from that survey public. It followed this up on 25th June with a circular to affiliated unions setting out the principles which should be contained in all union rule books. Therefore, it lost no time whatsoever in following up its pledge to the Government given in the solemn and binding undertaking.
    Mr. Brooks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the eagerness with which unions may be prepared to modernise their rule books will depend on their anticipation of the shape and content of the industrial relations legislation next Session? Could she tell us, therefore, whether we shall now have a White Paper or Green Paper within the next few weeks on the basis of which it will be possible to consider the proposed changes during the next few months?
    Mrs. Castle: There will certainly be a White Paper in due course, but I could not hold out any hope of its coming within the next few weeks, because there are some very far-reaching proposals involving detailed consultations. These are already going on, for example, on how one operates the statutory right of appeal against unfair dismissal. That is only one example. It is a very complicated matter, and we shall have to spend some time in carrying out these detailed consultations.
    Mr. Scott: What consultations is the T.U.C. having with unaffiliated unions on how the policy will affect them? Is not there something to be said for referring the question of union rules to the Commission on Industrial Relations and asking it to produce a model set of rules embodying basic principles of justice and so on?
    Mrs. Castle: Obviously, the T.U.C. is not circulating non-affiliated unions; that is clearly not within its sphere of

    1563
    responsibility. With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, it would be inappropriate to refer the matter to the C.I.R. The T.U.C. is actively dealing with it, and we must wait and see what results.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that such questions do a disservice to good industrial relations? Is she aware that as a result of the circular letter that has already gone to all affiliated organisations it is now being shown that unofficial stoppages are being dealt with expeditiously by the T.U.C., much to the disgust of the Opposition, who are obviously keeping the issue aflame, as is the national Press?
    Mrs. Castle: It is a tribute to the good word of the T.U.C. that, although the solemn and binding undertaking was signed only on 18th June, within a matter of days three circulars had gone out to affiliated unions on the ways in which the undertaking was to be implemented. I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a great pity that there should be so much desire among hon. Members opposite to see the T.U.C. fail.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will publish a White Paper setting out the reserve statutory powers she proposes to seek to enable the Trades Union Congress to supervise a voluntary policy of control of incomes and industrial relations, respectively.
    Mrs. Castle: No, Sir.
    Mr. Biffen: I am not surprised. If a voluntary industrial relations policy proceeds without the background of penal sanctions, why cannot a voluntary incomes policy proceed without the background of penal sanctions? Will not the right hon. Lady take this occasion to make a clear statement that, come this November, she will not proceed with the reactionary and meddlesome Sections of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966?
    Mrs. Casle: I made clear to the House recently in a lengthy speech what we intend to propose to the House in the form of legislation following the expiry of the current powers—namely, the reactivation of Part II of the Act in order to enable references to be made to the Prices and Incomes Board. This will be discussed in the House in due course.
    Mr. Orme: Did not my right hon. Friend note yesterday that the T.U.C.'s Economic Committee believes that reactivation of Part II will be harmful to industrial relations and to normal wage bargaining? Will she take this view seriously into account?
    Mrs. Castle: I cannot agree with the comments made by the T.U.C. on this. I think that the T.U.C. appreciates as much as anyone in this House the valuable rôle played by the Prices and Incomes Board, and we all hope that it will go on playing a valuable rôle. But if it is to do so it must be given scope and time in which to consider references and to make recommendations at a point at which they can influence decisions.
    Mr. R. Carr: Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her flat "No" to my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen)? Among other reasons, if I remember correctly, in her speech on the Budget, she made some references, for example, to rents, which are not covered in Part II of the 1966 Act and therefore not only this House but the country needs a statement from the Government urgently about their intentions.
    Mrs. Castle: We know that the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) does not like statutory powers over prices and incomes when they apply to rents. Hon. Members opposite have never wanted any interference with the rent increases. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] The policy of hon. Members opposite is that they object to statutory interference with rent increases and that is part and parcel of the attitude of the right hon. Member for Mitcham. The Government have explained why they believe that certain statutory powers are necessary—the "early warning" power, for example—and we still believe them essential if we are to have any influence on prices and incomes. Consultations on the details of the legislation are now going on.

    Unemployment Benefit (Fraudulent Claims)
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what checks are made on persons registered as unemployed by labour exchanges

    1565
    to ensure they are not working as labour-only sub-contractors whilst drawing unemployment benefit; and what action is taken to stop this practice.
    Mr. Fernyhough: A person who claims unemployment benefit is required to make a declaration covering every day of his claim that he is unemployed, capable of and available for work in an employed contributor's employment. He has to lodge his national insurance card at the local office dealing with his claim, and inquiries are made to verify the circumstances of the termination of his employment.
    Fraudulent claims normally come to light through a variety of channels, including inconsistencies in the data relating to the claim, questioning of the claimant and information received. Wherever possible criminal proceedings are taken.
    Mr. Ashton: Have not labour exchanges the power to make a man claim daily or hourly for benefit? That would stop him from working as a labour-only sub-contractor. What action is taken against employers who deliberately employ men as labour-only contractors knowing that such men are still claiming unemployment benefit?
    Mr. Fernyhough: I think there is one thing that we should make clear. I believe that the general body of unemployed are as honest as any other citizens and that if we were to try to make out a case that the unemployed in general are fiddlers or bigger fiddlers than anyone else, it would be unfair. [Interruption.] I have no doubt that some hon. Members are acquainted with income tax and expense fiddles. There were 598 prosecutions last year and wherever we have any evidence that men are claiming benefit under false pretences, action is taken.
    If we were to try to compel every man to sign on at the employment exchange every day, the hue and cry about the consequent increase in the number of civil servants would be a great joy to the Opposition. We have to keep this problem in perspective and as far as we are able we follow up any complaints we get.
    Those who employ these men have a moral obligation, if they know that they are still registered as unemployed, to report it to the employment exchange if the men are still drawing benefit.
    Mr. Speaker: Long answers and long supplementary questions means fewer Questions.

  PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA (VISIT)
  Mr. Ogdenasked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Prime Minister of Canada to make an official visit to the United Kingdom.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): There are no plans at present for a further visit by Mr. Trudeau in the near future but I had useful talks with him when he visited Chequers for the weekend before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting in January.
  Mr. Ogden: Is it correct that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is to visit Canada? Will he take the opportunity of repeating the Government's invitation to the Prime Minister of Canada to come here? Would it be possible during such a visit for information to be passed to the Canadian Government, publicly or privately, about the concern felt in many parts of the United Kingdom for the condition of the Mohawk nation and the responsibility we may still have for that part of the country?
  The Prime Minister: It is true that my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is to visit Canada in a few weeks' time. I understand the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary Question to relate to the condition of the Canadian Indians. These matters were regulated by the Treaty of 1794 and it is clear that from the time of Canadian independence all Britain's obligations in respect of the Canadian Indians passed to the sovereign independent country of Canada.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: When the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary goes to Canada, will he take the opportunity to discuss the persistently adverse balance of trade which we have with that country? This is one of the great questions in our economic difficulties at present.
  The Prime Minister: We usually discuss trade matters when any of us goes to Canada, although it is my recollection, for what it is worth in this matter, that we have had an adverse balance of trade

  1567
  with Canada since long before the war. There has always been this situation because of our very large imports of food from there, and before the war it was compensated for by the surplus with the United States which came from sterling area shipments. But there is certainly a problem, hence the great export drive to Canada.

  MR. KOSYGIN (MEETING)
  Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Prime Minister what proposals he has for a meeting with Mr. Kosygin in the immediate future.
  The Prime Minister: I have no such plans at present, Sir.
  Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, to most people in this country, the major problem which faces us is not whether to go into the Common Market but to get a settlement of the political issues which divide Europe, an agreement on the frontiers between the two Germanies and a security conference between East and West? This cannot be done without the Soviet Union. Does not he think that he should initiate discussions with Mr. Kosygin?
  The Prime Minister: Two of my right hon. Friends have visited Moscow in the past few weeks, and there was discussion between my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology and Mr. Kosygin on the latter's suggestion about possible visits in the not too distant future.
  I was able to discuss the question of a security conference with the Prime Minister of Finland last weekend in the light of the Finnish initiative, and we shall have an opportunity of discussing it further with the President of Finland during his State visit next week. I felt from my discussions in Sweden that some of the difficulties might be more capable of solution than I had previously thought.

  SPAIN (RELATIONS)
  Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from Spanish exiles in this country on Anglo-Spanish relations; and what reply he has sent.
  The Prime Minister: None, Sir.
  Mr. Fraser: Was it not represented to the Prime Minister and his colleagues at the Socialist International that Spain is in gross breach of its United Nations obligations to its own people in relation to human rights as much inside its own borders as outside? Will the Government give this fact publicity and demonstrate it as much as the Spanish are fond of demonstrating what are supposed to be our failings, which I deny, in Gibraltar?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House will join with my hon. Friend in his denial of Spanish allegations about Gibraltar.
  Hon Members: Hear, hear.
  The Prime Minister: Practically every Gibraltarian wants to maintain his British connection and not sign up with Spain. I have not had recent representations on this matter but I will study the details of any of the representations made at Eastbourne.
  Sir F. Bennett: Would it be a bad idea to advise our representative at the United Nations to press for consideration by that body of a referendum, such as we had in Gibraltar, for Ceuta and other Spanish possessions on the North African coast?
  The Prime Minister: That is an interesting suggestion and I will bring it to the attention of our representative at the United Nations. It is a fact that at the United Nations there has not been anything like full awareness of the true position in Gibraltar, or of the fact that the referendum, which was taken in the most objective conditions with full facilities for independent observers, showed overwhelming support for the British connection.

  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister is he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Socialist International at Eastbourne on 16th June, 1969 on the subject of British foreign policy.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave to a Question by the right hon. Member for

  1569
  Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) on Tuesday.—[Vol. 786, c. 234.]
  Mr. Fraser: I have had a chance to read that speech. At the beginning, my right hon. Friend paid tribute to Herr Willi Brandt and he finished by saying the time was not on the side of democracy. In the circumstances, did he have a chance to discuss with Herr Brandt the proposed contract by the Harold Werke yard to build four submarines for the Greek military régime and the implications of that proposed contract on the German peace treaty and our attitude towards it under W.E.U., which sanctioned the deal, and its implications for democracy in Greece?
  The Prime Minister: That did not arise out of the speech at Eastbourne. I discussed with Herr Brandt and other West European leaders this weekend a wide variety of subjects, of which, of course, Greece was one, and I think that we all showed common concern about the Greek situation. I did not discuss the question of submarines. I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a matter for W.E.U., because the proposal that the clearance given by W.E.U. in 1963 to build six submarines should be used for the possible building of four submarines for Greece requires reference back to W.E.U., which gave the clearance six years ago in different circumstances.
  Mr. Turton: Will the Prime Minister send the leaders of the Common Market countries the passage in that speech which explained that Britain's application to join the Common Market was not for the purpose of creating a powerful European economic bloc but as a step towards wider world free trade?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Most of those who were in Eastbourne heard that point made. It has always been our position, and I hope that, whatever other differences there are in the House about the Common Market, it has always been the position of every hon. Member.

  NIGERIA
  Mr. Barnesasked the Prime Minister if he will invite Lord Hunt to seek to make a further visit to both sides in the war between Nigeria and Biafra in order to assess the relief situation, in view
  1570
  of the interruption of the International Red Cross operation.
  The Prime Minister: I would certainly not rule out my hon. Friend's proposal at an appropriate time. But I think we should await the outcome of the further talks now being held between the Federal Government and the International Committee of the Red Cross in Lagos.
  Mr. Barnes: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if relief flights into Biafra are to be resumed, both sides must agree a formula? Are the Government prepared to use their influence to try to get such a formula, or will they stand pat on the way in which Nigeria wants to handle relief operations?
  The Prime Minister: This was explained by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in his statement on Monday, and this matter will be further developed, no doubt, in the debate this afternoon. We have shown great flexibility. For example, when I was in Nigeria in March and during Lord Hunt's visit last year we expressed ourselves as willing to explore a number of possibilities. One of the most obvious is to use surface routes, because the food is there and could be rolling into the territory concerned and be there within hours. Another is daylight flights. One must be suspicious of the reasons why daylight flights have not been considered acceptable. There are also such proposals as the Cross River route which Lord Hunt particularly investigated when he was there. We are not standing pat on a particular suggestion. We want to get food there, and we want it dissociated from the politics in the area.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: Is the Prime Minister aware that, contrary to the announcement on the B.B.C., a Division will be called tonight on the total failure of the Government's Nigerian policy?
  The Prime Minister: I am responsible neither for what is said on the B.B.C. in speculation about activities in the House, nor for the actions of the right hon. Gentleman. He has to answer to himself for any decisions he takes in the House.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Why not consider Biafra's proposals for daylight flights supervised by international and Lagos observers, particularly as this morning

  1571
  Joint Church Aid declared that the Lagos plan was completely unrealistic?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend made it quite clear that, as a result of his talk with Dr. Arikpo last weekend, we had pressed and had had accepted a proposal under which there would be international observers, ourselves or others, at the loading of the planes, first to make it clear that there was no tampering, about which there has been some anxiety, and, second, to make sure that there was no undue delay. But every time an offer is made the situation changes, and I cannot help feeling that the real motive, which has been expressed, is an insistence to be able to keep the arms-running planes flying in with the relief planes and—
  Mr. Heffer: Why not?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend asks "Why not?". If we are talking about starvation and malnutrition, as we all are, and the need to get relief there, the important thing is to get the food there by the best route without insisting on having that food contaminated with arms supplies.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL
  Mr. Whitakerasked the Prime Minister whether he will co-ordinate the work of the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Department of Economic Affairs concerned with the project for a Channel Tunnel.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport already works in close consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and with all other Ministers concerned in this matter.
  Mr. Whitaker: After 50 years of talk, is it not now time for some action on the Channel Tunnel? Has co-ordinated contingency planning already started, for the effects on South-East England if the Channel Tunnel goes ahead will be considerable?
  The Prime Minister: A great deal more action has been taken in the last two or three years than in all the previous
  1572
  47 which my hon. Friend has mentioned. He will know that a project team of officials was set up in 1966. We are now awaiting some settlement of the problem of the raising of the money by private enterprise groups, and no settlement has yet been reached with one or more of those groups. We have given much thought to the South-East contingency plan based on provisional plans for the Tunnel, although we regard the Tunnel as serving the whole of the country. We do not believe that the idea should be to get a vast industrial complex near the Tunnel entrance, but that the Tunnel should be regarded as a means of carrying British exports to France and the rest of the Continent from every manufacturing area in Britain.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Are the financial groups concerned still insisting on Government guarantees of the capital put in? If they are, does not that raise some doubts as to the economic viability of the project?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that that is the main stumbling block at the moment. I should like to look into the exact state of the negotiations between representatives of the two Governments and the groups. So far, the proposals put forward by the financial groups do not meet our requirements, and they have gone back to consider new proposals.
  Mrs. Renée Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is more than one point of view about the kind of Channel link which should be built? Will he confirm an undertaking given to the House by his right hon. Friend that there will be a full and early opportunity to discuss the proposals which the Government are considering before any final decision is made?
  The Prime Minister: Our view of the different forms of link with the Continent was announced some time ago. Any question of a debate is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
  Sir T. Beamish: Is it not a fact that the Government definitely favour this immensely costly project? Why has there not been a White Paper on the subject, and why has the House not been consulted?
  The Prime Minister: I thought that there had been a statement to the House. I will consider whether in the period since then enough material has accumulated to justify a White Paper or a further statement.
  Mr. Crouch: Is the Prime Minister aware that, until a decision is made, plans for road development in the South-East, particularly for roads to the Channel ports, will continue to have low priority with the Minister of Transport? Will he look at this as a matter of urgency because of the danger which arises from the heavy congestion of traffic on these roads?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. However, in his road plans, which have been published recently, my right hon. Friend has had the Channel Tunnel very much in mind. If we were able to get over the difficulties, the Channel Tunnel project should be operating well within the period of the next ten-year road plan. The hon. Member will also remember that there was a full discussion of matters connected with Channel Tunnel planning during the Committee and Report stages of last year's Transport Act. Indeed, there was great feeling about the addition of the Channel Tunnel provisions to that Measure. The House was fairly fully informed of all these matters in those debates.
  Mr. Shinwell: Could we have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that there will be no question of going into the Common Market until the Channel Tunnel is completed?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that I am in a position to give that assurance, nor can I give the assurance that we will not complete the Channel Tunnel until we have got into the Common Market.
  Mr. Bessell: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in spite of the progress which has been made in the last three years, any delay in reaching a decision on this matter is a hindrance to industry and road developments? In those circumstances, can he undertake to make a statement to the House as quickly as possible?
  The Prime Minister: I certainly agree that this is an important project. It is also a project in which we believe that the resources, or a substantial part of
  1574
  them, should come from private sources and not from funds voted by this House. I am referring now to the cost of construction. That was a decision reached by the two Governments. As soon as there is anything to inform the House about I will ensure that a statement is made by my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Sheldon: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that before work begins on the Channel Tunnel an up-to-date review will be made of the 1963 White Paper, because that White Paper introduced by the Party opposite falls well below the standards that we have come to expect from White Papers, and there are certain inaccuracies in it? Quite apart from that, the whole method of dealing with this problem needs to be brought up to date.
  The Prime Minister: When the two Governments decided, in October 1966, on the basis on which work could proceed, that was the result of a very fundamental reappraisal following that White Paper of 1963. A great deal has changed, including some estimates both of cost and of the prospects of economic benefit resulting from this. I will certainly consider whether and when more information could be given to the House compared with the 1963 White Paper.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Since the statement was made in the House, will the Prime Minister take into account the rapid improvement in hovercraft services and the future development of this type of aircraft, which could have a good bearing on transportation, not only upon sea but upon rail transport? Would it not be a good thing if the House could debate this matter at a fairly early date?
  The Prime Minister: Yes. As the Minister who, nearly 20 years ago, introduced the N.R.D.C. Bill into the House, which pioneered the hovercraft and brought it to its present success, I join with the hon. Gentleman in praising what has been achieved. I do not think that it could be a substitute for the economic benefits envisaged from the Channel Tunnel. However, I have to tell the House that there are still a great number of problems to be ironed out in relation to the Tunnel, not only to do with the question of the financial groups.

  1575
  Recent Press speculation, which surprised me, saying that I was rushing ahead with this—this is the first I have heard of it—is very wide of the mark. Arrangements for the co-operation of the two countries are going ahead smoothly, but this is an enormous project and we must get it right before final decisions are taken.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House kindly state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 14TH JULY—Remaining stages of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill.
TUESDAY, 15TH JULY, WEDNESDAY, 16TII JULY, and THURSDAY, 17TH JULY—Report stage of the Finance Bill.
At the end on Thursday, we shall take the Motions on the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) Orders relating to Italy, Jamaica and Austria.
FRIDAY, 18TH JULY—Third Reading of the Finance Bill.
Motion on the Local Loans (Increase of limit) Order.
Remaining stages of the Medical Bill [Lords], and of the Nurses Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order, and on the Anti-Dumping Duty (No. 1) Order.
MONDAY, 21sT JULY—Supply [28th Allotted Day]:
Debate on a subject to be announced later.
Consideration of Lords Amendments which may be received to the Post Office Bill.
Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House kindly note that we would like to have a statement from the Postmaster-General, if possible next week, about the B.B.C.'s plans, which have been announced today, and the Government's attitude towards local radio, which is embodied in these plans?
1576
Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman kindly arrange for us to have a debate on the B.B.C. document and the Government's attitude before we rise for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Peart: I am aware that this is an important matter to all hon. Members. I will convey the right hon. Gentleman's request to my right hon. Friend. I believe that a statement will be made. There may be opportunity to debate this when we come to the question of licence fees. I will look into it.
Mr. Molloy: Would my right hon. Friend agree that since the House last debated foreign affairs there have been dramatic changes in world affairs and changes in the heads of powerful States? Is it not time therefore, that we had a foreign affairs debate? Could we have one before the House rises for the Recess?
Mr. Peart: I appreciate the importance of this matter. We are having a foreign affairs debate today.
Mr. Montgomery: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for what promises to be an interesting week next week, may I ask whether he could not make it a little more interesting? He will have seen the recent report on British race relations. Will he use this as an opportunity to debate this subject? Perhaps it could be taken in the wider context of immigration?
Mr. Peart: This is an important matter, but I cannot find time next week.
Mr. Ashley: Has my right hon. Friend seen Motion No. 355 supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to remedy the anomalies in the provision of welfare benefits for disabled people which discriminate against the civilian disabled, in particular against disabled housewives; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce an attendance allowance, as a matter of urgency, in respect of severely disabled people.]
Could he find time for a debate?
Mr. Peart: No, although I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend's views.
Mr. Sharples: The House will have noted that no time appears to have been allotted for the Report stage of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill. Is the House to take it from that that the Government intend to resist all Amendments, irrespective of the arguments put forward?
Mr. Peart: As the hon. Member knows, the Business Committee is sitting. I am still waiting for its report.
Mr. Hogg: Can the right hon. Gentleman, for the convenience of the House, tell us when the report of the Business Committee is likely to be available to hon. Members?
Mr. Peart: I hope that I shall get it some time today and then it will be necessary to put down a Motion, dealing with its findings, for Monday. As soon as I have the report I will communicate first through the usual channels and will try to inform the House accordingly.
Mr. Sharples: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you confirm that the Business Committee has no power to consider the Report stage of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill and that it would be out of order for it to have done so?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Committee can report as set out in the Resolution. What happens on the Report stage is not for me at this stage.
Mr. Milne: My right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to a change in the personnel of the B.O.A.C. advertising department this week. Will he arrange for an early debate on the Report of the Edwards Committee, to discuss this and other related matters?
Mr. Peart: I know that this is an important matter, but I cannot find time in the few days ahead, for the reasons I have mentioned.
Mr. Younger: Returning to the B.B.C. announcement, will the Leader of the House note that many hon. Members on both sides will want time to debate Motions Nos. 376 and 372?
[That this House rejects the suggestion that the United Kingdom should enter into nuclear sharing with France as a preliminary to the creation of an
1578
intergrated European nuclear force; and regards the suggestion as both harmful to European security and an invitation to Her Majesty's Government to dishonour its adherence to the non-proliferation treaty.]
[That this House would deplore any proposal from the British Broadcasting Corporation to disband their Scottish symphony and radio orchestras; recognises the invaluable service which those two orchestras have rendered to the musical life of Great Britain and the encouragement which they provide for young musicians, composers and conductors; and urges the British Broadcasting Corporation, in observance of the purposes of their Charter, to ensure that these two orchestras are continued.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decision of the B.B.C. to abolish the B.B.C. Scottish Symphony Orchestra is unacceptable to hon. Members on both sides?
Mr. Peart: I have seen the terms of these Motions. The report of the B.B.C. is being published today and I hope that the hon. Member will read it carefully. I have received it and I have given a reply on the timing.
Mr. McNamara: Can my right hon. Friend say whether we will even see the Merchant Shipping Bill published before we rise for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Peart: I have said before that I hope that the Bill will be published before the Session ends.
Mr. Gurden: Will the Minister make a statement on the Government's policy of taking away private members' time in Adjournment debates, because this back bencher considers it a serious and urgent matter which ought to be debated and decided by the House of Commons, not the Government?
Mr. Peart: The hon. Member will remember that I joined in with the other hon. Members who pressed Mr. Speaker to enable the hon. Member to have time for his Adjournment. This should be considered sympathetically.
Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is his anticipation of future events that a Parliament (No. 3) Bill is in draft?
Mr. Peart: I cannot.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman now say when he proposes to return to private Members the complete day he took from them on 13th June?
Mr. Peart: I cannot be specific about that, but I know that it affected some hon. Gentlemen. Let me look at business.
Mr. Boston: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to Motion No. 337, on B.B.C. Radio 3, and the fact that that has now been signed by more than 200 hon. Members on both sides of the House? While today's news that the B.B.C. is to retain the service will be welcomed, there is widespread concern at the proposal to stop transmitting it on medium wave and confine it solely to V.H.F. This is tantamount to curtailing the service—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can ask for time to discuss the Third Programme, but he cannot discuss it now.
Mr. Boston: I accept your Ruling, of course, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to establish that, as this is tantamount to curtailing the service, and is a threat to curtail the total music output, there is a need for an urgent debate. Can my right hon. Friend be more specific about a date for that?
[That this House recognises the outstanding contribution to broadcasting made by B.B.C. Radio 3, the Third Programme and the Music Programme and the value of the material carried by these services to listeners throughout the country and abroad; regards it as essential that the British Broadcasting Corporation should continue to cater for these sizeable and growing minority interests; views with concern repeated reports that Radio 3 may be closed or curtailed; and urges the British Broadcasting Corporation to ensure that in any changes recommended as a result of the Corporation's current review of sound broadcasting there is no reduction in the quality and quantity of, in particular, the British Broadcasting Corporation's serious music output.]
Mr. Peart: I cannot be specific about the time, but I recognise the importance
1580
of this matter to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have signed the Motion. I will see that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General makes a statement.
Mr. Godber: Will the Minister of Agriculture be making a statement next week to clarify the extraordinary muddle which has arisen over agricultural credit, which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary promised to look into last week? The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Minister said that a special approach was being made to the banks, but we heard later that the Bank of England had countermanded that.
Mr. Peart: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman stated that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary mentioned this, I will make representations. This is an important matter.
Mr. Wellbeloved: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the consultations between the Government and outside bodies on the Government's policy in respect of imported meat have now been completed. So that Parliament may be fully consulted before any further decisions are taken affecting the price of the housewife's weekly joint, can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate next week?
Mr. Peart: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in this matter, and I recall hearing his views on it even when I was the Minister responsible. However, I cannot find time next week. My right hon. Friend has made a statement.
Mr. Lubbock: Will the Leader of the House confirm that it is his present intention to rise for the Summer Recess on 25th July? Taking into account the fact that we need to fit in the Consolidated Fund Bill, the Summer Adjournment Motion and, I think, two Report stages of Bills, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no time left for many of the demands being made by hon. Members today? Will he, therefore, reconsider his decision to rise on that date and extend the Session for at least another week?
Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman must realise that whatever Government is in power time is always difficult for a Leader

1581
of the House. But the Recess must depend primarily on the progress of business. I hope to be able to make a specific announcement next week.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: Can my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the Hunt Report and the Government's proposals arising from it? He will be aware of the intense interest in that report, both from hon. Members who are delighted with its recommendations and from those who are not.
Mr. Peart: I accept that this is an important matter. Consultations are going on, but I cannot find time in the few days ahead.
Dame Irene Ward: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on Motion No. 379, in view of the fact that I have supplied the Prime Minister with the information that he said he would gladly accept? Some of his hon. Friends are trying to dissuade him from keeping his promise. It would make an interesting debate, because this is probably the first pledge which the Prime Minister could keep if he wanted to.
[That this House, noting the Prime Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Tynemouth on 13th March saying that nothing would give hint personally more pleasure than that she should have a hand in arranging his visit in July, urges him to hold a conference with the responsible authorities on the declining position of the port of the Tyne with a view to ensuring fair treatment for the Tyne compared with Teesside; to examine the continuing unemployment on Tyneside and in Smith's Docks; in particular, to arrange the necessary finance for a new additional dry dock to take the type of large tanker recently launched by H.R.H. Princess Anne; to drive down the new coast road of Newcastle-on-Tyne to Tynemouth and observe the advantage of the new road built by Wimpey for Tynemouth and opened over three years ago and compare it both financially and in time taken by the use of direct labour by Newcastle-on-Tyne and Wallsend compared with private enterprise; to ponder on the difficulties experienced in the efficient running of the Newcastle Central station after the amalgamation of the Great Northern and Great Eastern Railways had resulted in headquarter control from York instead of Newcastle-on-
1582
Tyne; to visit Tynemouth to see how the beauty of this old place would be spoilt by the coal distribution depôt suggested by British Railways; to examine the had effects the selective employment tax is having on Whitley Bay and Tynemouth; and to redeem his pleasant reference to the hon. Member's request to assist in planning his programme by inviting her to show him the disturbing problems which have to be solved for a prosperous Tyneside.]
Mr. Peart: I have noted carefully the Motion asking my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to visit the North-East. I have also noted the Amendment seeking to widen that proposal—
[In line 3, to leave out from "him" to end and add" to visit the shipyards on both Tyneside and Wearside which have received so much beneficial aid front the Labour Government, and to arrange considerable time for the visit in order to view the massive public expenditure taking place on roads and infrastructure in the region, to ponder on why the Tory-controlled local authorities are slashing council house building and other necessary local public expenditure, but warns the Prime Minister not to be seduced by the arguments of the hon. Member for Tynemouth, who has such undoubted ability in her attempts to forget the damage done to the North-East over the long period of years the Tories held power".]
There are different views about this matter. I think that it would be a very good thing if my right hon. Friend went to the North-East, but he must do so of his own choosing.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: When my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General makes the statement which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House says that he will be making shortly, will my right hon. Friend suggest to him that the statement is made on a wide-ranging basis, and that an opportunity is created for an equally wide-ranging discussion of the whole communications scene?
Mr. Peart: After my right hon. Friend has made his statement, it will be for Mr. Speaker to control questions to him. But I will note what my hon. Friend has said.
Sir Clive Bossom: Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement about the future of the egg industry? As the right hon. Gentleman himself knows, the long delay is causing a great deal of concern. Could the statement be made before the Recess?
Mr. Peart: I know that an announcement in the House will be of great importance, in view of the inquiry. I will convey the hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Archer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us would welcome even a short debate on the international control of the ocean bed while there is still time for the House to exercise some influence on events, in preference to a long debate when it is too late?
Mr. Peart: I agree that this is an important matter. I have always great sympathy towards my hon. Friend's views on this, and I am aware of the importance of it. I cannot find time next week, but I will bear his proposals in mind.
Mr. Joplin: While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's agreement about the importance of the issue of agricultural credit, can he not give us an assurance that his right hon. Friend the Minister will make a statement next week, in view of the complete confusion caused by the letter from the Bank of England telling banks that they must ignore all letters from the Ministry saying that agriculture should have credit priority?
Mr. Peart: I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in agricultural matters. However, I thought that my reply to his right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), who is the main Opposition spokesman on agriculture, was helpful. I cannot go beyond that.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: May I return to the subject of the sea bed? My right hon. Friend has always been very friendly towards the idea of discussing it. Can he not be a little more forthcoming than saying that a debate is not possible next week? What about the week after? I hope that he will not slip down the slope that so many of his predecessors have until it is too late.
Mr. Peart: I will look at this. I have announced the business for next week. I would like to give a sympathetic answer, but I am afraid not next week.
Sir D. Renton: Referring to Monday's business, does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that his Motion yesterday required that the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill should be reported to the House on or before Monday, 14th July? Bearing that in mind, until what time on that day does he suggest that it would be permissible for the House to sit?
Mr. Peart: I would rather wait for the Business Committee to inform me of its recommendations.
Sir F. Bennett: A few moments ago, the Leader of the House gave what appeared to be a sympathetic reply to a question about private Members' time. Will he clarify that? When he said that he would favour the time lost by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) being restored, was he merely thinking hopefully of my hon. Friend being allotted another half-hour Adjournment debate in its place, or an additional half-hour? In other words, is he proposing doing nothing but rob Peter to pay Paul?
Mr. Peart: I see the difficulty. Perhaps I can have an informal discussion with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), and then I can make my representations to Mr. Speaker.
Dr. Winstanley: Since the Leader of the House has said that he will ask his right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General to make a statement about the B.B.C., may I remind him that the Postmaster-General said a fortnight ago that he would approach the Leader of the House with a view to arranging a debate? What we need is a debate, not a statement.
Mr. Peart: I think that we must await my right hon. Friend's statement first.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: It is clear that one of the many important subjects that we should debate before we adjourn for the Summer Recess is foreign affairs. In answer to one of his hon. Friends earlier, the Leader of the House appeared to be altering today's business. I understood that we were to debate Biafra. Are we

1585
to take it from that answer that both the opening and closing speeches from the Government side today will deal with such matters as the Middle East and other important international affairs?
Mr. Peart: The Opposition chose for their Supply day the important subject of Nigeria—
Sir J. Langford-Holt: Not foreign affairs.
Mr. Peart: But Nigeria is a foreign affairs matter. I know that I am being pressed for another debate by hon. Members who are anxious to talk about the Middle East and other matters. I will examine their requests carefully. However, we are to debate foreign affairs today.
Mr. Astor: The Leader of the House will be aware of Motion No. 355, to which reference has been made earlier, signed by 174 right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House, reflecting great concern about the problems of the disabled? Could he say whether the Government will make a statement next week on their solution to these problems, and if not next week, when may we expect a statement?
Mr. Peart: I have taken note of the Motion. I gave an answer on this matter last week. I will convey these views to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Heath: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and other hon. Members have asked about the Report stage of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill, and the Leader of the House has said that he is awaiting the decision of the Business Committee.
The Business Committee is not concerned with anything other than the Committee stage, under the Resolution laid by the Leader of the House. Therefore, I again put the question: when the Business Committee has decided the time during the sitting of Monday, 14th July, in which the Committee proceedings will be held, when will the Report stage be held?
I must point out that if there is a Report stage we cannot entirely rule out the possibility that some hon. Gentlemen opposite might vote according to their
1586
consciences rather than according to the Patronage Secretary. If there is a Report stage, it will be unsatisfactory to have it directly following the Committee stage of the Bill.
Mr. Peart: I must wait and see the report. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I cannot be precise on this until I know what happens in relation to Amendments.
Mr. Heath: When the Committee stage of the Bill is finished, whatever time is fixed by the Business Committee, will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that the Report stage will not directly follow it? Will he make a Business statement, saying when the Report stage will be held?
Mr. Peart: I cannot indulge in hypothetics. I will consider this matter very carefully. We could have discussions on it through the usual channels. I am anxious to keep the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues properly informed.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Has the Leader of the House noted a report this morning that the Prime Minister is negotiating a new two-year contract with the Chairman of the National Board for Prices and Incomes? If this contract were to be terminated, the taxpayer might be involved in considerable obligations of compensation. Therefore, could the House have an opportunity to discuss this matter before any new contract is concluded?
Mr. Peart: I think not.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: As the Government have recently dropped the Industrial Relations Bill because of outside pressure and as there is every possibility that there will be pressure from the House of Lords against the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill, will the Government consider dropping that Bill and bringing in a proper Bill next Session in the same way as they are dealing with the Industrial Relations Bill?
Mr. Peart: I cannot see how that applies to the business for next week.
Mr. English: My right hon. Friend implied that the Postmaster-General's statement should precede a debate on the B.B.C.'s proposals and that that statement will not be next week. Can he assure

1587
us that the Postmaster-General's statement will be as early as possible, so that we will be able to get a debate on it before the Summer Recess?
Mr. Peart: I gave a specific reply earlier. I think that my right hon. Friend should quickly inform the House.
Mr. Turton: Reverting to next Monday's business, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill is a constitutional one, he will comply with Standing Orders and not seek to obtain a waiver on it?
Mr. Peart: I always try to conform to the practices of the House and to Standing Orders.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: My right hon. Friend has told us that we are to debate Biafra today. Is not the time today provided by the Opposition? Should not the Government give us days to debate Rhodesia and the Middle East as well?
Mr. Peart: I cannot find time next week. I have announced the business for next week. I am anxious to find time to discuss so many different subjects, but time is difficult.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Returning to the point that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised with the Leader of the House about next Monday's business, does this mean that, if the Report stage is to be taken immediately after the Committee stage, there will only be an opportunity for manuscript Amendments to be put in by hon. Members?
Mr. Peart: I have not committed the Government to any specific line of action on that matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
  Ordered,
  That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Harper.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [27TH ALLOTTED DAY], considered.
  SUPPLY
    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

  NIGERIA
  Mr. Speaker: May I remark to the House that when the general debate begins after the Front Bench opening, a goodly number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen wish to speak in the debate, including many who, although they tried, did not succeed in being called in the last debate on Nigeria. If we are to have all shades of opinion represented this afternoon, it is important that speeches should be reasonably brief.
  3.55 p.m.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No one in this House can be immune from the emotions induced by the sufferings of innocent people in the civil war in Nigeria. However hardened we may be by the cruelties and the callous indifference to human life and dignity revealed in a world which is supposed to be civilised, the knowledge and the sight of these victims of this tribal feud and war is harrowing in the extreme.
  No one who has been at the giving or at the receiving end of modern war is entirely free of a sense of guilt that women and children are now made the targets in war and that blockade and starvation are instruments used for political ends. When people who are so simple and stoic are seen to be the victims, then the conscience becomes even more uneasy.
  Nevertheless, we must take care that, in giving rein to our emotions, we are not blind to the truth and to the reality. Otherwise, injustice might be added, which would simply make confusion more confounded.

  1589
  I will try to analyse the situation as I see it with as much objectivity as possible. I think that that would be the mood of the House.
  The origins of this war are African. It persists because one group of Africans refuses to be governed by another group of Africans and have felt so strongly against the rule of Lagos in Nigeria that they have resorted to a trial of strength. Foreign arms are complicating the matter, but essentially this is a fight started by Africans and it will have to be finished by Africans.
  There seem to be only two possibilities. First, that one side will assert its will over the other; secondly, stalemate, in which there will be a negotiated truce and a negotiated peace. What is the status of the combatants? Federal Nigeria is registered as a country accepted as an independent member of the United Nations, and nobody has challenged those credentials. The Federal Government is accepted as a member of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting. It is the Federal Government—although there are some members of the Organisation of African Unity which recognise Biafra—which is a member of the Organisation of African Unity. Federal Nigeria, therefore, is a State by any test and has a right to defend itself as such an entity against any who might seek to fragment its territory or to diminish its authority. I do not believe that anybody in Britain or anywhere else could deny to Federal Nigeria that right.
  Biafra is an area, so far undefined, which so far has no legal status. It embraces a number of tribes other than the Ibos, including, for example, the River peoples. Nobody knows as yet, if the pressures of war were removed, what degree of unity could be established within that territory or what constitutional form such a seceding territory might take.
  Claims are made, for example, that Biafrans can never again be part of a Federal Nigeria. That may be so, but it is quite certainly not proved today. I would think that it cannot be established until fighting stops. In other words, where there is an area of a country trying to secede, recognition from outside can come only with success—either success won in war or the success of establishing
  1590
  a position through meeting round the negotiating table.
  In these circumstances, we come back again and again to the only two propositions which I think are valid—either one or other party asserts its will and the loser has to concede, or else exhaustion will bring about a compromise and some form of negotiated settlement.
  Can anyone outside help to end the war or to mitigate the toll of casualties? There are two possibilities. One is an offer of good offices to seek to find a formula for a compromise settlement, a formula on which negotiations can start. I would think that it would probably be generally held in the House that the body much most likely to succeed in that is the Organisation of African Unity.
  Naturally, everyone in recent months has been preoccupied with famine relief. It should not be forgotten that at the Monrovia Conference success was very nearly achieved on a formula on which negotiations could be started. It is, therefore, in my view, a cease-fire and a negotiation that really matter. I believe that since Monrovia international efforts to achieve this have been allowed to slip a little and that, therefore, some urgency should be given to trying again to bring the two sides together.
  The second possibility is one, it must be admitted, of mitigation—and mitigation only of the worst effects of the war. I have never been entirely convinced by the Prime Minister's argument that ceasefire must be a precondition to an embargo on arms from outside or to policing at the point of reception of such arms. For example, it has often been proposed that there should be a four-Power ban, or a rationing of arms, in the Middle East. No one has ever supposed that if that should take place it would be the end of the confrontation between Arab and Jew. But it could limit the consequences of the war. So I believe it could be here.
  It would be scarcely possible in the United Nations to argue under the Charter that there was a threat in Nigeria to external peace, but the House would like to hear the Secretary of State's views on this. I believe that it would be legitimate to use the Security Council to seek a ban on imported arms, and that

  1591
  only, and the policing necessary to oversee it—in the beginning a ban and an agreement by the four Powers that arms should not be imported.
  It must be admitted that there are two very big "ifs"—first, the doubt whether the agreement of the combatants could be secured; and, secondly, the doubt whether the Soviet Union would in any circumstances co-operate. The answer is probably "No". I see the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) shaking his head, but I think that the Secretary of State should test the matter in the United Nations.
  If agreement was reached between the four Powers—there is a new French Government and, therefore, perhaps a new factor in this matter—the difficulties of policing imported arms on the black market would not be insuperable. If the Soviet Union would not co-operate, the world should know it.
  I have searched my mind time and again as to whether, in the light of the facts I have mentioned, Britain would be justified in, or would contribute in any way to the peace by, unilaterally cutting off all arms. I hope, incidentally, that the Secretary of State will give the most categoric denial today on the part of the Government that Britain has sold aircraft—Hunters—or heavy artillery to Nigeria. I know that we have not, but I would like to hear the denial from Her Majesty's Government.
  Although I have tried time and again to decide whether, in the light of the facts I have mentioned, Britain would be justified in a unilateral cutting off of arms, I am still unable to convince myself. I cannot convince myself that to cancel an arms supply that has been available to this African Commonwealth country for years would not be to discriminate against one section of Africans. These are all Africans engaged in this war. I think that this would be to discriminate against one section of Africans.
  When to that is added the knowledge that the Soviet Union would supply the deficiency with a view to exercising a more permanent influence over Nigeria in this respect, I cannot persuade myself that this could be of benefit to any African anywhere in the continent.
  1592
  If the Federal Government were to change their policy in regard to relief and tolerance of Ibos, then this could be different, but I am reminded in this context of this dictum of the late President Kennedy which is perhaps worth recalling:
  "The purpose of foreign policy is not to provide an outlet for our sentiments of hope and indignation. It is to shape real events in a real world."
  I turn now to the question of the relief of hunger. Starvation has been and is a weapon of war. Which of the combatants, if any, is using it? If a charge was proved against one or the other, what would be the implications for countries outside and particularly for Britain?
  It is widely agreed that two means of relief, if they could be established, would save countless lives—in the short term, daylight flights of food and medicine; in the long term, a land corridor for supplies of all kinds.
  If we are to judge matters correctly, it is essential that the House should be accurately informed. I am not saying that the Secretary of State in any way misled the House in his statement on Monday, but all kinds of interpretations have been put on his statement which I do not think it bore, but which, nevertheless, have misled inside Nigeria and outside. So I should be obliged if the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong in anything I say and will give the House the most accurate, up-to-date information when he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker.
  Would I be right in saying that to the best of the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge the Federal Government are ready to do the following? First, to allow and facilitate daylight flights, provided that they are inspected by neutrals on Federal soil? Secondly, to provide a land corridor, internationally policed? What is more, to allow neutral inspectors to control the timing of daylight flights and the management of the air corridor while the flights are in progress? If that is true, in addition to the reasons I have given, it is scarcely possible to argue that Africans in Federal Nigeria should be penalised by a change in British policy. It is much more profitable to examine the methods of getting relief into the famine areas.

  1593
  The proposals of the Federal Government, as we understand them, of which that proposal is undoubtedly one, would mean that the food, if internationally inspected and neutrals were controlling the flights, would arrive in Biafra. The real objection of the Ibos, we are told, is that if an aeroplane touches down in Federal territory, they assume that that food will be poisoned. Even if it is inspected by neutrals, so ingrained is the African suspicion—because poisoning traditionally has been the method with which one dealt with one's enemies—that even if food arrived they would rather die than touch it.
  It is very difficult for us to understand this mentality, but, nevertheless, this is the main reason given for the Biafran objection to this offer. It may be a reason that exasperates or even outrages the intelligence, but equally it probably may be true.
  The alternative suggestion is, therefore, being made—although that plan would mean that the food would be taken to the right place at the right time—that cargo should be inspected by Federal personnel in airports outside Nigeria from which the flights started. This is possible, and I think that at the Red Cross is pursuing the suggestion in Nigeria. But there are difficulties, since two of the airfields, for example, are in Portuguese territories. The Nigerians not only have no relations with Portugal, but bad relations with Portugal. So that Federal Nigeria suspects any such plan. The routes also cut across the corridors used by the military aircraft.
  There is one airfield to which these objections may not apply and that is Cotonou airfield. I hope that the Red Cross and the Nigerian Government are considering the possibilities of using this airfield. It is only half an hour away from Lagos and is on the route through which supplies would be sent if the capital were used.
  If the Biafrans refuse either or both these plans—and in such a matter it does no good to distribute moral censure either to one side or the other—there can be only one conclusion, and that is that the decision was made on military grounds. That would take precedence over considerations of humanity and the consideration would be made on military
  1594
  grounds, induced either by the hope of victory or by the fear of defeat.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: The right hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) has suggested Cotonou, and I agree with him, since it is a neutral port. The Biafrans have agreed to it, not only with neutral observers but with Lagos observers. Therefore, should he not ask, not just the Red Cross, but Her Majesty's Government, to agree to this proposal and to press it? That is where the real influence lies.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The conversations at present are best left to the Red Cross and the Nigerian authorities both in Lagos and in Biafra. But if this choice were to be made and the Biafrans were to turn down these proposals, it would be their choice and the refusal would be totally tragic.
  I turn to the kernel of the matter—a formula for the opening of negotiations. There is some evidence that Colonel Ojukwu and the Federal Government would now welcome assistance in finding one. As for British action, I have said that the Organisation of African Unity is the body which is the most likely to find this formula and to bring the sides together. But if any British action is to be taken—and I know that there was disappointment in Biafra that the Prime Minister or his representative could not go there—I hope that the Foreign Secretary has not entirely abandoned the possibility of Mr. Malcolm Macdonald going to Lagos and Biafra. There is great respect for him in Africa, both in those countries which recognise Lagos and in those which recognise Biafra.
  This is a matter of re-establishing tolerance and confidence. I know nobody better able to do that than Mr. Macdonald. I believe that it might help to improve the climate of negotiation if the Foreign Secretary today were able to say certain simple things. To the Western mind, they may sound over-simple, but I hope that he will say them. I hope that he will say that Her Majesty's Government wish to see a cease-fire, since I believe that that is doubted in Biafra. I hope that he will say that Her Majesty's Government seek an arms embargo, that they wish to see negotiations started, and that they will respect any settlement arrived at freely by the two sides.

  1595
  The right hon. Gentleman will claim, quite rightly, that he has said these things before. However, I hope that he will say them again. The problem in this battle in Nigeria is to reach African minds, and it is a very difficult thing to do. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will take some of these new initiatives without altering the main trends of British policy, which I find to be justified, because no chance should be missed of trying to bring about a negotiated end to this conflict.
  4.16 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): We have listened with sympathy and respect, and a great many of us with agreement, to the speech of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home). Certainly, we all agree with what he said about the suffering in this war, which is falling upon people who are in no way to be regarded as responsible for the conflict. I should like to begin my remarks by referring to this aspect of the matter and to what can be done, with as little delay as possible, to bring food to those now faced with starvation.
  We are all agreed in wanting to see established between the Federal Government, the relief agencies and the secessionist authorities such arrangements as would make relief possible. The House knows that arrangements of that kind have not yet been achieved. But since I made a statement to the House on Monday, there is the additional fact that there are now conversations going on between the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Federal Nigerian Government in Lagos. When I say "now going on", it might be even at this minute or it might be in the very near future.
  The House will remember that there has been an unhappy estrangement between the Red Cross and the Nigerian Government. It is right to tell the House that the conversations last weekend between my hon. Friend and I and representatives both of the Red Cross and the Nigerian Government played a substantial part in the fortunate result that the Red Cross and the Nigerian Government are now again in discussion. In view of some of the criticisms which have been made of Her Majesty's Government, it is right to point this out to the House and
  1596
  to give the credit that is due to my hon. Friend for the part he played in bringing this about.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that there had been suggestions that what I had stated to the House was inaccurate. I had better remind the House of the words which I used:
  "We were able to arrange a meeting in London at the weekend between Dr. Arikpo and Professor Freymond, Vice-President of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Professor Freymond confirmed that the Red Cross would be willing to operate daylight flights as now proposed by the Federal Government subject to detailed agreement on guarantees of safety for Red Cross crews, aircraft and personnel".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1969; Vol. 786, c. 952.]
  My hon. Friend was present at that conversation and can assure the House that that is an accurate description of the conversation. That was what I said. The tactic adopted in some quarters has been to alter what I said into something else and say that that something else was not true. Unfortunately, a document was put out by one organisation which said that I had claimed that complete agreement had been reached. It will be apparent from the words I have read to the House that I made no such claim. I repeat that what I said was an accurate account of what occurred.
  What is the Federal Nigerian Government's position about what they will do on relief? The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions on that point, all of which I think I can answer. They are ready and willing that relief should go by land. Indeed, they have been so willing for a long time. Further, there is—and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned this point—the project of the Cross River route. When speaking to Dr. Arikpo, I made it clear that we were extremely anxious that this should succeed. He told me—and I think that this is now generally recognised—that both sides had raised objection to it and that there appeared to be a number of practical difficulties. However, he was able to tell me that the discussions would, he hoped, be resumed. I said that I strongly shared that hope and that I believed that it was extremely desirable, if at all possible, to get the Cross River route working. They are agreed about land corridors. Therefore, we hope that progress will be made on the Cross River route.

  1597
  The Nigerians are agreeable to, not only the food, but seeds for the crops, drugs and clothing coming in by daylight flights from Lagos or any other convenient point in Federal territory provided that they can inspect to see that the planes carry these things and none other. To remove the suspicion of poisoning—and I am bound to say that I think the Nigerian Government reacted to this with considerable patience—they said that they would be willing to have neutrals at the point of inspection to ensure that the Nigerians did not tamper with the supplies and did not waste time and delay the planes.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Why not use Cotonou, because then the Biafran lifeline would not go through Nigerian hands and be cut?
  Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend should let me get on. I shall come in a moment to that point. He mentioned the objection often stated by the secessionists to flights from Federal territory. They say that the objection is that their lifeline goes through Nigerian hands. We must realise this. However the relief comes in, it goes either across Federal territory or over Federal air space. It must go in with some measure of good will on the part of the Nigerian Government.
  I am bound to say that I have never understood the secessionist objection which says, "We will not take something for which we are beholden to the Nigerian Government". To say that is really to say, "We will not take anything at all, because it comes to us with some measure of co-operation and support from the Nigerian Government". Those are the things to which the Federal Government have agreed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), in his intervention, raised the point referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, whether it would be possible to arrange relief from points outside Federal territory. Before I examine that matter, I should state this general position. I mentioned what the Nigerian Government are prepared to do. If we or anyone else ask them to go further, we must not underestimate how far they have gone already.
  There has been some argument about the use of the phrase, "starvation is a legitimate weapon of war". The Nigerians
  1598
  are in a position to point out that practically every nation up to now has behaved as if it was. Further, General Gowon, in conversation recently with our High Commissioner in Lagos, said explicitly—and he stated that he would be glad for this to be known—that he did not regard starvation as a legitimate weapon. But more important than what anyone says is the fact that the Nigerian Government—and this is not disputed—are prepared to do these things.
  They are prepared to allow food, medicine and clothing to go through in a way for which, as I have said and as I repeat, I know no parallel in the record of warfare. Therefore, anyone who asks the Nigerian Government to go further must not forget what they have been prepared to do so far. To approach this matter with totally unjustified accusations of deliberate starvation and genocide is not the way to make progress.
  I have had to labour this point rather more than the right hon. Gentleman did because, as he will understand, of the position of somebody who speaks for the Government.
  It has been urged on us on certain occasions that we should cut off the supply of arms from this country to Nigeria. The right hon. Gentleman gave considerable reasons for not doing so. I have said in the House that we should have to reconsider, and more than reconsider, our present policy if the Nigerian Government plainly and obstinately refused to reach a reasonable settlement or deliberately set to work to destroy the Ibo people. Therefore, I must be able to show the House that the Nigerian Government are not pursuing, of their own volition, a deliberate policy of starvation of the Ibo. That is why I stress what they have already declared their willingness to do.
  It has sometimes been objected that when I do that I am in some way unfairly trying to pillory Colonel Ojukwu and to thrust the responsibility on him. There is a very grave responsibility on him. This is not merely a notion of mine. It has been echoed, as is reported in the Sunday Times, by a Red Cross spokesman:
  "If the rebel leaders do not accept day flights they will be carrying a heavy responsibility of sacrificing their civilian population to a political aim."

  1599
  There was a statement by Oxfam, addressed to Colonel Ojukwu:
  "In the name of humanity we beg you to start negotiations on the basis of the Federal Nigerian offer of daylight flights."
  I echo, and I should have thought that everyone in the House would echo, that appeal.
  I have been obliged to set out this matter more argumentatively than the right hon. Gentleman did because of the repeated suggestions, some of them made in quite reckless language and with no regard for the facts, that the Nigerian Government are deliberately trying to starve their people and that we are supporting and applauding them in doing so. The evidence does not support that at all. Moreover, I know very well that in a situation in which so many people face death by starvation, it is not enough just to demonstrate the soundness of a political argument.
  I think that it was necessary for me to make that point, but we are in a situation in which I think we all feel: is it possible to go beyond what the Nigerian Government have suggested already? We must notice, if we ask that, that we are asking them to go beyond the ordinary laws of war, beyond ordinary justice, to an exceptional degree of mercy. None the less, I told Dr. Arikpo that I believed that the proposal for interim night flights until something could be agreed on day flights was worthy of his most serious consideration, despite the fact that he explained, as I set before the House, the serious difficulties facing the Nigerian Government.
  There are other possibilities, but they cannot at this stage be regarded as more than possibilities. There is the possibility of trying to get agreement on flights from a point outside Nigeria. We cannot pooh pooh the Nigerian Government's objections to this. There are serious military objections, and there is also the fact—though I attach less weight to this—that the Nigerian Government are anxious for an opportunity to refute the suggestion that they would poison supplies going into Biafra. I do not know whether agreement can be reached on this.
  There is another possibility, and I partly suggested this to the House on Monday when I said that we were in
  1600
  touch with Governments and agencies concerned to see whether an approach could be made to Colonel Ojukwu to see whether he would now move some way to bridge the gap which lies between the two positions.
  All those are possibilities. They are likely in the very near future to be discussed in Lagos, and I think that the House will understand if I say that if I spoke further on this matter I doubt whether it would help the progress of these discussions. I cannot, therefore, give the House to understand that the Federal Government will be willing to go further than they have already said. I hope that they may be in certain respects, though they must have regard to their security. If they are not willing to go further, we must see, in Oxfam's words, that we appeal to Colonel Ojukwu in the name of humanity to accept what has already been offered, and it is not an ungenerous offer.
  I should like to conclude what I have to say about relief—I do not propose to spend very much time on the main issues, because we have so often debated them—by referring to what Her Majesty's Government have done throughout this business. I say this because we must remember that Nigeria is an independent sovereign State. This House does not control their Government. What we are debating is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this situation.
  We can say that we have contributed generously to relief. We have been in constant discussions with the Federal Government, at various levels, about it, and I think that we can fairly say that the present position of the Federal Government—and I have said why I think their position is to be commended—owes something to the arguments and considerations which we have put before them. We have been a mediating force, a force for compassion. It was partly at our suggestion that a United Nations representative was got on the scene to help with the problem of relief, and, as I said earlier, we have now been instrumental in making the conversations in Lagos possible.
  Looking back on the record, I do not know of any opportunity for promoting the getting in of relief which we have neglected. If, as the weeks go by, suggestions come to me from hon. Members,

  1601
  or from elsewhere, about anything that we can reasonably do, and it is consistent with the fact that Nigeria is a sovereign State, we shall certainly do it, but I believe that Her Majesty's Government's policy on relief is one that can properly be commended to the House.
  Mr. Ivor Richard: Can my right hon. Friend give the House some idea of the Government's assessment of the famine in Biafra at the moment? It is important to get that fairly clear. Also, can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any truth in the Press report that a considerable portion of the relief that has gone into Biafra is being used not to alleviate starvation, but to feed Biafran troops? If that is so, different considerations arise.
  Mr. Stewart: It is difficult to answer those questions, because so many conflicting reports which are difficult to verify come in. On the point of the feeding of Biafran troops, I do not think that I can go further than I did on Monday, of last week, when in answer to a question by one of my hon. Friends, I said that as far as I knew there was no rationing system in Biafra, and I should have thought that that was to be regretted.—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) has made a series of statements on this matter, nearly all of which have proved to be erroneous. We have reports, for example, of some protein-containing food openly on sale in markets in the rebel-held areas.
  I do not think that I had better go on with this, because we get so many conflicting reports. Nevertheless, we are left at the end with the fact that although the numbers facing starvation cannot be estimated exactly, we all agree that there is a very substantial problem here, and that whatever estimate we make it is right to go on trying to promote the sending in of relief. I think that that is the practical conclusion to which one comes.
  On the main issue, everyone knows that great wrongs and tribal bitterness on both sides preceded the outbreak of this war, and that this, in part, explains the fears and suspicions which the Ibos have expressed.
  Next, the attempt by some of the Ibos—and I say deliberately some of them—to deal with this situation by armed
  1602
  secession was wrong. It was wrong not only to secede themselves, but to extend their rule over a number of their neighbours who did not want it. The attempt to do this was profoundly wrong, not only for them, but for Nigeria and for Africa, and the great weight of African opinion comes down on that side. This has been a basic reason why Her Majesty's Government have not felt it right to prevent Nigeria's obtaining arms in this country.
  However, while I believe that the Federal Government have been right to resist this secession, with that right, I think we all agree, goes the duty to seek peace, if it can at all be obtained, on the basis of an undivided Nigeria, and to do everything they can to remove the fears and suspicions held by the Ibos. This I think it can fairly be said they have done, and we have played such part as was appropriate.
  We were partly instrumental in securing the conference at Aburri, which might have averted the conflict, and similarly at Kampala. The blame for the breakdown of both of those cannot be put on the shoulders of the Federal Government. At the time of the Commonwealth Conference I think that I was urged by the right hon. Gentleman that we should try, or the African States should try, to bring about meeting, negotiation, and ceasefire. We tried that at the Commonwealth Conference. We got the willingness of the Federal Government to meet the representatives of Colonel Ojukwu, without any preconditions. Unhappily, that offer was not accepted.
  In this connection, perhaps I had better make it clear that Her Majesty's Government are not by any means devoid of channels of communication with the rebel leaders. Frequently, through a number of different channels, we are in touch with them. We have tried in our contacts, both with them and with the Nigerian Government, to promote the idea of a meeting without pre-conditions, that is to say, a meeting at which neither side is prepared to renounce its essential belief, but does not require the other side publicly to renounce its beliefs when the meeting begins. That is what a meeting without conditions is. I think that the Nigerian Government are prepared for that. They are further prepared to offer safeguards for the Ibo people once the

  1603
  country has been reunited and peace has been restored.
  One should notice the extent to which the Ibos today play a prominent part in the Federal Government. A number of Permanent Secretaries are Ibos, General Gowon's aide is an Ibo, and some of their diplomatic representatives abroad are Ibos. The cultural adviser to the Federal Government is an Ibo. It is a mistake to suppose that the whole Ibo people are in this unhappy enclave. Many of them are living in peace, playing an important part in their country's life. If anyone has any further belief in the stories of genocide, he should read the latest report of the international observers, which is in the Library and which confirms what they have said before.
  I might now respond to the right hon. Gentleman's invitation to say—or, as he admitted, to say again—certain simple things. First, Her Majesty's Government wish to see a cease-fire. We made that clear at the Commonwealth Conference and it was made clear during the Prime Minister's visit and on many other occasions. Second, we wish to see an arms embargo. I will return to the steps which should be taken about that. We wish to see negotiations. That was also made clear on the occasions which I mentioned and on others. We would respect any settlements made between the parties. All these things, we should warmly welcome.
  I turn now to the question of an arms embargo. As soon as I mention arms, I had better make it clear that the story that we have supplied military aircraft to Nigeria is totally untrue. It is the latest in a long series of misstatements from many quarters—that we have sent Army, Navy and Air Force there. This is totally untrue. The arms which we have supplied have been broadly, both in quantity and in quality, what we were supplying before the war began. I have carefully considered whether we should get an international arms embargo, and we have made, and we have known of others making, various approaches to see whether this could be achieved.
  We find, of course, that no Government admits supplying the rebels. It is rather
  1604
  difficult to get people to agree to stop doing something which they assert they are not doing. This has been a difficulty throughout on that side. As for the Soviet Union, some time ago we spoke to them and their reply was that they would continue to supply arms whatever we did or did not do. Further, I can tell the House that, more recently, the General Secretary of the Labour Party discussed this matter with a senior Soviet official and was told that the only circumstances in which they would stop supplying arms was if the Nigerian Government themselves requested the cessation. I understand that the Peace in Nigeria Committee made a similar approach and has not been more fortunate.
  The Soviet Government are, of course, entitled to their view. I mention these facts to make it clear that we have not been neglecting this possibility, but have been trying to see whether international agreement on arms embargo could be reached. I have discussed the competence of the United Nations in this matter. U Thant took the view that it was unlikely that this would even be inscribed on the agenda. There was very strong feeling in African countries that this should be regarded as an internal matter.
  The fact that one has tried more than once and not so far been successful is not a reason for packing up altogether. If there is a chance of getting this, I should be glad to get it, but we all agree that it will be difficult and that it will be difficult to police.
  I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman could have understood what the Prime Minister has said on this matter. Neither he nor I have said that the policing of an arms embargo would be impossible without a cease-fire. We have taken the view, which I think is right, that it would be extremely difficult and that, therefore, the most likely way of getting an embargo which will work is if it were combined in a package with a ceasefire and the opening of negotiations. I have recommended that, because that is the most practical way forward. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that those who are to help the parties anyway will probably be their fellow African States.
  We have not neglected any opportunity which has been open to us. We have

  1605
  urged recently on the Nigerian Government a degree of concession which they may not feel able to grant, despite the fact that we recognise that they have already gone a good way. We have kept in touch with both parties in the dispute and we have made a serious exploration of the possibility of an international arms embargo. We have played an honourable part, both in money and in work, in the organisation of relief.
  No one can think of this subject without emotion. We must all try, when we discuss it, to see that the emotion is that of pity for the suffering and not hatred of those who happen to take a different view of the politics of this matter. That is how I have tried to do it, but clearly, speaking for the Government, I must state my political view. I hope that I have done so clearly and I hope that it will commend itself to the House.
  4.47 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: Everything said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) is of great importance for this House and for the country—that is, the question of an arms embargo. There must be general regret that the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) cannot be here today. He and I and others put down a Motion recommending that there should be an arms embargo and that the question of relief should be dealt with more expeditiously. We put it down because we are now entering the third year of this tragic civil war. I believe that it is common ground that what is needed is relief and an end to the war. This is common ground between myself and the right hon. Gentleman and, I believe, throughout the country.
  The differences arise, I regret to say, in nearly every field beyond that general consideration. I find, with some regret, that the Government's policy has been wrong, on a great variety of counts. The first is that, either by design, which I doubt, or by error, they have misled the House on various subjects with which I will deal.
  Second, they seem to believe that the only way that this war can be ended is by the support and flow of arms. I believe that this is now an unwinnable war.
  1606
  Third, I believe that, by their intervention with the Red Cross and the Joint Church Aid organisation, the Government have, far from furthering the cause of aid going to those who are suffering, brought disrepute on the Red Cross and have given the world the impression that the Red Cross is being made an instrument of national policy. I regard this as a serious crime against one of the only remaining institutions in which the world still has confidence.
  Fourth, I object to the policy of Her Majesty's Government on a more general line, which is that if automatic intervention in support and defence of frontiers throughout Africa is to be a condition of the pursuit of British policy, there will lie a burden on the consciences and in the pockets of the British people which will be immeasurable.
  In other words, if we are to defend whatever might happen in, for example, Uganda, Kenya, or Somalia so that we automatically provide help and succour to the de facto Governments of those areas, the burden which will fall on our consciences and pockets for supplying arms will be intolerable. It is on these grounds that I propose to divide the House tonight.
  I come to more specific points. I regret the misdirection which we have had—this is my view of it—from the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman talked about Oxfam, but I have just received a cable from that organisation saying that at its conference this afternoon it proposed
  "…that relief go direct from agreed points outside Federal territory".
  Parliament was misled the other day when Lord Shepherd said in another place that both the Red Cross and Joint Church Aid had been present at the Lagos conference. Neither was present and both have since denied being present. It has been said today by Mr. Stacey, on behalf of Oxfam—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I am referring to an influential member of this organisation.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Rev. Nicholas Stacey is the self-appointed publicist for his own point of view and that the representative at the Lagos conference was the Director of Oxfam, Mr. Kirk?
  Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I said. It was said that members of Joint Church Aid were there. They were not. This was a well-known error on the part of Lord Shepherd and I need not develop the point further.
  A more serious matter which worries many people concerns the statement made the other day in reply to a Question about the shooting down of a Red Cross aircraft. It was suggested by the Government that it had been an error. I much regret to tell the House that it was not an error—[Interruption.]—and it is important that the facts be on the record.
  At the time, a keen interest was being taken in these matters by journalists who had been expelled from Nigeria. I will give their names to the Foreign Secretary in confidence. One was a friend of the Chief of Air Staff and tapes were recorded which show that for 30 minutes this aircraft was pursued. It was, therefore, shot down with the agreement of air control in Lagos. This is unfortunately a fact. What is more, I have been informed by the Swedish Red Cross that, at the same time, attacks were made on two other aircraft.
  In my view, it is not absurd for people to have doubts about whether or not the Nigerian Government are engaging—by offering impossible terms to Colonel Ojukwu—in a policy of genocide by starvation. This doubt must exist and it must be cleared up. What is more, if hon. Members had read the speeches of Chief Enaharo, Chief Awolowo and others they would see, in view of what was said about the use of starvation as a proper instrument for war, that these doubts are bound to exist.
  I come to the question of Her Majesty's Government's relationship with the Red Cross. It has been a great error on the part of Her Majesty's Government to suggest that a policy had been agreed for flights into Biafra, when clearly such a policy should have been discussed by both sides. Such discussion has not occurred.
  My right hon. Friend spoke of the possibilities. The most essential possibility now is to get food in. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite say that there is not a great food shortage in Biafra. I have been there and while I may have been entirely misinformed, which I doubt, the
  1608
  head of the Red Cross in Biafra assured me that unless 9,000 tons of food were flown in during June there would be an outbreak of starvation on a scale more severe than before.
  We must not forget that these people have only just recovered from a bout of starvation. They have been fortunate so far in not having had any major diseases, like influenza, for even minor diseases can destroy people in a weakened condition. So far, they have been somewhat fortunate in this respect, but we must heed the warning of the head of the Red Cross.
  It is well known—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) has made the position clear—that the airport at Lagos is now completely blocked. It is equally well known that 18,000 tons of protein are standing at San Tome and that another 12,000 tons are standing at Cotonou. What is Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of the West doing about this? This is the real issue before the House today.
  Mr. James Johnson: I accept everything that the right hon. Gentleman is saying about imminent or possible starvation and about thousands of tons of foodstuffs lying on quaysides in ports in the Bight of Guinea. But why does not the right hon. Gentleman advise Colonel Ojukwu to accept daylight flights and get the stuff in?
  Mr. Fraser: That is not a new question. The subject of daylight flights has been under discussion with the Red Cross and both sides for at least three months. The hon. Gentleman has not introduced a new thought. I have quoted the views of the head of the Red Cross. The whole point at issue over the question of daylight flights are the conditions under which they will be allowed. Perhaps hon. Members have read the statement made today by Joint Church Aid to the effect that the proposed terms are unacceptable to it.
  As a former Air Minister, paratrooper and guerrilla organiser who has made a study of some of these matters, I know that there are aircraft being dressed up to look like Red Cross aircraft. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] There are at least three Sabena Dakotas being fitted with bomb-racks and machine guns—I regret

  1609
  to say, on British Ministry of Defence design—and these could be placed into a column of other aircraft without much difficulty. This is why ground and flight control in Lagos and Uli must be fully aware of, and brought into every discussion on, these matters. Without this, there is grave military danger to people on both sides.
  That is why the Red Cross and the Churches are attempting to negotiate the flight of planes from outside Federal territory, fully supervised by international people and by international officials to see that no arms go in. I believe that that is reasonable.
  A request has been made by the American Secretary of State that whilst all this is being worked out—and it will take a long time; it may take a month or more—there should be relief flights now carrying the tons of food available. That is what the Government should be working on. That is what the Ministers should be doing. That is what they should be pleading for, and acting on, and requesting the United States to act with them, if need be.
  An article appeared in the Washington Post on 4th July stating that Americans are becoming very alarmed about the situation. Its heading is the one word "Genocide". The last sentence of that article reads:
  "There are no diplomatic or political considerations so overwhelming that the United States must stand quietly by while another Government murders a million or more souls."
  That is what people are beginning to think. The issue tonight is how to get the food in.
  Many believe that this war is now an unwinnable war. Anyone who has been there will realise that. As Professor Freymond, of the Red Cross, said the other day, "It is not food; it is arms which keep this war going." And the shameful fact is that it is Europeans who are sending arms; not Africans; not the O.A.U. I believe that this is a time not just for polite conversations with the Soviet Union, but for real action by ourselves, by the United States and by world opinion to make this relief really work.
  I have not talked to the Federal people, but I have talked to Colonel Ojukwu, and he is prepared to accept an arms embargo. He is prepared to see that arms embargo
  1610
  policed. He is prepared to reveal to the Government, or anyone else enforcing that arms embargo, the black market sources which are, of course, frequently common to both sides.
  Let us not despair about the Soviet Union in this connection. Let us remember that, in this part of Africa, Russia is way out on a limb. Let us remember that in Russia today there is some hesitation about world opinion. Let us remember, too, that the United States is still a mighty, powerful force, which can talk if encouraged to do so.
  I regret that tonight we must vote against the Government on this issue. I would vote against this policy whoever initiated it, because it is a policy of disaster and shame for our country.
  5.3 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Last Monday the Foreign Secretary asked me to try to get the Nigerian war in true perspective. I will try to do so, and I express the modest hope that I may help him to do the same.
  The Nigerian war, fought by people who, the other day, were all subjects of the Queen, has been the greatest disaster to the Commonwealth that has ever happened.
  It almost ends the hope that the Commonwealth might some day be used as a great instrument for peace and justice in world affairs.
  It is one of the ugliest wars in history. In two years 1½ million people have lost their lives—more than Britain lost in the ten years of the two world wars.
  Britain has given support—military, political and in the supply of arms—to one party, to Federal Nigeria; but there is no prospect that the war will quickly end. There is only a prospect that more millions yet may die.
  If the war is fought out to its ghastly military conclusion, with great Powers supplying weapons freely to both sides, it will be the most sinister of precedents for Africa as a whole.
  In recent weeks the Foreign Secretary has given us a picture of the problem as it appears to him. I want to offer some supplementary facts, facts which are essential to the understanding of what is now at stake, and facts which are essential to the understanding of both

  1611
  parties to the fight. I also want to offer some suggestions.
  Britain was the first to sell arms to the Government in Lagos. On 30th June last the Foreign Secretary told us why. He said:
  "If we cut off supplies"
  in fact, we had no contracts with Nigeria when the war began—
  "on the ground that they were fighting a rebellion, the inevitable conclusion must be that the rebellion was justified."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1969; Vol. 786, c. 40.]
  The words he used were "inevitable conclusion". With great respect to my right hon Friend, I believe that that is the most astounding non sequitur that ever led to national and international disaster. If in July, 1967, the Government had refused arms to both sides in the war, the inevitable conclusion would have been that, in their opinion, fighting could not bring reunion and reconciliation to Nigeria, and that only a cease-fire and a peaceful settlement could do that. That was true in 1967: it is true today. If we are thinking of the unity of Nigeria in the future, it is the dominating fact.
  Let me recall what happened when we started giving arms. I read a short extract from Keesing's Contemporary Archives about what happened then. It states:
  "The U.S. State Department disclosed on 11th July"—
  that is, 1967—
  "that it had refused a request by the Nigerian Government for military aid, on the ground that the dispute with Biafra was a purely internal matter to be settled by the Nigerians themselves.
  " At the same time the British Government was considering a Nigerian request to purchase arms in Britain as a commercial transaction.…The British Government confirmed on 9th August that `a small purchase' of arms was being sent to Nigeria by air.…On 19th August, 15 Soviet Antonov transport planes brought six MiG fighters and six MiG trainers and 170 Russian technicians. On 22nd August, the United States Government expressed regret that the Soviet Union was sending extensive shipments of jet aircraft, etc.…and reiterated that it had decided not to sell or otherwise supply arms or ammunition to either side."
  On 11th July, 1967, when the United States made their decision public, surely we could have joined them at once—six weeks before the Russian Antonov aircraft reached Nigeria—surely we could
  1612
  have asked Kosygin to join in, too. If the Prime Minister had gone to the United Nations General Assembly and if, with President Johnson, he had called on all the nations to place an arms ban on both sides, it might have been the most profitable of his many journeys. Three months before Kosygin had been his guest in London. They joined together in a great effort to stop the Vietnam war. How could Kosygin have refused an arms ban for Nigeria? How could he have insisted on starting up a war?
  Why did we not make that obviously right proposal'? I think it was because the "experts" in power-politics prevailed. "The Russians will not agree", they said, "and if they do, they will cheat. If we hesitate even for a moment, Gowon will turn to Russia. They will be his allies and they will get bases on the long Atlantic coast." So we were the first to sell Nigeria arms.
  But, like every power-politics calculation, it all went wrong. We did not keep the Russians out; we let them in. If it was right for us to sell arms to Nigeria, it was right for Russia too.
  Today the Federal Nigerian Air Force is a Russian Air Force in disguise: the planes are Russian, the ground equipment, the ground crews, the services and the staff are Russian; the pilots are Egyptians and East Germans. Soviet agents have gained a footing in the Nigerian general staff, in the civil service, in the trade unions, among the students; and in the general public, Soviet influence has begun to spread. If the present lunatic arms race among the Powers continues, the day may come when we shall bitterly regret the sale of arms to Nigeria in 1967.
  I will recall some other facts which supplement the picture the Foreign Secretary has given us, facts which show what Biafra feels about the present situation.
  Mr. Richard: My right hon. Friend is being vehement in his strictures on the Government and is giving certain facts, but will he tell us whether at the date the Nigerian Government requested assistance from Great Britain Biafra had purported to declare independence?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Biafra had said that she must have security for her citizens.
  Mr. Richard: With respect, that is not what I asked. I asked whether at that date Biafra had purported to declare independence.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: If I may answer my hon. Friend, they had said that they must have their own Government, but they were ready to join in close economic arrangements and in common services of many kinds. Of course they were not going to sacrifice their original basic principle before a negotiation began, but that does not mean that if negotiations had happened, there might not have been a peaceful settlement.
  I want to recall some other facts—I hope my hon. Friend will listen—which supplement the picture the Foreign Secretary has drawn of the Nigerian situation; and facts which explain what the Biafrans feel today. They are facts which are essential to an understanding of the present situation on Relief. I say at once that I am not pro-Biafra. I only want this senseless war to stop. But these are facts which are often forgotten, and they are vitally important.
  It was the Federal Nigerians who carried out the two massacres of Ibos in 1966, who drove 2 million of them out as refugees into the East. Refugees do not leave their homes and their possessions unless they are in deadly terror. I have seen it happen in Greece.
  It was the Federal Nigerians who tore up the Abori Agreement, of which the Foreign Secretary spoke. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Made in the autumn of 1966, it was an agreement which would have given a firm basis for government in Nigeria, and to which Biafra had agreed. It was Federal Nigeria which refused the conference proposed by Ojukwu in May, 1967. It was Federal Nigeria which made the first armed attack on Biafra on 6th July. In all international discussions, he who first uses arms is called the aggressor. It was Federal Nigeria which invaded Biafra and boasted that it would destroy the Biafran army in a few days or weeks.
  Mr. John Cordle: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who murdered the Sirdana of Sokotu?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: It was a plot by junior officers—
  Mr. Cordle: All Ibos.
  Mr. Noel-Baker:—some of whom were Ibos, but by no means all. Will the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) tell me who murdered General Ironsi, with the result that General Gowon came to power on the following Monday?
  I do not want to do more than try to redress the balance as I see it. Ojukwu, after the attack on 6th July, when, as Keesing says, he
  "still controlled the military situation",
  proposed the ending of the war and a conference to seek a negotiated peace. Federal Nigeria refused. It said it would never negotiate with Ojukwu. It said there must be a new Eastern leader. It drew up a new constitution which tore Biafra into three small pieces which would have been impotent to defend themselves against those who had proved themselves their enemies in the North. It was Federal Nigeria which did everything, by those measures, to ensure that the war it had started would be long and bloody.
  Even in March this year Ojukwu was proposing—he did it twice—that there should be a conference to end the war. He said he thought that war could not help to settle anything. He asked for a conference without any pre-conditions to settle peace. Federal Nigeria turned both proposals down.
  The Foreign Secretary spoke of the 4 million Ibos in Federal Nigeria to prove the generosity of the Government of Lagos. Does he know that the great majority of those Ibos are living in the bush where the Nigerians cannot reach them, and where the Red Cross has great difficulty in delivering food?
  Mr. Cordle: It just is not true.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I heard it the other day from Dr. Lindt of the Red Cross. Therefore, I believe it.
  Mr. John Tilney: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that when I was in Kano only a few weeks ago I met many Ibos who had returned there, and I found the same in Kaduna and Benin?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Of course there are some Ibos working with the Nigerian

  1615
  Government. I do not deny that. I am telling the House what I believe to be the truth, that the great majority of Ibos are living in the bush.
  I come now to what I regard as the most vital fact in the present situation. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) referred to the foul atrocity of 4th June, which created, and still dominates, the whole situation about relief. On 5th June a Red Cross plane, carrying food and medicine, flying under written agreement with the Government of Lagos, was murderously shot down without any warning. Four gallant Swedes, engaged on humanitarian work, supported by the general public of the world, were incontinently killed.
  When I asked the Foreign Secretary the other day whether he had protested against this crime, he gave no answer. He said that the Government of Lagos had
  "spontaneously expressed the view that this was a disaster."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1969; Vol. 786, c. 957.]
  No; it was no disaster. It was a cold, calculated crime against the law of nations, a crime intended to halt the airlift by which 3 million Biafrans were being saved from mass starvation. That was its deliberate purpose; and it succeeded. Ever since, Nigerian Ministers and generals have been defending mass starvation as a proper means of war.
  That is the true background to the relief problem of today. It was because Dr. Lindt of the International Red Cross protested against this crime that the Government of Lagos asked him to leave, and now propose to take over control of all relief themselves and to seize the great stocks of food which the International Red Cross has collected from the countries of the world and which are in Federal Nigeria today.
  When the Foreign Secretary appears to give approval to this demand, I beg him to be careful of what he says. Lagos agents have suggested that Federal Nigeria must have guarantees against Red Cross aircraft carrying arms, guarantees that the food will go to the civilians and not to the Biafran army.
  I worked in close intimacy with the International Red Cross when I was serving with Dr. Nansen in his work against the Russian famine, in repatriating
  1616
  prisoners of war, in helping refugees, from 1920 to 1930. We had the same kind of libellous slanders to deal with that there are today. I say with absolute conviction, and on the basis of that experience, that it is inconveivable that the International Red Cross would allow the smuggling of arms in its aircraft.
  The food is distributed in Biafra not by Biafrans but by the relief agencies themselves—the Joint Church Aid, Caritas, Oxfam, and the rest. The integrity of the International Red Cross is above suspicion. It has the best brains and the ablest statesmanship of the noble nation of the Swiss. I say again to the Foreign Secretary that, if there is a dispute between the Red Cross and the Government of Lagos, it is not the bona fides of the Red Cross that is in doubt.
  The crime of 5th June is the background also to the Lagos plan for daylight flights, to which the Foreign Secretary has given his support this afternoon. The House must try to understand the Biafran point of view. I wonder whether hon. Members remember that the airlift of food is Biafra's lifeline, that the Lagos plan would put that lifeline in the enemy's grasp. I wonder whether they think that the Biafrans could trust the authors of the crime of 5th June. I wonder whether they know that the Red Cross has tried flights from Lagos; that the first time they were delayed for seven days and the second for 10. If the planes start from Lagos, the relief agencies may be victims of every kind of camouflaged obstruction.
  We have to know a great deal more about the safety of the aircraft and their crews, about the guarantees for Biafra that an open Uli airfield will not be used by the Federal Nigerians for a Trojan horse attack.
  The Foreign Secretary led us to think on Monday—this afternoon he said a little more—that the Lagos plan was the best, if not the only, hope of quick relief. There are two other plans that are much more hopeful, much more liable to come through quickly. They would give the Federal Nigerians every guarantee they legitimately need.
  The first is this, reported from official sources in The Guardian of yesterday: "Biafra is willing to accept international supervision of relief aircraft with Nigerian

  1617
  participation at points outside Nigeria like Cotonou or Fernando Po." "Nigerian participation "—what more can Nigeria legitimately require than that, if its purpose is to ascertain that bombs are not being carried with the food?
  The second plan—the Cross River—may be even quicker and even more important. In Lagos harbour there is lying today a vessel loaded with 900 tons of food. This vessel—the "Donna Mercedes "—has been given by the United States to take relief to Biafra up the River Cross. Three guarantees are needed: the Americans must guarantee that they will not carry arms; the Biafrans must guarantee that they will not fire upon her when she comes near their shore; the Federal Nigerians must guarantee that they will not fire upon her from their shore when she comes up the river. The Americans and the Biafrans have answered "Yes". The Federal Nigerians have answered "No". The ship could leave tomorrow. It could avert the worst of the impending holocaust in Biafra, if Lagos could be induced to answer "Yes".
  I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary has left. His influence, after all he has done to help Federal Nigeria, must surely extend to this. Surely he can get the Lagos Government to allow the Cross River service to begin at once. These plans—The Fernando Po and the Cross River projects—are the Foreign Secretary's most urgent duty on relief, together with all proper support from Britain for the International Red Cross.
  We all think that relief comes first today, but, as The Times said this morning, relief is not all the Foreign Secretary's duty. While the war goes on, the suffering, the waste and the danger will all grow greater. There is only one way to stop it, even now—an all-round international ban on arms to both sides. Let the Prime Minister himself go to the United Nations General Assembly and propose it. Let him give as many days as he gave to visiting Lagos and Stockholm in recent weeks. Let him mobilise the opinion of the world, as only the General Assembly can mobilise it, and he will maximise the chance that he can put it through.
  The Under-Secretary of State, writing to the United Nations Association in February of this year, said that "much
  1618
  of the traffic in arms is in the hands of private dealers whose activities are virtually impossible to control". On 3rd April the Prime Minister told me that the black marketeers could not be stopped by a United Nations resolution. With infinite respect to my right hon. and hon. Friends, that is defeatist nonsense.
  What is meant by a United Nations resolution? A piece of paper without Government action to follow it up? Of course, if they get their resolution, they must mobilise Governments to control their arms factories, their seaports and their airports. The traffic can be ended, and the war brought to an end as well.
  There lies the Government's most urgent duty, which transcends all others. When they fulfil it, with the full glare of international publicity on the operation, they will begin to give reality to their honeyed words about the United Nations, and they will take the first long step towards a better world.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I hope that hon. Members will have regard to Mr. Speaker's appeal for short speeches.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I shall detain the House for only a short time because many of the points which I wished to make have been made by the right hon. Gentlemen who preceded me. The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) spoke from a wide experience of work in the international sphere, particularly in the relief of poverty and the Red Cross.
  I do not wish in anything I say to apportion blame between the two sides. It is none of my business to do so. I do not consider that it is any business of this House; neither do I think that it is any business of the British Government. We might have been in a much stronger position if that had been our attitude throughout. At the outset, it was the Government's position. Before the outbreak of war, Lord Walston made quite clear that we should be neutral and that there was to be no intervention. On 25th January, 1968, Lord Shepherd said in another place that we should be neutral, helping neither one side nor the other. That was the Government's initial view, and in my opinion it was right.

  1619
  I start by repeating what I said on 13th March, that there is no difference in the House on two main objectives. The first is to send in immediate supplies. The second is the vitally important objective of a ceasefire. There could probably now be a third resolution which Her Majesty's Government would adopt, that, in so far as it is possible, they would never again become involved in a civil war for which they were not responsible. I am sure that in their hearts of hearts they themselves wish that they had not been drawn in as they have.
  I greatly welcomed the speech of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), particularly his reference to the need for an initiative both on an arms embargo and on the securing of a political settlement. I do not wish in any way to appear either critical or carping, but I somehow wish that the full authority which he carries in these matters had caused him to place, perhaps, as high a priority on those two initiatives at an earlier stage in this Nigerian dispute. Also, I welcome the Foreign Secretary's reference to arms control and the possibility—
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman must not misunderstand me. I put that forward a year ago.
  Mr. Thorpe: With respect, I entirely accept that, but for once I found that there was, perhaps, a more critical and questioning note in the right hon. Gentleman's speech about the supply of arms. As I have understood the situation—correctly, I hope—up to the present there had been no real criticism by Her Majesty's Opposition regarding the effectiveness or the wisdom of the supply of arms. Today I felt that the right hon. Gentleman, very properly, was discussing that matter with, perhaps, slightly more reservations than had been seen previously. But if I misinterpret his view in any way, I withdraw at once.
  The Foreign Secretary is anxious to point out the extent to which the Federal authorities are prepared to see that there is relief in Biafra. I welcome any initiatives from the Federal authorities in that regard. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was unusual, perhaps even unique, in the history of warfare. I feel that we ought to put it in perspective.
  1620
  Let us remember that that attitude is directed towards people whom they regard as their own citizens, 4 million of whom, we are told, are happily living in Federal Nigeria. One would, therefore, expect a more humanitarian approach. One would expect a Federal Government, even in a situation of civil war, to want to feed their own citizens. Therefore, as I say, we should not have that aspect of the matter out of perspective.
  The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire rightly said that the Biafrans might refuse daylight flights, that they might refuse flights which were initiated from Federal territory. If that were to happen, he said, nothing would be gained from apportioning blame. He said, rightly, that the considerations might be military. So they might be. It is a tragedy of this situation that for two years, rightly or wrongly, men on both sides have been prepared to fight and die because of the intensity of feeling which they have on the issues involved. It is not for us to say whether they are right or wrong in that view. It is not for us to discuss what are the particular military tactics and whether they are justified or not. Our objective is a ceasefire and the entry of supplies.
  Let us suppose for a moment that the Biafrans refuse. Our objective still remains that of sending in immediate supplies, and if it is possible to secure acceptance of supplies emanating from a neutral source, we should bend our efforts to achieving just that.
  The Foreign Secretary said with regard to flights from outside—that is, supplies emanating from an outside territory—that there were disadvantages, military disadvantages, for the Federal authorities, and he added that the Federal authorities wished to be in a position to prove that they intended to be humanitarian and merciful in getting in supplies. Even accepting all that, I cannot see how, if there are both Biafran and Nigerian observers on neutral territory and if each flight is notified to both authorities in advance, there could be any military disadvantage or objection. But, as I say, I am not here to question the military motives of either side. I am trying merely to look at it from a practical viewpoint.
  If there be any question of propaganda here, the mere fact that, as the right

  1621
  hon. Gentleman said, the supplies would go over Federal Nigerian airspace ought in itself to be sufficient evidence of good intentions.
  It is a fact that both the Joint Church Aid organisation and the I.C.R.C. have been operating from foreign territory, both Portuguese territory and Dahomey. With the best will in the world, I find it difficult to see why there should be objection to flights emanating from a third country.
  In passing, I ask what is the immediate position now? This is where humanitarian considerations will be judged. What is the position pending negotiation? There have been virtually no supplies since 10th June. A few went in after the Red Cross aircraft was shot down on 5th June, but after that there have been virtually no supplies going in at all. We are not here to assess the rightness or wrongness of the reactions of either side. We must try to bring about a settlement so that relief can go in.
  Now, the question of arms. I have always been opposed to the shipment of arms by this country to Nigeria. I regard it as thoroughly immoral. I do not believe that it is our job to take sides in a civil war. That is a totally new situation. Neither do I believe that it is our job to try to maintain frontiers carved up by European Powers.
  Mr. Cordle: What does the right hon. Gentleman say about traditional supplies of arms over the years to our Commonwealth countries?
  Mr. Thorpe: I said this on 13th March, and I hope that the House will forgive me now for repeating it. I have been very much opposed to the régime of Dr. Nkrumah. I thought that it was a very bad régime. But we were supplying Nkrumah, before the coup d'état, with something like £900,000 worth of arms a year, far more than to Nigeria. There was a rising. It so happened that it was swift and Nkrumah was despatched. Supposing that country had been plunged into a condition of civil war. Would we have said that it was our duty, because Nkrumah had been the de facto and de jure leader, automatically to ship in arms and maintain the status quo?
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Thorpe: I am answering the hon. Gentleman. It was a fair question. When Singapore wished to secede from the Malaysian Federation, if Malaysia had asked us for weapons to force Singapore back into the Federation, should we have agreed to this? Should that have been the posture of this country and the Government? I believe not. There is a situation when régimes change, sometimes violently, and I do not believe that our job is to maintain the status quo.
  We have a similar situation in Kenya, where the tragic assassination of Mr. Tom M'boya has brought about a terrifying conflict between certain tribes. I hope that this will go no further, but supposing that country were plunged into a condition of civil unrest. Are we then to say that we must automatically ship arms because we have been the traditional suppliers to the Government which happens to be the status quo? It is a very dangerous doctrine.
  Mr. Edwin Brooks: I am trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he saying that in no circumstances should this country involve itself in the rights and wrongs of a civil war? If he is saying that, does he feel that the pre-war policy of the British Government towards the Spanish Civil War, a policy of non-intervention, was right?
  Mr. Thorpe: With great respect, I do not think it is of great value to refer to the Spanish Civil War, for this reason—I believe that the rôle of individual volunteers in Spain was something which we could wholly understand. If I had been been old enough I might have participated in some way. I think it was right, but I do not think that it is the job of this country to go fighting other people's civil wars. That imperialist rôle is over, and I am very pleased. To do this in Africa is to try to perpetuate a neo-colonialist rôle which is no longer there.
  Mr. Richard: Since the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that in no circumstances should Britain supply arms to a Commonwealth country which might be faced by an uprising he has, and we have, to draw up some principles upon which we either do sell arms or do not. What are the right hon. Gentleman's principles?
  Mr. Thorpe: I would say first of all, whether they are right or wrong, that I

  1623
  do have some principles. One thing that has become abundantly clear is that the Government have no principles.
  Mr. Frank Judd: Disgraceful.
  Mr. Thorpe: I quote from the Prime Minister on 16th May when he said:
  "We have allowed the continuance of supply of arms by private manufacturers in this country exactly on the basis that it has been in the past, but there has been no special provision for the needs of war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May. 1968; Vol. 764, c. 1397–8.]
  That may be regarded as the principle. The only difference is that those arms have now been used to kill people in that country, not for external defence purposes. The control of arms is one of the most difficult political problems we have to solve.
  Mr. Richard: Deal with it.
  Mr. Thorpe: I wish that the Government would.
  Mr. Richard: Deal with it.
  Mr. Thorpe: Certainly. I believe that the shipment of arms to countries should be severely limited to treaty obligations into which we have entered.
  Mr. Judd: We have one with Nigeria.
  Mr. Thorpe: If I may be allowed to continue without undue interruption, it should be made quite plain that we should not regard the shipment of those arms under any treaty as arms to be used for the purposes of a civil war, and that in the event of a civil war breaking out the whole situation would have to be reviewed. That was the position of this Government, in their early stages, over South Africa.
  Mr. William Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman wanted to bomb Rhodesia.
  Mr. Thorpe: I think that the Government were right to cancel arms to South Africa. All that I am saying is that there are certain principles involved with regard to South Africa which are very difficult to define here.
  Mr. Richard rose—
  Mr. Thorpe: I will not give way again. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have
  1624
  an opportunity of making his own speech. There was the Simonstown Agreement, which we terminated, in my view rightly. It is possible to evolve an arms policy which has a slightly greater degree of morality than that being followed in Nigeria.
  Talking about arms control, the Foreign Secretary said the difficulty is to get countries to admit that they are supplying arms to Biafra. But is that an admission we require? Is not the criterion for acceptability by all nations, that they will supply no arms to any part of Nigeria? The mere fact that the French or the Russians deny that they have ever supplied arms does not seem to me to be a bar to attempting to get an overall universal form of agreement. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we know that Soviet Russia is now there in strength. There is some suggestion that it was a Soviet warship which was feeding information to MiG fighters and Ilyushin bombers, which gave the information about the Red Cross plane on 5th June.
  Russia should be brought before the bar of world opinion, and if Russia is the only country which refuses to bring about some form of control, then the world should know it. Because we have let it drift we are getting a cold war situation in Nigeria. Let us not forget that it was to avoid conditions of the cold war that the great Powers allowed the United Nations to go into the Congo. I do not believe that we want very often to see a Foreign Secretary having to go to that Box and defend Britain's position as a supplier of arms to one side in a civil war.
  It is vital that this Government should use what influence they have, which may be considerable with the Federal authorities—I accept that it is very slight with Biafra, for obvious reasons—to see if we cannot get some form of agreement on relief. Relief may well have to be flown in from an outside power, but I do not see why we cannot take the initiative on a ceasefire, on the whole question of arms control. If the Government had gone to the United Nations and failed, at least we could have said that they had tried.
  5.49 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: The speech of the right hon. Member

  1625
  for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), particularly at the outset, was much to be preferred to the two speeches, one from either of the back benches, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) and the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser).
  My right hon. Friend is a highly respected Member of this House, with great knowledge on questions of disarmament and peace, and I do not want to cross swords with him too much. But when he assures us, as he did, that he was not taking a pro-Biafran attitude, then this was stretching the credulity of hon. Members who seek to take an impartial view of this. When the public read his speech, they will be bound to come to the conclusion that he was extremely pro-Biafran and extremely unfair to the credentials and good faith of his own Government.
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: What I said was that I was explaining the Biafran point of view and reciting facts which were very important in the minds of the Biafrans but often forgotten here.
  Mr. Hamilton: My right hon. Friend was mistaking assertions for facts. He was making assertions which were demonstrably untrue. One of them was challenged by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle), when he pointed out that four million Ibos were not living in the bush.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I did not say they were.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am sorry, but my right hon. Friend did say that. If he looks at HANSARD tomorrow, he will see that he stated that four million Ibos in Federal territory were living in the bush. That is demonstrably untrue.
  Mr. Noel-Baker rose—
  Mr. Hamilton: I have only ten minutes. The record is there and my right hon. Friend can check it tomorrow. He also makes the mistake of asserting that there is such a thing as the Biafran state. There is no such thing, either ethnically or geographically. This is a self-styled rebellion.
  I want to turn now to the speech of the Leader of the Liberal Party. He talks about not supplying arms in civil
  1626
  wars. He was also the one who advocated bombing Rhodesia.
  Mr. Thorpe rose—
  Mr. Hamilton: I also advocated it, but art least I have been consistent all along. The right hon. Gentleman has not been consistent. He can hardly justify saying in one breath "Bomb Rhodesia" and in the next "Do not interfere in a civil war in a Commonwealth territory".
  Mr. Thorpe: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree, first, that Rhodesia is a colony for which we are responsible while Nigeria is not, and, second, that to advocate the destruction of one railway line in the desert is rather different from supplying arms for use against civilians?
  Mr. Hamilton: The question was not as simple as that, as was pointed out at the time. Both the right hon. Gentleman and I advocated this proposition, which was first formulated in The Guardian. He faithfully followed The Guardian line on the point, but it was explained that the problem was by no means as simple as bombing a railway line. Nevertheless, it is the principle that I want to establish. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say, "Bomb in one part of Africa but don't interfere in another".
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary did very well to remind us—we need continually reminding of it—that Nigeria is an independent sovereign State. It is all too often assumed in this House that we could adopt a paternalistic attitude to Nigeria. That is no longer our rôle. It cannot be, and I am glad that it cannot be.
  The rôle of the United Kingdom Government is extremely limited. When I hear the extravagant accusations and claims made against the Government by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends—I can understand them when they come from the Opposition because it is the purpose of the Opposition to denigrate the Government, and no doubt if we were on that side we would do the same—when I hear these charges from hon. Members on this side against my right hon. Friends in the Government who have worked day and night to try and get a peaceful settlement in Nigeria, it sticks to my gullet.
  Mr. Peter Mahon: My hon. Friend will appreciate that he is the keeper of his own conscience, and we recognise that. Has he forgotten that one million people have already died in Biafra, and that if we do not do anything in the near future another million will probably die of starvation?
  Mr. Hamilton: This is the kind of inference that I find extremely objectionable. The inference is that the Government have connived at the death of one million people and are conniving at the death of hundreds of thousands more. I refute that absolutely. I would not belong to the Labour Party if I believed that there was a single member of the Labour Government who had connived in any way in this tragedy. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not interrupt from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Hamilton: I support the Government because I believe that my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, his colleagues in the Foreign Office and every other Minister in the Government are striving might and main to get a ceasefire both in the long term and in the short term—certainly in the short term—to avoid the kind of starvation and mass death to which my hon. Friend the member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) has rightly drawn attention.
  It is difficult for this House to rid itself of emotional upheaval when talking about this kind of problem. We all want to stop the starvation, but it is an African responsibility. It will not be solved by the United Nations, despite what my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South has said—and both he and I have great faith in the United Nations. The Organisation of African Unity is the body which will strive to solve this problem.
  I hope that we might further examine the possibility of establishing a black Commonwealth force to interpose itself between the two sides. We can try this kind of initiative, but, for heaven's sake, on this side at least, do not let us question the integrity or the sincerity of what the Government are trying to do. The New Statesman on 4th July asserted that my right hon. Friend the Foreign
  1628
  and Commonwealth Secretary was an accomplice in genocide and that the United Kingdom Government were trying to starve Biafra into submission in order to get Biafran oil. What a scandalous statement in a supposedly Socialist magazine. I find this kind of thing impossible to understand. Such charges do no good to anyone.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer rose—
  Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has not been in the Chamber long enough.
  Mr. Heffer: I have been here long enough to listen to your speech.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made no speech.
  Mr. Hamilton: That sort of intervention does my hon. Friend the Member for Walton no good, nor anyone else.
  Mr. Heffer: Then give way.
  Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend must learn to listen.
  Mr. Heffer: Do not make remarks about other people. Give way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Walton must not interrupt the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). Unless the hon. Member for Fife, West is prepared to give way, the hon. Gentleman must remain seated.
  Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am always prepared to abide by the Ruling of the Chair and not stand up when an hon. Member is not prepared to give way, but hon. Members should not attack their colleagues and then not give way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a matter for the hon. Member who has the Floor to decide whether to give way or not.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am not attacking anyone. I am just pointing out that if hon. Members on this side choose to attack their own Government then I have a perfect right to defend the Government, and that is what I intend to do. That is not

  1629
  to say that I want to take sides in the Nigerian civil war.
  Mrs. Anne Kerr: My hon. Friend is doing so by the nature of his remarks.
  Mr. Hamilton: I have made it clear that I do not want to take sides. But I object to hon. Members on this side attacking the Government for taking sides. It might be argued that my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has gone too far in supporting the Federal side. There may be something in that, but that is not a challenge to his sincerity. To suggest that a decision to ban arms supplies would not be interpreted as a partial, pro-Biafran decision is nonsense. It would be inferred by the Biafrans that the British Government were now leaning on their side, and that might have the effect of prolonging rather than curtailing the war. The solution is not as easy as might be imagined.
  I put my faith in the Government seeking to get an international ban on armaments. No contribution to that end would be made by a unilateral cessation by our Government. One may go back into history, as did the Leader of the Liberal Party and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South, and deplore the initial supply of arms, but that is history and we cannot undo history. We now have to deal with the situation as it is.
  I hope that we all agree that we want to take measures to get relief in by daylight flights, or night flights if the Federal Government can be satisfied that they are not being used as a cover for getting in arms. The Federal Government has a right to ask for that condition. If both sides could agree to land routes and to daylight flights from outside, subject to neutral observation, those would be the things in which our Government could rightly take initiatives, and I believe that they are doing so.
  I do not believe, for instance, a charge by the head of the Netherlands Ad Hoc Committee for Biafran War Refugees who asserted that the British Foreign Office and the United States State Department had exercised massive political pressure on the International Red Cross to do nothing whatever to help Biafra. This was a charge made by a reputable Netherlands politician, and I should like my right hon. Friend to refute it. I
  1630
  believe that it is not true, but I should like my right hon. Friend to make it clear that it is untrue. This is the kind of accusation which is being made, and it does nothing to help a solution of the problem which we are seeking to solve. But let us realise how limited are our responsibility and our influence.
  6.2 p.m.
  Mr. John Cordle: It is not often that I agree with the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), but I warmly support his views about the Nigerian issue, and I go all along the line with him in supporting Her Majesty's Government and their policy for Nigeria. I should like to make one or two comments before coming to the main part of my speech. It was only last night, through the good offices of B.O.A.C., that I landed back in this country after leaving Lagos on Monday and on Tuesday being in Kano and Kaduna, while yesterday morning I was in Zaria and left Kano for the United Kingdom.
  We all recognise the debate as serious and the comments as sincere and made by people who are concerned about the great country of Nigeria. I asked the Leader of the Liberal Party what were his views about the traditional arms supply to Nigeria or other Commonwealth countries. It will be appreciated that, whatever we here say or do about the supply of arms to Nigeria, the Nigerians will secure their arms willy-nilly anywhere they want, whether we like it or not, and they have made that abundantly clear.
  Mrs. Anne Kerr: Did the hon. Member mean abominably clear or abundantly clear?
  Mr. Cordle: Abundantly clear.
  I want to deal with the issue of the DC7 which was shot down. We all deplore that terrible incident, but the review of the tapes and the facts shows that Nigerian fighter pilots at least twice requested the DC7 to land for inspection, requests which were denied on both occasions, with the result that eventually they shot down the aircraft.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: This is the point—that it was shot down under the control of the Federal Government in Lagos.
  Mr. Cordle: It was shot down under the control of the Federal Government in Lagos after having been given fair warning to land for inspection, and I believe that that was a right and proper thing to do.
  It may interest hon. Members to know that prisoners-of-war who have come out of the stricken territory have openly admitted that relief supplies of food sent to Biafra have been supplied to them. These are some of the facts which I was able to glean during the course of the last seven days.
  I took a route, as I have said, from Lagos through Kaduna, Jos, Kano and Zaria, and I met a cross-section of society to whom I was able freely to talk about the war. In view of the war, the prevailing conditions are amazing. There is virtually little sign of the war. Commerce and industry are strong. Business is suffering very little. It is "business as usual".
  Mrs. Anne Kerr: Good-oh!
  Mr. Cordle: The British High Commissioner said that inquiries were still coming in from outside sources about new projects and expansion, inquiries from the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries.
  We have to accept that Nigeria is one of the most important Commonwealth countries, certainly in Africa, outside South Africa itself. People continue in their peaceful pursuits. It is delightful to see how much work is being done in the fields and in the replanting of yams and cassavas and maize, and there is certainly no disruption of services throughout the country, other than in the war-torn areas.
  On this occasion, I did not apply to go to Biafra, as my four previous applications had all been turned down, but I was able to meet people who had something to say about the Federal situation. I met the ordinary man in the street, the hotel worker, the taxi driver, the university student, the professor, the church-worker, the missionary.
  Last Sunday, I attended morning service at St. Nicholas's Church, which, as hon. Members will know, is within a short distance of the Independence Building. I made inquiries about the percentage content of the congregation. I suppose that there were at least 75 to 80 per
  1632
  cent. Nigerians and the rest were Europeans. I took aside a sidesman I knew and asked how many Ibos were in the church. He said that at least 30 per cent. were Ibos. A hotel worker in the Federal Palace Hotel—I did not stay there—told me that at least 40 Ibos were employed in that hotel. All the people to whom I spoke condemned secession and put the blame for the war fairly and squarely on Ojukwu and his gang.
  It ought to be said, and clearly said, that I believe that the policy followed by General Gowon is right. Many of us have been puzzled, and certainly somewhat set back in our thinking by it, by the war not being quickly hastened in order that the suffering may be brought to an end. But he has constantly told us, and he has told me again and again, that he will move only with the greatest possible care and calculation so as to minimise casualties and bring the greatest possible success to the move.
  I think that this has done the job by squeezing the area tighter and allowing more people to get out. I understand the views of hon. Members who have spoken, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), who spoke most sincerely on this point, but today, without question, there are thousands of Ibos coming out of Iboland. They are delighted to be free and are enjoying liberty under the Federal Government. They are now being dispersed throughout the whole of Nigeria.
  I was there yesterday. I spoke to Ibos in Kano and Zaria, and I flew back with an Ibo last night. Integration goes on apace, and this nails the lie to Ojukwu. Ibo traders are returning in large numbers to Kaduna, Jos, Ibadan, and Lagos—and not to be killed; they are not in fear of their lives. I have spoken to them, and they are quite prepared to tell one that they are Ibos, which would not have happened a few months ago. Those are encouraging signs and support what the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said so well this afternoon. What he said recently in Lagos has gone down extraordinarily well. We were delighted also to know that the Prime Minister confirmed the arms supply position when he spoke in Sweden on Sunday about that very important matter.

  1633
  The Ibos are even returning to the north, and in two cases they have set up as small hoteliers and others in trade. In Kaduna Ibos are taking up employment with Government institutions and commercial undertakings. Ibo students from Nsuka are being absorbed into the Ibadan University and are being remitted the last year of their academic training as well as being given extra tuition to bring them up to the required standard.
  General Gowon sent a message to the House in reply to a question I put to him. I asked, "Will there be a military solution, or do you still hold out for a negotiated settlement?". He said,
  "We are ready for negotiation at any time, but if Ojukwu is not forthcoming then there is no alternative. I hope earnestly that public opinion is not deceived by the Ojukwu propaganda, and that all who are doing humanitarian work and good will not be affected by it. For our part, we will not do anything to affect the excellent relationship with aid organisations that exists. People in Nigeria are sensitive to this and this must be borne in mind. We are not doing anything out of hatred or malice to kill the Ibos. It is our urgent attempt to unite the country and give security and stability to everyone. We want to see the end of the war as quickly as possible with a minimum of suffering, and as a united Nigeria to carry out normal life with security for everyone according to his ethnic beliefs."
  General Gowon gave me an absolute assurance and guarantee for the safety of planes and crews involved in daylight relief flights into Biafra from Federal territory.
  As to the question of the slowness of the war, General Gowon maintained his position, on which I have already commented. He said:
  "We move only after careful and thorough calculation to provide us with the maximum success and minimum loss and suffering of men and material."
  He is a sincere man and I believe that he has all the people of Nigeria at heart, not just the Yorubas, the Hausas, the Ijaws and the Ibibios, but the Ibos mostly. If they are given the chance to be reunited once against with the rest of Nigeria, I believe that the Ibos will be a privileged tribe and will possibly have more prominent positions. I believe that it is part of General Gowon's policy now to introduce Ibos to better positions throughout the country quickly, so as to show up the other side again as being misleading and inaccurate in what it says about the Government of Nigeria.
  1634
  Nigerians begin to tire of our British attitude. They are exasperated by the hostility of certain sections of our Press. They say, "If the British do not go along with us, to hell with them. We will survive". The leading spokesman in Nigeria, Chief Enaharo, has said:
  "We are being pushed towards directions we have not contemplated so far."
  That is a very serious comment on the run-down of the arms supply to Nigeria, and it needs to be cogitated upon.
  It is said, and I believe that it could be right, that at present Britain, which has guaranteed its traditional contracts for the supply of arms through Crown Agent sources, supplies about 15 per cent. of Nigeria's arms. Ten to 15 per cent. is being supplied by the Russians, but it is mostly Russian aircraft and aircraft requirements. The rest comes from anywhere else that the Nigerians can obtain it. It should be brought home again and again that if we cease to supply they will secure their arms elsewhere, willy nilly.
  There is no confirmation of continued arms supplies to Biafra from France, but there is no evidence yet that the policy has changed. However, there is evidence of stock-piling in Abijan in the Ivory Coast and Libreville in Gabon. Such arms are being bought with funds in the main derived from misguided people throughout the world.
  Relief to the starving women and children is surely our chief concern. Relations between the Red Cross relief workers and Federal Army personnel in the field have not always been happy. There had always been a feeling that the relief activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross in flying in supplies at night to Biafra, despite the Federal Government's expressed preference for day flights, had helped prolong the war, particularly because the night flights provided cover for gun-running planes. It was claimed among the Federals that some arms and ammunition were carried on relief planes. Fuel was also siphoned off the relief planes arriving at Uli with more than their journey required.
  When the Federal authorities granted permission for day flights by the I.C.R.C. in November, 1967, they probably did not foresee the war going on for more than 18 months more, or that Uli would become the second busiest airport in Africa as the extent of the flights increased.

  1635
  Some Red Cross personnel, it seems Lo me, have allowed their enthusiasm for relief for Biafra to make it appear that they had no regard for Nigerian sovereignty. Federal Government officials also felt that it would have been a little helpful if the I.C.R.C. had appeared to put pressure on Ojukwu to accept day flights and to accept a land corridor or supplies by river. The fact that the I.C.R.C. appeared determined to make night flights, whether the Federal Government wanted it to or not, did not improve relations.
  There was also unhappiness with the rôle of Dr. August Lindt, the Commissioner-General for West Africa, during the negotiations to secure the release of the imprisoned oil men. He was flying in and out of Biafra in trying to get the men freed, and on one occasion he took off from Lagos airport in his own plane illegally, without permission, when there was a ban on all light planes because of the Swedish air attacks on Federal territory. Dr. Lindt, who was detained overnight, had maintained that all was in order. Government officials have also complained that he told them less about his negotiations over the oil men than he told the Press. In May, while those negotiations were going on, the five Swedish Minicons piloted by Swedes began their serious air attacks on Federal airports. There were allegations that the planes could not have reached Biafra but for the cover provided by night flights.
  Frustration at the Federals' failure to win quickly and a growing suspicion that relief agencies and foreigners were helping Biafra survive slowly developed. The Press in Nigeria began to blame the current situation on the relief workers, and Dr. Lindt was a prime target. The Government-owned Morning Post claimed that one of the Swedish planes which attacked Benin had the red and white colours of the International Red Cross, though that was not substantiated by any other reports. But it all added fuel to the fire which was beginning to blaze in extreme hostility to the I.C.R.C., with repeated calls in the Press for its expulsion.
  Then, on 5th June, the Nigerian air force shot down a Swedish Red Cross DC7 on its way into Biafra after it twice
  1636
  refused requests to land in Federal territory for its cargo to be inspected. Attacks on the Nigerians for this came from America and Sweden, increasing the hostility towards foreign intervention in the civil war. This included the relief agencies, and the I.C.R.C. in particular. The I.C.R.C. has been accused by both sides of spying for the other, of being more determined to help the Biafrans regardless of the position or wishes of the Federals, and of contributing to Biafra's coffers by buying food and services in the rebel areas at inflated prices.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Whatever view one takes of the overall conflict, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not allow it to go on record that he is justifying the shooting down of a Red Cross plane. I hope that he confines himself to justifying the right of the Nigerian authorities to ask such a plane to land for inspection. But if a Red Cross plane does not do that, surely there is no moral justification for shooting it down in any circumstances?
  Mr. Cordle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment. I would have no part in any policy to shoot down Red Cross planes, of course.
  Dr. Lindt was declared persona non grata on 14th June by the Federal Government when Dr. Arikpo accused him of acting in many respects as if his assignment was to bring relief to the rebels in order to sustain their rebellion. Dr. Arikpo said that it had also been decided that the activities of the relief organisations in Federal Nigeria would be reviewed. This has led to a new policy whereby the Federal Government of Nigeria take overall responsibility for relief work, so trying to avoid suggestions that they could not do it, which had hurt the Federal pride.
  In my view, the Federal Government have been more than tolerant in not stopping night flights before, though they may not then have had the air capacity to do much about them. But they have obviously decided now that a quick end to the war will reduce hardship and suffering far better than allowing the war to drag on. The flow of arms and ammunition into Biafra was one of the causes of its dragging on, without question. Certainly it was impertinent of the

  1637
  I.C.R.C. to brush aside the Federal Government's adherence to the Geneva Convention. For such a body, which is purely a Swiss one, to do this does harm to the image of the World League of Red Cross which undoubtedly is a responsible organisation.
  It is now up to Ojukwu to show how concerned he really is for Biafra's hungry.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I am glad to be able to follow the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle), if only in this sense. He told us earlier that in the North the Ibo people are coming back. That confirms entirely what I was told at the end of last year by a Court of Appeal judge who has to go up there, and who is himself an Ibo. He told me that the people of the North no longer feared the Ibos. They had always feared them before because of their business acumen. Now that they have had to do things for themselves they find that they can do them just as well as the Ibos can. My informant thought that this was a wonderfully encouraging sign which will lead to the possibility of reconciliation between the two sides when peace comes.
  When we are used to hearing so many totally different points of view on Nigeria bandied about, we find it extremely difficult to make a decision. I do not pretend any longer to be impartial, because I have formed a view about the position there. I began by being very much proIbo, because I knew the Ibos best. A lot of my professional work was done amongst them. Latterly, when I went to Lagos, I found how untrue so much of their propaganda was. That made me think seriously, and eventually I changed my mind, not to the extent that I became anti-Ibo—I know too many of them too well for that—but I saw that there were some Ibo people who for a considerable time had been taking a very dangerous line, and it culminated in Ojukwu's declaration of secession.
  I do not remember an occasion when a British Government have so consistently pursued a policy which is at once reasonable and humane and which really serves towards the saving of lives as have Her Majesty's Government on Nigeria. It is wonderful to be able to say as much to my own Government, and I am very proud to do it. It has not been easy for
  1638
  them. There has been a tremendous barrage of propaganda, believed by people who know little about Nigeria. I have no doubt that it has been very hard for the Government to adopt their attitude, but they have managed to do it.
  I would not suggest that I know it all, but it is nice to know something. I cannot understand why the Government should be induced to give up their sensible and reasonable policy of supplying arms to a friendly Commonwealth Government simply because one section of the Commonwealth country in question chooses to go into open rebellion. It seems to be a very poor reason. However, the supply of arms gives the less deep thinkers the pretext which some of them seem to want regularly, to attack their own Government—to have a stick with which to beat the Government. It gives them their pretext, because they can say that the supply of arms leads to deaths. But the supply of arms is intended to lead to deaths. At the same time, it may prevent more deaths than it inflicts. I submit that that is exactly what is happening in the case of this arms supply.
  Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that some of us began by supporting the Government right the way through, but that as we have learned more about the situation between Nigeria and Biafra we have swung over to support the Biafrans and think that they have a justified case?
  Mr. Mallalieu: I am interested to hear that and I hope that at some other time my hon. Friend will tell me of other matters on which he supports the Government—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman will address the Chair.
  Mr. Mallalieu: Mr. Speaker, I addressed the hon. Member as "my hon. Friend".
  The tragic losses on both sides which have resulted from the fighting are not disputed. However, unless one can find the cause for what has happened, one is not very likely to be able to remove that cause, and stop the situation from continuing. That is why I believe that we must be a little partial in this matter and say where the blame lies and what should happen.

  1639
  The Ibo coup d'état, which resulted in the slaughter of a number of the politicians of the original Federation, came to an end when Ironsi was evicted. It was then that Ojukwu stepped in from his position of strength as the military dictator of the Eastern Region. He was in a position to do this because—
  Mr. Heffer: He was appointed by Ironsi.
  Mr. Mallalieu: Never mind who appointed him. He was in that position of strength and, in consequence, was able to enforce his will on the people in his territory.
  When his military drive in the direction of Lagos failed, Ojukwu concentrated on getting himself under the cover of this rather picturesque word "Biafra", hoping to persuade the world that he spoke for a nation that extended far beyond the confines of his own Ibo people. I do not know whether it was to make his claim to nationhood more respectable or to get the oil which was in the territories, for the most part, of those people, that he took them in with him by force. Possibly it was both. But he forcibly incorporated these people, who were not Ibos at all, into his territory. Perhaps if he had merely called it "Iboland" he could not have done it so easily.
  As we have heard, if the Government had allowed themselves to be deflected from their policy of sending arms, it would not have made the slightest difference in Nigeria in the sense that Russian arms would come in even more than before and, therefore, lives would not be saved. There is no real dispute about that, particularly after what the Russians said about an international embargo and what they would do if we imposed an embargo on ourselves. It would not make any difference whatever.
  But, given the nature and the amount of Ojukwu's propaganda—I had four letters by air today from that American firm in Geneva which is sending out the stuff at tremendous expense—it is not surprising that many people accept it, more or less indiscriminately, and believe that the Federal people are out to destroy the Ibos and purposely go to bomb hospitals, schools and markets. Such persons have only to read that women and
  1640
  children have been killed or are starving to believe also that this is because of something that the Federal army has deliberately willed and carried out. However, when I was in Nigeria recently, I was astonished at what the Federal Government has done in looking after the Ibos who still live there. There are 70,000 Ibos in Lagos alone in all walks of life from the highest in the law down to the lowest paid of all on the railways.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the hon.and learned Gentleman's case that such bombing of market places as has taken place has been purely accidental?
  Mr. Mallalieu: I should say that it has been purely accidental. I am not saying that in war accidents cannot happen and that there could not be cases where individual pilots have done something on purpose. However, there is no evidence of this. It may have happened, but there is no evidence of it. Market places are often at cross roads, which are of vital importance from a military point of view. So, in bombing a crossroads, it could be that market places have been bombed. I do not dispute that they have been bombed. This is a war, and this is the kind of thing that happens in war. It is a great pity that more people do not confine their energies to seeing that war is made impossible. However, I will leave this topic, because it is hardly relevant to the debate.
  I believe that the Nigerian Government has behaved better to its rebels than any Government has ever behaved previously. What other Government has been prepared to allow food and medical supplies, on any terms, to get to its enemies—let alone its rebels? I have not heard of it. Did we do it when we were fighting the Germans in two world wars, or did the Germans do it when they were fighting us? I do not think so. It is most unlikely that any case can be found where such a thing has happened.
  By its actions the Federal Government has undoubtedly shown that it is sincere when it says that it wants a reconciliation with the Ibos, and that it will do all that it can to get them back.
  I do not think there is any doubt that Ojukwu's arms are of French origin,

  1641
  that they come through formerly French territories, with which the French government has always had and still has the closest contact, that French officers in uniform have been seen handling these arms as they go from one French territory or another into Biafra, and that the finance for these arms has come from French sources—Rothschilds, it is said—who have had the oil concessions to be won after the war granted to them by Ojukwu. That is how he has paid for his arms and propaganda. These have prolonged the war. The moment that these stop, the loss of the untold number of lives will be ended.
  I hope that the Government will not hesitate to supply the Federal Government with all that it needs in the matter of radar to stop these arms going in. I know it is not a popular thing to say that, but I go further. I should give the Federal Government anything that it needs, not only radar, to stop the arms traffic going in. If this traffic is ended then the Government's policy will have been entirely justified, and I submit that the Ibo people will be reconciled with the rest of the people of Nigeria, Ojukwu will depart to foreign parts, where his money already is, and will live on his vast fortune; and the deaths which are going on will be stopped. I believe that the Government's policy has been entirely right and I congratulate them on it most sincerely.
  6.37 p.m.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Last August we were recalled to Parliament and we debated this subject. The outstanding proposition was put forward in that debate that we should go on supplying arms to get a quick kill to end the war. I have heard since from some hon. Members who genuinely believed in that policy that, when they realised that the quick kill had not come about, they had changed their minds.
  We have heard that policy propounded yet again. We are apparently still talking of a quick end to the war. Most hon. Members who have visited both sides—some have visited only one side—seem to be agreed about one thing: that there is no likely end to this war soon unless there is the will on the part of both sides to sit at a table together.
  1642
  There seem to be three alarming new developments.
  First, the astounding proposition that starvation in this day and age is a legitimate weapon of war without limitation of degree, even if one million or more people are involved. In this day and age when we can see yesterday's war on our television sets, if we are so inclined, our participation by visual experience must surely tell us that though starvation was once a legitimate weapon of war to force the surrender of besieged towns and cities, it can no longer be applied as a legitimate weapon of war on this scale.
  I accept entirely that there is a welter of propaganda. I may say that I put the Markpress in the waste paper basket. I tend to do the same more lately with what I get from the other side. I prefer to seek out missionaries of the Church of Scotland or Members of Parliament who have been out there—even those who have contrary views. I prefer their evidence. I prefer journalists whom I know to be reputable and honest observers to paper work which is coming to me from either side. May I say as someone who had the privilege of lecturing to African classes for four years in what is now part of Strathclyde University but was then a college that I have friends on both sides. I used to get letters from them, but not any more. I am on nobody's side, but I am terribly anxious as I am sure is every hon. Member, that there should be an end to this war and to the starvation.
  I like to go on the evidence. I was taught to do this in the career which I followed before I became a Member. I have in my hand a piece of evidence from the Daily Times—described as an independent newspaper, so it says—of 26th June published in Nigeria. I do not claim to know this for certain, but many journalists assure me that this newspaper is an organ of the Nigerian Federal Government. That may or may not be so, but it has a very large circulation and it is read daily. It said on 26th June:
  "Chief Awolowo declared yesterday that he was totally opposed to relief materials being sent to the Nigerian rebels. 'All is fair in war and starvation is one of the weapons of war'".

  1643
  The heading is:
  "Starvation is a weapon of war".
  What is perhaps more alarming, the same newspaper, on 27th June, said:
  "Brigadier Usman, Chief of Staff of the Nigerian Army, has also opposed the supply of relief materials to rebels".
  That is not proof. It is just a piece of evidence which hon. Members can take into consideration with any other bits of evidence on which they feel they can rely. As a lawyer, I say to myself that here are two well-known people on the Nigerian side, Chief Awolowo and the Chief of Staff of the Nigerian Army, who are opposed to giving aid to people whom they call rebels.
  I refer to a matter in the speech of the Leader of the Liberal Party. If General Gowon claims that this is only a police action and these rebels are his people in his country, he should want to feed them. We should not pat him on the back for his generosity. We should be irritated with him if he seems to be putting up difficulties even if the other side is doing the same. If Chief Awolowo and the Chief of Staff of the Nigerian army have said that they are opposed to sending aid, we must consider carefully whether we can rely on relief going through Federal territory.
  It is admitted in another newspaper that a relief ship reached Lagos on 19th June. Perhaps the Minister would say why this ship cannot get going, if it is not going already. Would he give us the latest news on that matter? At least it would be some cheering news for the House.
  The second alarming trend has been very well rehearsed by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker), who spoke at length about arms. In effect, the Soviet air force is on the Nigerian side. I have interviewed at length an eye witness, a journalist of repute, Fred Forsyth, who was a Reuter correspondent for four year. There is no doubt in his mind that there are Russian planes in Nigeria. Do the Government admit that? Is there any doubt about it in their mind?
  The third alarming trend concerns the Red Cross. Her Majesty's Government must support the good name of the Red Cross. I believe in the good name of the Red Cross, and in my belief I am
  1644
  going on very satisfactory evidence in countless areas of the world. In the light of what is in some newspapers, if I have to decide between the evidence and good faith of the Nigerians and that of the Red Cross, I prefer the good faith and evidence of the Red Cross. There is a dual responsibility on the Red Cross to satisfy the recipients and donors of aid. The Red Cross has the responsibility to ensure that the trust of the donors—the churches, children's pennies, and all the people who are contributing throughout the world—is honoured and that what they give reaches the recipients.
  This is a multi-million dollar operation per month. The suggestion of the Nigerians seems to be that the aid should be handed over or put in their territory. Must we accept this when they are maligning Mr. Lindt? He is accused of numerous things, such as telling lies, giving false information about becoming involved in Nigeria's affairs. He has been exonerated by a Committee back home in Switzerland. He said that he would not cause difficulties but that he would resign with dignity because his whole concern is relief, which is what one would expect of such a person.
  The Red Cross is being accused of extraordinary things. It is suggested that it is involved in gun-running, espionage and of furthering the Biafran war effort. We know that the Red Cross wants to feed people. That is the whole point of it. What is being suggested is a new development to me. It must be repudiated by the Government. If the President of the International Red Cross loses the vital rôle of being the accepted authority for dealing with this humanitarian problem, it will be a very bad day for everyone in the world. We have reason to believe as a result of past delays that it is not best necessarily to leave it to planes originating in Nigerian-held territory to do this job.
  Normally in a disaster the Red Cross is sensible in trying to found support on the Red Cross already in existence in the country. But in this instance it did not do so because the Red Cross organisation in the country was not sufficiently efficient. This seems to be admitted in another quotation of the Daily Times 19th June by the President of the Nigerian Red Cross. It is stated:
  "In Lagos yesterday his society"—

  1645
  that is, the Nigerian Red Cross—
  "was prepared to take over the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross if the Government decided to send it away. He warned, however, that the Society must recruit and train more people if it was to succeed".
  The view that there are not enough people to take it over is the view of the International Committee of the Red Cross. It is not up to doing this fantastically important job, even with sufficient safeguards.
  I come to the question of relief. I do not wish to exacerbate the situation and we all hope that the two sides will come to the conference table sooner or later. However, the blame seems to be cast in one direction. I am not casting blame. I do not believe that we should talk about "General Gowon and his gang" any more than we should talk, as one hon. Gentleman did, of "Colonel Ojukwu and his gang". These are not becoming expressions to be used by people who are obviously sincere. Their sincerity is no more in doubt than the sincerity of almost every hon. Member who speaks on this subject. It does not advance the cause one bit to call people names or to start apportioning blame. If Members keep saying, "Why does not Colonel Ojukwu do this or that?", other people will say, "Why does not General Gowon do this or that?".
  Is it or is it not the case that in trying to settle the question of relief General Gowon has offered to allow day flights or night flights from any neutral airstrip, to allow complete inspection and to allow people chosen by an independent method—and he is not unreasonable about how it is done—to accompany every flight? Secondly, is it or is it not the case that Colonel Ojukwu has considered accepting a land corridor provided it is policed by armed international police and that General Gowon did not agree to this? May we know whether food is lying at Uli airport and Santome, Libreville and Cotenou? If so, can it be got in as quickly as possible? This question of blame should be considered very carefully. We will find that there has been blood on the hands of both sides in this struggle if we go back to the root causes. But it might be interesting for us to try to ascertain why the Government want to keep on sending arms. Various fundamental reasons have been given at various times which contradict one another.
  1646
  I have heard the reason given by many who support the Government's point of view that we cannot have a Balkanisation of Africa. Is that what it is all about? Can we hear from the Minister? If it is that, let us face the fact fairly and squarely. The Balkanisation of Africa in relation to the Nigerian problem has little relevance, considering that this is about the largest country in Africa. Even if the Ibos ultimately won the war, which is not likely, there would be 14 million of them, which would still make them one of the largest countries in Africa, and certainly larger than many Scandinavian countries—
  Mr. John Tilney: The hon. Lady said that there are 14 million Ibos. There are nothing like so many.
  Mrs. Ewing: There might not be now. That is the figure which I got from books but perhaps we are out of date. That may be part of the tragedy. I do not think that the number of millions affects the argument materially unless it is reduced to something under 3 million. At least, a large number of millions is involved.
  The second argument seems to be that we are supporting the legitimate Government. The right hon. Member for Derby, South made a long speech on this. This is a clouded issue. The more that one goes into the issue of how it all came about, the more it seems that there is blood on the hands of both sides. I am not blaming them, in their situation. If I had been there, I would have taken one side or the other; most of us would have done. But there were massacres and coup d'états. To talk about the legitimate Government as if it is a sacrosanct matter, comparable with other types of legitimate Government, is a questionable attitude.
  The third reason—a new one to me—was given by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), that if we were to stop supplying arms now it would be interpreted as support for Biafra. I would propose to look at this more logically than the hon. Member. If we stopped supplying arms, it might be taken to mean that the Government had recognised that it might be morally wrong to supply them. Why not take that interpretation? It is the more straightforward one.

  1647
  A National Opinion Poll showed that 53 per cent. of the people are opposed to this policy and another 22 per cent. do not know. I do not blame them for not knowing: the facts are so difficult to ascertain. But at least a large slice of people are not happy about a very worrying policy of the Government.
  Finally, in the attempts to get both sides to the conference table, is it not possible that words are separating these people and separating us? I am here because of a view about the right of a nation to independence. I am very familiar with all the nuances and words used to describe associations between nations, but cannot the word "union" on the one side, which sounds strict, and "association" on the other, which sounds a loose word, be capable of a variety of interpretations? Within the meaning of "union" and "association" it is possible to have all kinds of national relationships. Why do we allow ourselves to be stopped by the use of these words? Cannot the Government try yet again? Cannot the Prime Minister meet Ojukwu and the other side next time, and not just one side? Could he stop using the word "rebels" to prevent him from meeting them? Words should not stop us when the fate of millions is involved.
  6.53 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley Henig: The subject underlying this debate is relief. We might not have been debating this war today were it not for the events of a few weeks ago, when a Red Cross plane was shot down, and subsequently the Nigerian Federal Government decided to end the arrangements whereby relief flights had been made at night to the starving peoples of Biafra. This then became a new fact, and this is what we must discuss.
  In these circumstances, it is perhaps a little disingenuous to say immediately that it is up to Ojukwu and Biafra. There is some truth in this, but the real truth, of course, is that it is up to both sides. There are a number of possible ways in which relief can be brought in. Night flights were the method used until a few weeks ago. Night flights, while acceptable to Biafra, are clearly unacceptable to Lagos, for reasons apparent to us all.
  1648
  The real argument now stems from the question of day flights. The plan, which appears to have come from Lagos, is that day flights should go from some point in Nigeria under international inspection to Biafra. This has been turned down by the Biafrans on the ground, they say, that their lifeline would then go via Nigeria. This is a view with which I have some sympathy. The argument may not be overwhelming, but it is facts with which we must deal and not theories. The Biafrans hold this view and, therefore, will not agree to this proposal. They would like to turn the clock back to the situation before June.
  Now there is a compromise proposal, which seems to be acceptable to Biafra and which could possibly, with modifications, be acceptable to Nigeria. That is that the flights go, as before, from a neutral point outside Nigeria but during the day, to meet the Federal Government's point of view, and so that the inspection at that neutral point should be by observers both of the International Red Cross and of Nigeria. This is an idea which I commend. I hope to hear that the British Government will push this idea on Lagos, because it is a genuine compromise.
  I turn next to a possible river route for relief. The boat, the "Madonna Mercedes", given by the Americans, has been ready—I believe that it is at the moment in Lagos Harbour—to go up the river route. The rivers are in flood. If that ship went up, it would take the equivalent in one journey of what was taken in 27 nights under the old system It has been said that the only thing holding it up is that the Americans demanded a cast-iron guarantee that no one would fire on their unarmed crew. Can we hear something about this? Will the Government now press Lagos to give these guarantees?
  It is right that, in the long term, land routes must be open, but land routes will take a long time to open. They involve even more susceptibilities on the two sides. Our task in this House must be not to say that one side or the other is wrong to have susceptibilities but to ask, "Given these susceptibilities, how can we make an accommodation between them?"
  Although the possibility which is scaring us all is what might happen if there

  1649
  is no relief, nevertheless this question is not fundamental. The fundamental problem, of course, is the war, which brings us back to the little conundrum which we have heard from the right hon. Member opposite concerning arms supplies and the cessation of hostilities. Some say that there cannot be any form of embargo on arms supplies until there is a cessation of hostilities. Others put this precisely the other way around. I should like to hear again what the Government's view is, but we have to approach both problems at once if ultimately we are to succeed in either or—as I hope—in both.
  With the cessation of hostilities, both sides must say, "We will stop firing and pause on our present lines unconditionally." As soon as one side makes conditions, the other side will object. I understand that the condition which has usually been made by the Federal Government is, "We will talk about anything so long as you renounce your secession in advance." The Biafrans of course, say "No." I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) that there may not be much difference in the end between the forms of words. Many of us would like to see some ultimate confederation, in which the Biafrans get the guarantees they want and there is still some kind of economic and political link.
  Is not the present position rather odd? Colonel Ojukwu may, in his own mind, be prepared to conceive of confederation in the end, but says that he cannot admit this straight away, and the other side is also prepared to accept confederation in the end but says, "You must first renounce secession." I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government have used all their power to try to get people to stop talking like this, to persuade them that it is futile and that, instead, they should sit down to talk without conditions.
  We must consider the question of arms supplies. When I hear that the Biafrans, with whom I have sympathies in other respects, have gone to Moscow to seek arms, I am a little frightened. I believe that the Russians are a little cynical. I can see them changing their policy tomorrow if they thought that they would get something out of it. I say this as a warning, because once one starts supplying arms to people so that they can fight each other, perhaps on behalf of out
  1650
  side forces, one is playing a dangerous game.
  I do not doubt that the Governments of France, the Soviet Union and many other countries have been interested in oil in Biafra and Nigeria. However, I fear that the same oil has exercised an influence over our policy, too; and, in our position, we are not able to throw the first stone.
  I come to the real objection that I and some hon. Members have towards British policy in this matter. Britain has taken sides in this dispute. This was denied at the beginning, when it was said that we were supplying arms as an act of neutrality. The legitimate follow-through now is that we are in a position from which it is claimed that if we were to stop supplying arms to one side it would be an act of partisanship. There must be something wrong with this logic, and I suspect that we have got ourselves in this position because Her Majesty's Government were ill-advised in the first place.
  We now admit that we have taken sides. Should we have done so? There are two concepts to be considered in answering this question. The first concerns the unity of a large multi-racial country—which is what Nigeria was; it was peaceful and stable—and the second is the right of five million or 10 million people to say, "We wish a home and State of our own in which we can rule ourselves and conduct our own affairs." The phrase "self-determination" is a powerful and emotive one, and one must consider whether, between these two concepts, one can say, "Unity is better. Away with self-determination" or alternatively "self-determination for all and unity nowhere". I regret that Her Majesty's Government have tied themselves to the concept of unity in Nigeria without considering the fact that the price may be too high and may involve trampling on these other rights.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: Would my hon. Friend agree that, apart from Nigeria, the whole issue has serious consequences for the rest of Africa?
  Mr. Henig: I agree with my hon. Friend. However, one must consider the difference between the Biafrans, whose population numbers several millions, in a large country wanting to rule themselves,

  1651
  and some of the smaller already independent countries—for example, in French West Africa—the populations of which are not one-quarter the size of a potential Iboland. My objection to the policy of Her Majesty's Government is that facts of this kind have not been fully taken into account.
  All along the Biafrans have used a conundrum which I cannot answer. They have asked, "What does a father do when his two children have a fight? Does he take the side of one against the other, or stop the fight?" Perhaps we should be thinking more deeply about answering powerful questions like that.
  Mr. Richard: Is my hon. Friend arguing that we should intervene to stop the fight?
  Mr. Henig: If my hon. Friend will allow me to develop my argument he will see just what I am arguing. Basically, it is that, faced with two peoples with whom we have had the closest links in the past and whom we helped to achieve independence, I do not think that our job is to take sides. Our task today is to do everything in our power to end the conflict; that is, to stop the means with which they can fight each other. We must use all the considerable influence which up to two years ago we had with both sides to try to bring the conflict to an end.
  I come to the events of last weekend. I recognise that Her Majesty's Government were worried when they found that their ally, the Nigerian Government—I do not think that there is any doubt about that Government being our ally in this context—were in bad odour with the international relief agencies and, therefore, with the consciences of the world.
  The Foreign Ministers were right to try to convene a meeting between representatives of Lagos and Geneva—I use the latter generally—in an effort to hammer out an agreement. Unfortunately, the technical expertise of our Foreign Office went astray on Sunday night because, having got the two parties on talking terms, we let forth a hallelujah and eureka about an agreement having been reached when nothing had been agreed. All that happened was that the International Red Cross agreed to fly in relief in one particular way if it was acceptable to both sides—which, up to then, it had not been.
  1652
  We made a mistake. I have heard from people coming to this country from Geneva that this claim from us gravely embarrassed the Red Cross. This was, first, because in Biafra it seemed as though the Red Cross was tied to Lagos—therefore making it more difficult for an agreement to be reached—and second, because if the Red Cross protested at our revelation then it would again jeopardise relations with Nigeria.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My hon. Friend used the word "eureka" in relation to the Foreign Secretary's statement. Would he agree that it was exactly the same statement as was made in the House today and that it contained all the qualifications about the agreement that were made today? Would he further agree that some of my hon. Friends were angered because a statement was not made last Thursday, before there was even anything to report? Since something had to be reported about the negotiations that had been going on over the weekend, my right hon. Friend was right to present hon. Members with a report.
  Mr. Henig: I do not follow my hon. Friend's argument. Frequently Ministers say, when delicate negotiations are going on, "Nothing can be said at this stage." Hon. Members may object, but that is often the tenor of statements which are made at this sort of time. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would have been better advised to have made that type of statement on this occasion.
  The damage has been done, and it is important to consider the fundamental point which I raised at the outset of my remarks. What worries so many of us is the fact that in this conflict there is right and wrong on both sides. The hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton said that it was wrong to refer to either as a "gang", but we must not forget that both are military dictatorships.
  I do not know, if one looks at depth into both sides, how legitimacy can be ascribed to either. Colonel Ojukwu came to power by military means. Colonel Gowon came to power as the result of the assassination, by different forces, of two previous leaders. There is, therefore, no legitimacy in either case. Neither is representative of the people. There is no talk of democracy or Government by consent in either case—

  1653
  [Interruption.]—and I am not aware of any elections having been held in the last two or three years.
  Indeed it would appear that one factor in the background to this quarrel is the way in which the last set of elections before that were conducted. However, I do not want to discuss the past. Suffice it to say that in this democratic country we would recognise neither Ojukwu nor Gowon as the leaders of administrations who rule by consent. We would not in Britain consider their Governments as embodying democracy in any shape or form. This being so, the important question to consider is whether it is our duty and right to side with either party.
  I wish to move towards a conclusion. Yesterday I sent a memorandum to the Foreign Secretary asking him to make three specific points. They do not meet all our objections. I am not asking him to stop supplying arms, principally because I would probably be wasting my breath if I did so. However, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider these three points carefully.
  First, as Her Majesty's Government have received high-level delegations from the Federal Government, why not, if Ojukwu is considered the obstacle, invite a high-powered delegation from Biafra to come to London so that we may have talks about possible ways of ending the war? Second, given that the United States is pressing as hard as it can for the river route, will Her Majesty's Government back up the Americans and urge Lagos to agree to the river route being used? Third, will Her Majesty's Government urge daylight relief flights to be established directly into Biafra, with inspection at a neutral point?
  I urge my right hon. Friend to accept these three points, which I am expressing in extremely simple terms. I hope that he will answer "Yes" to all three and not dissolve the answers into general statements so that nobody knows precisely what is the Government's view.
  Outside Britain an unfortunate picture has grown up of us. It is that while a civil war is going on, we are anxiously supplying arms to one side and that those arms are being used to crush a people who have asked for their freedom.
  1654
  It is further suggested, I think a little unfairly, that we are interested only in economic factors, influence factors and oil factors; that for these reasons we have given tremendous diplomatic support to this one military Government. This picture which seems to be held fairly generally throughout Europe, has an element of truth in it. I recognise the sincerity of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but people outside the country, who do not know them as I do, may cast doubts on our real motives. I finish on this note.
  Britain has supplied arms to the Federal Government, it is claimed, in order to gain influence. I wonder whether this policy has succeeded. If it has, we should have some influence. In that case, the time has come to use that influence in Lagos to get a more constructive and reasonable attitude and, at the same time, by doing so, to make it clear that our aim is to bring about peace and agreement, and not the victory of one side.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Many of those who have spoken in this debate feel great sympathy for the tragic results of the war, but sympathy without action is just crocodile tears. Unless we are prepared to do something positive in all honesty, and here I speak of Her Majesty's Government, to talk about sympathy is to use empty phrases.
  I cannot claim to have been to either Nigeria or Biafra. I wish that I could. To that extent, I am in the same position as all other fair-minded people in the country who are shocked and appalled by what is going on in the civil war; by the endless cruelties; by pictures of starvation such as we have not seen since the last war; by the sheer enormity of this great human tragedy in Africa.
  It is a picture of death by starvation; of death by malnutrition; innocent children dying as a result of war. It may be that the picture has been overpainted and that the propaganda has been too strong, but I saw a French-made film on television and I should seriously like to know whether anyone disputes that that film was an objective account of what is going on in Biafra and whether the people who spoke in it were not honest people giving their views. The picture is one of

  1655
  death by starvation; of death by bullets made in this country. That is why this is a moral question for the House. The death of those children and those people is somehow a death in which we have an involvement.
  Why should the British, such fair-minded people, wish to impose this type of tragedy on Africa, and to what purpose? I submit that the purpose, although we may not accept it, is to break the will of 12 million people and force them to accede to a Government they do not want. I submit that that is the policy which the Government, by supplying arms, have been supporting. It is as though they were deaf to the term "self-determination"; as if they were unable to grasp that a nation prepared to die from bullets and starvation may really care about its destiny, and may therefore be prepared to die to the last man in an attempt to retain something which it holds so dear—
  Mr. Nigel Fisher: My hon. Friend talks of "self-determination". Has he thought of the position of the minority tribes in so-called "Biafra" who do not wish to be dominated by the Ibos, and who are five million as opposed to seven million Ibos in that area?
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I was not aware that they were at present in a state of uprising against the Government of Biafra, but perhaps my hon. Friend knows better than I do. But had not the 12 million people of Biafra—because I believe that we should use that word, and cease to talk of rebels—some right to want to create their own country? It is so easy to fall in with the idea that Nigeria was one big happy country until Colonel Olukwu came along and split away a valuable part of it. The fact is that Nigeria has never been an easy alliance. Since 1914, when it gained some sort of national semblance under our flag, the North has long wanted to dominate most of the rest of the country. I believe that the events that occurred soon after independence, after the murders of Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and General Ironsi, gave the Easterner the right to believe that perhaps his position was threatened. He had experience of this after the events of 1966, when a large number of Easterners were massacred and many others forced as refugees to leave the North and go back to the East.
  1656
  It is important to appreciate that, because it is only by understanding that position that one can realise why Biafra now exists. It is as a result of the clash between South and North; the difference between ethnic groups and religions; and the fears of the Easterners towards the North which they believed would become a reality with the advent of General Gowon, who is a Northerner, and who flew a Northern flag to express his Northern feeling—
  Mr. Tilney: My hon. Friend says that this is a clash between the East and the North. How does he explain the fact that the Yorubas and all the minorities of the South are in Federal Nigeria?
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: The belief is that everyone was living happily, and that the awful Colonel Ojukwu stands as the man breaking up an otherwise happy country. The fact is that at this moment there are stresses in Federal Nigeria, and those stresses may well come to the fore if this civil war continues.
  To be fair, one cannot altogether blame General Gowon's attempt to hold Nigeria together. We should not condemn his Government for that thought, for our own Governments have on many occasions in the past tried to hold on to those who wished to break away. One can think of a notable example in North America. But the fact is that General Gowon could not hold on to the Eastern Region, because the Easterners chose to break away, and wanted to embrace their nationhood. They feared that if they did not, massacre might well be their lot—and certainly domination by the North.
  It is at this moment of time, with the creation of Biafra, that we must be fair to our own Government. They were then perhaps, led to believe that those who had created Biafra were just a small group of power hungry men who did not command the support of the 12 million people living in that area. That was, perhaps, a reasonable assumption, but one would have expected that if that were the case the revolt would quickly be put down and Nigeria return to its unity. But the war has been going on for nearly three years—
  Mr. Cordle: No—two.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: It has been going on for nearly three years—
  Mr. Cordle: Two: it started in 1967.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions and interventions prolong speeches. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) was heard quietly.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: In that period, nearly two million people have died. It is the bloodiest conflict that the continent of Africa has ever known. The cost in lives and property is vast. It is a conflict in which we as a nation are involved. The supply of arms to Nigeria means that blood is on our hands. What are we trying to achieve by the supply of arms? It must be accepted that we are now trying to help the Federal Government put down the secession of 12 million people who wish to live in a State of their own. We are trying to compel a policy on a people unwilling to accept it.
  The argument is always advanced that this policy of fighting the Biafrans to the death is to prevent the fragmentation of Africa into tribal bounds. But who are we to tell the Africans how they should live? When we are talking about the devolution of government in the United Kingdom who are we to tell them that they should live in this way or that, and to supply arms to make sure that they do so? It is their lives and destinies which are at stake. It is their right to choose how they shall live. We have no right to compel them into an association. Therefore I beg that we shall stop supplying arms as much as anything because we as a nation must find a new way to bring influence to bear on both sides.
  I remember that during the Suez conflict people talked about world opinion. What are we doing in this country to bring world opinion to bear upon this conflict and to make Federal Nigeria realise that an action started two years or three years ago is now seen as something very dangerous and very terrible which requires a change of policy? We are told that if we stopped supplying arms the Russians or someone else would do so; so it does not really matter. If it matters so little, let us stop supplying arms, because we obviously have nothing to lose.
  If we stopped the supply of arms immediately, a new Commonwealth inititive could take place. We should be able to bring a moral presence to bear such
  1658
  as we cannot do at the moment. Immediately we should make Federal Nigeria realise that her policy was not supported by surely her oldest and most loyal ally. That, in turn, could perhaps bring a situation of cease fire and a roundtable conference. It is a tragedy that no Minister, however junior, has been able or has seen fit to go to Biafra. It is a tragedy that we have been talking about rebels rather than Biafrans. This seems to be an effort to evade the issue and not to understand the reality of this great tragedy.
  I want to say a last word about relief. When I listened to the Foreign Secretary's statement on Monday I hoped that, whatever was thought about the flights, the Biafrans would accept them. Yet there was one question which the right hon. Gentleman did not answer and which I hope will be answered at the end of the debate. Who decides how many flights there will be? That seems fairly crucial. Unless we know that enough flights are to go on to help those people who are starving at this moment it becomes another empty gesture, another piece of propaganda in a propaganda-riddled war. But to return to the main part of what I have been saying, now surely is the time for the British Government to take a new initiative and so bring together these two peoples both of whom are our friends and want to be our friends. We can do that only by stopping the supply of arms, and I fervently hope that the British Government will do so.
  7.24 p.m.
  Mr. James Johnson: I hope to exercise self-discipline and to make a short speech. Much of the speech by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) I enjoyed, but I hope he will not mind my saying that when he referred to 12 million Biafrans fighting to the death he was not correct. There are only 9 million Ibos east of the Niger. There are more than 4 million under Federal supervision and administration, at school, eating, sleeping and working. It is an exaggeration which the hon. Member and others make when they refer to 12 million on one side. As well as the Ibos in the East there are 5 million in other minorities. They have two States and two capitals, Calabar and Port Harcourt, with public servants and

  1659
  their own soldiers. Whether we say that people will fight to keep these new States because they have economic interests or not, this is a fact of life.
  What worries me is that so many make the assumption that Africa is as they would wish it to be. That is merely wishful thinking. There are cold hard facts about the situation which none of us can wish away whichever side we may think we should support.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: That number of 12 million was given to me only yesterday by sources which I thought were authentic.
  Mr. Johnson: I do not believe it, having been to the East of Nigeria not long ago.
  The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) made an admirable speech and set the tone for this debate totally unlike the demagogic efforts of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), who I thought heightened and inflamed the temperature. I shall simply comment on that kind of speech. Nigeria is now a sovereign independent State, yet we here in this chamber are discussing its internal affairs as though we were back in the fifties when it had still colonial status. We behave like neocolonialists talking in this paternalistic fashion about adult peoples who—this is very sad—are fighting a battle in which millions are engaged and possibly millions are dying. We are laying down the law to those people overseas.
  I think the B.B.C. has behaved in a criminal fashion when it has reported in "Twenty-Four Hours" and on other programmes the scene in Nigeria. The B.B.C. has been completely and blatantly lopsided in its reporting. I wish it would attempt to portray nearly 60 million people in that vast State building up peacefully their economy. The B.B.C. do not mention the Kainji Dam built at a cost of £60 million, which will supply electricity to vast areas of the country and to the adjoining territories of Dahomey and Niger. The fighting takes place in only 1·1per cent. of the whole territory. In nearly 99 per cent. of the country the people are living and working peacefully. I wish we could get this into perspective. This is what is actually
  1660
  happening to people under the Lagos Government. I assure hon. Members, and I hope that those who have been there recently will confirm, that this is a nation where in 99 per cent. of the land, people are living a normal life and well over 50 million are working as we expect to work and live in these islands. The B.B.C. and many others who should know better should attempt to get this whole society into perspective.
  Nigerians believe that we would never have discussed these events as such if Nigeria were not an African society or a black society. We would never debate like this if it were a civil war in a European community. The Africans do not like this and deeply resent this.
  Mr. John Mendelson: My hon. Friend should not stick to this point. If the British Government were supplying arms to either side in a European civil war, would not the House discuss it in exactly the same way as it is discussing this matter?
  Mr. Johnson: I will come to the question of arms as my second point. I was saying that the way in which we discuss the leaders, their behaviour, their actions, and the whole course of events inside this territory is a paternalistic, neocolonialist attitude. I wish we could stick to discussing the supply of arms as such, and not wander off making comments about how people act in this territory, how they are attempting to run their economy and live as an independent sovereign State. That is their business.
  I hope that I shall carry a greater number of hon. Members with me in my second point, save perhaps the Monday Club members on the benches opposite. I am very impressed by both sides in this war—by the federal forces and by the Ibo—when one examines their logistics and the way in which they have efficiently organised their forces. The federal army, which was once about 8,000–10,000 strong, has risen to 130,000, with all that that has entailed in work and organisation. The Ibos have shown a fantastic capacity for improvisation in the way in which they have fought and organised to safeguard what they genuinely believe to be their cause.
  This bodes ill for a certain gentleman called Smith south of the Zambesi. If this is what the Nigerian peoples can do

  1661
  in this conflict, what will be their efficiency when it should come to a confrontation of the African States with Smith. We shall see then how he has led his people into this cul de sac, which many of us destest in his apartheid society. I believe history will confirm what a heavy responsibility lies on the shoulders of people like Smith for taking the racialist course they have taken.
  Finally, I want to look at the immediate situation. We have heard talk about the war going on for 12 months, for two years, or for longer. I believe that the two sides are deadlocked. I believe that the war could continue for a long time unless we get them together in negotiation. While it continues, thousands are dying of starvation each week. Many people believe that the Ibo guerilla bands could fight on in the bush for some years. I, too, believe this. It is quite possible. There would be numerous pockets of Ibo fighting in the dense bush. I have met no one, African or European, who believes that the Ibo leaders or the Ibo elite—call them what you will—can succeed in their original objective of holding Biafra, this old Eastern Region east of the Niger. This is quite impossible, now that the minorities are soundly established in Calabar and Port Harcourt, as I said earlier in commenting on the speech the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East.
  In view of the continuing sufferings of the Ibo peoples, we must come to some relief agreement. This is why I believe in daylight flights: and I earnestly ask my hon. Friends who espouse the cause of the secessionists to be kind enough to appeal to Colonel Ojukwu and his allies, to take up this matter of daylight flights and stick fast to it. I am not happy when I hear some of my colleagues continually putting the blame on to the Federal Government and obviously, by a little spin-off, on to British Ministers.
  I believe that it is possible to have international flights out of Cotonou strictly supervised by international observers. I would like to see this possibility explored. My colleagues know where I stand on this Nigerian matter. Some of them have even used the word "committed" to describe my attitude. I accept that I take a particular line, but our job together is to get the fighting stopped at the earliest possible moment.
  1662
  We must appeal to both sides—to Colonel Ojukwu and to General Gowon. Let some on this side not always chide and deride the Lagos Government. Let us appeal to both sides in the dispute.
  I believe that the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary are honourable men. I do not like the manner in which they have been attacked by some of these benches for the way in which they have answered Questions, including the statement my right hon. Friend made last Monday and his opening speech today. I have sat listening to them. I believe that what the Foreign Secretary said on Monday was absolutely consistent with what he said today. There is no one in whom I would put greater faith or trust than my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in view of his past educational work in Africa, and also in view of his faith. So I am prepared to support my Ministers tonight, because I know them and I believe that what they say is genuine and sincere.
  7.36 p.m.
  Mr. John Tilney: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson). I agree almost entirely with what he said. I said "almost". I think that he was right to refer to the slightly odd position whereby we are discussing the affairs of a country that has been independent for nine years. After a civil war or rebellion has gone on for two years it begins to become, if it has not already become, a world problem on which the House has a right to form an opinion, as indeed similar civil wars have always been commented upon in the House, be it the Spanish Civil War or the awful things that happened in the Balkans under Turkish rule or in the Middle East at that time.
  I do not think that I am being particularly wise after the event, and I have no wish to regret what I happened to write as long ago as 16th August, 1967, to the Daily Telegraph. I will quote two short extracts from my letter. This was written at a time when some of us feared the horror that had not yet happened, but which was possibly going to happen. I wrote:
  "All Nigerians and vast British interests will suffer from a break-up of Nigerian unity…

  1663
  Let us either endeavour to get the Commonwealth to send troops to keep the peace while arbitration is enforced among the warring states or remain out of internal squabbles.
  In the meantime we should try to get all nations to embargo the sale of arms to the whole area and the British Government should offer our good offices to mediate if asked to do so."
  Unfortunately that advice was not taken.
  I believe that there were two courses open to the British Government at that time. They could have taken an initiative there and then to embargo arms and also to bring the main countries of the world together to try to stop the conflict. Or they could have given whole-hearted support to the federal cause. They decided to give half-hearted support; and so the war has dragged on. I fear—I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West—that it may continue for a long time. I say so for three reasons. I have cause to believe that these reasons are right, having seen something of the country a few weeks ago. First, terrain in which four steps taken from a road carry one into the forest helps defence. It is ideal for ambush and ideal, too, for the banditry which may come if all the roads and towns are ultimately held by the federals, as may well happen in the fairly near future. The war may still go on in the vast spaces of bush which cover the whole area on either side of the Niger.
  The second reason, a false reason, is the fear of genocide. There may have been local genocide in Kano or in Zaria or in Jos in 1966. I am certain that there is no wish for genocide anywhere in Nigeria today. But the rebels, the Ibos, believe that there will be genocide, and so they go on fighting, despite the fact that many of them have come back, as I saw in Kano, Kaduna, Benin, and in Lagos; many thousands of them. Despite all the efforts in rehabilitation and the records which are being maintained in an effort to keep their houses for them, they are the victims of their own propaganda. I believe that they will, therefore, go on fighting.
  The third reason why I fear a long war is the complete disregard, as far as I can see, of all the canons of war among the various divisions, the lack of urgency of war preparation, a "business as usual" attitude to be found everywhere, the lack of decision in high places
  1664
  and the general incompetence which one meets throughout a land in which the war is still a long way off. As has been said, it applies to less than 2 per cent. of the area of the whole country.
  I believe that if we embargoed arms the war would go on. Even if all countries embargoed arms it might still go on, such is the fear and hatred. But we must try to achieve a situation wherein the Ibos can be offered a land in some form of reunited Nigeria, in which they will no longer fear for their lives. It is not in their interest to go on fighting. It may be in the interest of the rebel leaders, of a small clique. It may be in the interest of some foreign governments who want to weaken what may be the most powerful black State of Africa. It may be in the interests of some Governments who want to weaken the link of Nigeria with the Western world, or who want to break up Africa even more than it is today. But I believe that the bulk of the people, rather as did the peasants during our Wars of the Roses, merely want to go back, to till their land and get on with the job of raising their families, educating them, and trading.
  One must remember that it was the Ibos who made a push to reach Lagos, who wanted to create their imperial State even west of the Niger, and who nearly succeeded but for their defeat at the battle of Ore. But I do not want to talk about the past. Recriminations do not help. We must look at the present and consider what ought to be done to create a decent future.
  What is the situation now? Starvation threatens a large number of people in Iboland. Casualties affect a large number of Federal troops, as I saw in many hospitals from Kano down to Lagos. It must be to the interest of the Federals to stop the war, for they will be the richest and most powerful black African State, with, in due course, the highest standard of living north of South Africa. It should, therefore, be the object of both sides to reach a cease-fire as soon as possible.
  But a cease-fire will be feared by the Federals because they will say that the rebels will use the period of cease-fire to build up their arms, only to rebel again. The rebels will fear it because, once they lay down their arms, they will

  1665
  think that that they may be massacred at any time, because they are the victims of their own propaganda.
  The only solution, therefore, is some form of international force. It should be present only in Iboland and, ultimately, in the whole of the East Central State, and it must be there indefinitely. it is no good saying that such a force can go there for a year or so. The Ibos will ask, "What happens when the force is taken away?". I am reminded that the soldiers of Napoleon III occupied Rome for a number of years until the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war. Admittedly, this would involve some diminution of the sovereignty of the Federal State, but I believe that the Federal Government must agree to it. Equally, the rebels must agree to some association as an equal State in whatever one calls the unity of Nigeria. After all, a canton in Switzerland has its own laws. So, too, will the States of the Association of Nigeria have their own laws. But they will not be allowed to have a seat in the United Nations, and I suspect that it is this which Ojukwu wants.
  I should like the force to be a Commonwealth force, not just a black African force. I believe that such a force would probably be more efficient, and it is efficiency and speed which is wanted today.
  My plea, therefore, is that Her Majesty's Government should approach the United States and European Governments to make an attempt, at least—let it be seen that an attempt is made—to secure a modification of the apparently irreconcilable policies of both contestants. Only a little need be given by both for a cease-fire to be arrived at. Then, if we can only bring the maximum pressure internationally on both sides, we shall be able, I believe, to achieve the peace which everyone wants to see. This country and Europe suffered, and still suffer, from the cry of "Unconditional surrender" in the last war. Let this surrender not be unconditional.
  A first step towards that object would be an air daylight route, a land route and a river route, by which alone could the bulk of food come in. All of it could well be policed by a Commonwealth force such as I hope to see. The cargoes could be inspected by the Federals inside or outside Nigeria. Both are pos-
  1666
  sible. The sooner such a force is made ready the better, because when it is wanted it will be wanted quickly. Let us get on with the job.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Mahon: I have been a member of the Labour Party for the past 46 years and a public representative of that party for the past 36 of those years. There is now no danger of my ever changing political allegiance. But loyal allegiance must never be blind. It is incumbent upon me, therefore, to express the truth as I see it, and as I consider the majority of my constituents see it. Thank God, the majority of the peoples of the world—those with no axe to grind—are beginning to see this soul-searing and tragic holocaust in Nigeria for what it is, unfolding almost before their very eyes.
  In the past, most of us have had reason, justified or otherwise, to complain about the Press and television. But on occasion we are in their debt. There are times when it is absolutely necessary to shatter the smug complacency of Englishmen.
  For good or evil, when the Government made their decision it must have been on the facts then known. The goal was Nigerian unity at all costs. Were those costs really known? The struggle for and in Biafra is the power game gone mad. It is the modern version of the massacre of the innocents, with women and children first. That is how it is seen on British television and by the Press—a shameful, sacrificial serial story, to be continued in our next and in our next.
  What did my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary envisage when he took the stand that he did? Did he envisage anything at all? I pose the question deliberately. Could any—and the emphasis is on the word "any"—other policy have brought worse results? Had there been an alternative policy, how many women and children would have been forced to pay the price? More or fewer?
  My right hon. Friends who formulated the policy now know—if they do not, they should—that they cannot prevail against the will of the people, that there will be a day of reckoning and that they will be called upon, in the face of the death by starvation of more than a million human beings thus far, to render account of their stewardship. It may be that

  1667
  they are ready to render that account. I shall follow my conscience into the Lobby against them to-night.
  Plausible argument has been advanced that it is the Biafran Government who are indifferent to the starvation of their own people. Just how naive are Members of Parliament supposed to become? I do not believe that this is so. It is now apparent that the truth can no longer be withheld, and that the Federal army regards mass starvation as a legitimate means of waging war.
  I do not support the sending of arms. I do not support the Nigerian will to conquer by starvation. On this issue I will never support the British Government. Nigeria's policy of preventing night flights of food into Biafra is an act of war, reprehensible enough when country is locked in combat with country, when forces of whole continents are arrayned against each other. But in a civil war of a tribal nature to wage war on this scale points to the cardinal sins of presumption and despair—presumption that such a war is necessary, despair that it is not possible to encourage the people of Nigeria into believing that their differences are not irreconcilable.
  Left to the people of Nigeria, to the tribes in that benighted country, unable to reconcile their quarrels, to calm their fears, hatred and distrust of each other, even such a war as this, based on such wide division and seemingly irreconcilable factors, would not be of world-staggering proportions. Fifty years ago the world would have heard nothing about it. But where there is filthy lucre, mineral wealth and oil, the participation of the great Powers, and the innumerable and complex spheres of influence, there exists a very unenviable position for a splendid country, which our own dear country is, and with the good, genuine outlook which our own dear country has. With all those attributes to commend it, our country is in a very unenviable position. But here we are once again walking on sinking sands. We must extricate ourselves very qiuckly and effectively or stand condemned in the eyes of the world.
  Unfortunately, time is not on our side. The problem could escalate into world-shattering dimensions, with our own beloved country standing condemned in the
  1668
  eyes of people everywhere. Of necessity, and in the interests of our good name as well as that of our fellow human beings, we must retrace our steps.
  I honestly believe that the Government know precisely how this can be done. Unfortunately, the will to do it seems to be lacking, and procrastination is the thief of time. Ernest Bevin would not have waited; this is something that he would not have had on his conscience. People would not be starving. There would be a Biafran airlift as there was a Berlin airlift.
  Nigeria's policy of preventing the night flights of food into Biafra is an act of war. Let us face the facts resolutely. Nigeria believes that by this policy it can bring its long war to an end. It believes, for otherwise it would not be carrying on as it is, that Biafra can be conquered by mass starvation, and it may be right. Biafra is vulnerable; but are the British Government prepared to cheer that kind of victory, or to stand in the shadows while that horrible kind of victory is eked out against hundreds of thousands of innocent, impoverished and starving people, hundreds of miles from the battle front?
  Is this our conception of nobility? Is this our conception of greatness? Is this our conception of humanitarianism? The pioneers of our movement must be turning in their graves. The Government have already given us the answer. We are prepared to stand in the shadows. We stood in the shadows when the first million people starved to death. Are we to continue leaning on our half-baked self-righteousness while seven million, eight million, nine million people—there are differences of opinion about the numbers—could die of starvation?
  The British Government cannot claim that all they have done is stand in the shadows. The plain unvarnished truth—and this is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife. West (Mr. William Hamilton), who is not in his place—is that these are the reasons why we cannot go into the Lobby with our colleagues of the Government tonight. They are not the facetious reasons which he expressed as being why we are unable to line up with our friends.
  The truth is that all along Britain has actively assisted the Federal war effort. The British Government are still giving arms to Lagos. It is the intention of the

  1669
  British Government to go on giving arms to Lagos. It is my intention on this issue to go on opposing the Government. If the growing weight of public opinion is any criterion, the Government will be in for a very rough time. The trade union movement in this country is the best agency for putting the Government right, and I hope and fervently pray that it will grasp the nettle soon.
  I do not believe that the Biafra conflict is in any way or in any part a British war, and yet we continue to warmonger. Like Russia, we are not content to stand in the shadows, for we intend to go on warmongering from the shadows. We are placing ourselves inextricably in the wrong.
  I recognise in all fairness that the Government put themselves into this dilemma innocently. We were no more than the traditional suppliers of arms to Nigeria, and yet the argument goes on that if we withdraw our arms we are recognising Biafra. To me it just does not add up. It does not make sense. That sort of argument cannot by the widest stretch of imagination be used to justify or counterbalance the inhumanity of organised starvation.
  Our country has come a long way. It has been served in peace and war by its own devoted people. We are age-old in our traditions and diplomacy. My appeal to the Government is to honour those traditions. Let us eschew war and starvation wherever these evils abound. Let us pursue the path of peace throughout the universe—that peace which surpasseth understanding; that peace without which the world cannot live; that peace without which social and material progress is futile and unavailing; that peace for which we yearn; that peace which is the presage of eternal joy.
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon), who speaks with such great sincerity. I am only sorry that today it has to be on so tragic an issue. Most hon. Members who have spoken have had personal experience and knowledge of Nigeria. Although I have been in many parts of Africa, I have not been there, and to that extent I suppose my remarks should be discounted.
  1670
  In disagreeing with the Government's policy, in no way do I want to cast any reflection on the integrity, sincerity or wisdom of those who have spoken from the Front Benches or elsewhere in the House. But what perplexes me is precisely where our policy is leading us, what we are trying to do and what will be the result. I feel that our policy is misguided, is leading us nowhere, is not contributing in any way to the production of peace and that the declared objectives we have set out are not being achieved.
  It is suggested that we must have the policy of supplying arms to the Federal Government in order to prevent Russian involvement. It seems crystal clear, however, that Russian influence in Nigeria is increasing and has been for some time. It has also been suggested that by giving arms to the Federal Government we are maintaining influence with them and are able to persuade them to do things which they might otherwise not do. Unfortunately, certainly in the case of relief supplies and other matters, it seems clear that our influence appears at least negligible when judged by results.
  It has also been suggested that it is our policy to preserve the integrity of Nigeria as a Federal State. I do not think that it is a sound foundation for any policy of a British Government that we should seek to preserve in Africa, now or at any time, borders of administrative convenience for British colonial rule.
  Nor can we deny that we are involved as a nation. It was not so long ago that we were discussing sad affairs in South Arabia, where we had great difficulty although our own troops were there. One thing which interested many hon. Members was that Saladin and Saracen trucks were not permitted to be used by our troops because they would have inflicted substantial civilian casualties. As a result, some of our troops were shot. On the other hand, I understand that we are supplying Saladins and Saracens to Nigeria which have been used in the war and must be inflicting casualties.
  I have not the knowledge or experience to say who is right or who is wrong in the Nigerian conflict, but I do see that our policy, which was designed to bring an end to the rebellion and preserve the state of Nigeria, has failed. The war is in its third year, and all the arguments for a quick kill, which were put forward

  1671
  with a great deal of authority and what appeared to be knowledge, have proved wrong. The war goes on and seems to be becoming even more violent. People, both the innocent and the involved, are suffering starvation and death, and this should concern us a great deal.
  If there were any indication that our policy was in any way bringing the war to a speedy conclusion, or was reducing the hatred which appears to exist between the peoples involved, there might be a justification for it. It does not seem to be having this result.
  It has been suggested inside and outside the House that the Biafrans are simply a group of rebels led by a warlord and that they have nothing to fight for apart from their own self-seeking. Why is it that this little State of Biafra, if it can be called a State, is continuing to fight even after its people have been bombed and are starving and even though they have been thrown out of their homes and towns and villages? Precisely what are they supposed to be fighting for? As an outside observer, it seems to me that they are fighting for something, and that should be recognised as a basic part of our policy.
  The lack of success of the federal forces in putting down what is supposed to be a little rebellion must be due to one of two reasons—either that the war is being conducted in an extremely incompetent way, or that the Biafrans have something to fight for. From all the reports of the bombings of market places and hospitals and of towns changing hands—one which was taken over by the federal forces is back in Biafran hands—it seems that the Biafrans have something to fight for, something in which they believe. If ever one State succeeded in producing a case for its independence or self-determination, Biafra has done so with the blood of its people.
  Even if hon. Members disagree with me, the Secretary of State must ask himself how long he is prepared to accept this situation. I sincerely appreciated his comments, and I accept that he is genuinely concerned and believes what he says. However, those with knowledge of the area, like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), who spoke tonight from his detailed knowledge of the situation, believe that the war will go on for years.
  1672
  If it does, thousands of people will be faced with starvation, the bombings will continue, and thousands or millions will suffer greatly.
  This is not a sound foundation for any policy. Surely we cannot proceed with a policy which will result in the war continuing for years, if there are valid alternatives, and I believe that there are.
  I understand why the Government appear to have taken the side of the federal forces in this conflict. The reason is clearly that, after being faced with the collapse of all the African independent States which were formerly British colonial possessions, after the disappearance of all the constitutions which were set up, when "one man, one vote", turned into "one man, one vote, one party", or, "one man, one vote, once", when all our hopes and aspirations for setting up a kind of Western democratic community in Africa have disappeared one by one, Nigeria appeared to be the one white hope for all our policies as the country which preserved democracy and freedom and manged to keep people of different races and different tribes in harmony. Unfortunately, we saw Nigeria begin to crumble and civil war start. In such circumstances, it was understandable that the Government should adopt this policy at the beginning of the war.
  But there comes a time when that policy must be thoroughly reappraised, and that time has surely come. We now have evidence, which was not available in past wars, because of television and direct reporting which have shown precisely what is happening in Africa. Now that we have seen the war continue for more than two years, the time has come for reappraisal. The Government would be fully justified in going ahead, having gone so far, if there were any indication that the war was coming to a speedy end, or, far more important, that the feelings of hatred clearly present in Nigeria were being reduced.
  Mr. David Winnick: I am listening closely to the hon. Gentleman. I disagree with the Government on this issue and I will show it later tonight. But the hon. Gentleman puts all responsibility on the Government. It is true that the Government are responsible for carrying out the policy, but his own Front Bench totally disagrees with what the

  1673
  hon. Gentleman is saying. There is hardly any difference in attitude between the two Front Benches. Why does not the hon. Gentleman criticise his own Front Bench?
  Mr. Taylor: I was not picking out the Government and blaming them. This is not a matter of acute party politics. I was trying to attack not the Government but the policy. The hon. Gentleman will agree that I take my fair share of attacking the Government when I believe that their policies are wrong, but in this instance I disagree with the policy not because the Government embarked on it for the wrong reasons, or insincerely, or without integrity, but because I do not know precisely where it will lead. I cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel. If all we can look forward to is a war which will continue for years and in which many thousands of people will suffer greatly and when nothing constructive or positive will be achieved from it, I attack the policy.
  At this stage, we ought to reconsider our attitudes, reconsider whether we accept as the basis for our policies the retention of the integrity of the Federal State of Nigeria. What would be the result if this country at some international council unilaterally proposed a complete embargo on arms, or took the initiative itself? The present policy is leading to disaster in Nigeria, and all the evidence should lead the Government and the Opposition and all those who have so far supported the Government—and there may have been a case for the policy at the beginning—to a complete reappraisal, because the policy is not leading to a successful conclusion, and as time goes on and as more people are slaughtered, the argument for the policy will become even more untenable.
  8.18 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Richard: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has posed one or two of the issues facing the country. He is obviously the essential pragmatist. He thinks that the policy was justified when it looked as though the Nigerians were winning, and he now seems to be saying that because he does not think that they will win, a policy which may hitherto have been justified should now be jettisoned. That seems to me to lack both consistency and honour.
  1674
  Does he really think that if the British Government unilaterally withdrew support, such as it is, for the Federal Nigerian authorities, that would stop the war? Of course it would not. The Federal Government would merely continue the war without such help as they have had up to now from the British Government.
  I am glad to see that the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) is present. Her speech was one of the most interesting and most important in the debate. She asked many questions which are worthy of serious consideration and serious answer. Her experience in the way in which her attitude to the war has changed does not exactly mirror mine. It is the converse in the sense that I started by being more pro-Biafran, if I may use that phrase, than I now am, whereas she seems to have started by being much more pro-Federal Government and has now moved in the other direction. I am not attacking her but paying her a compliment. I want to try to answer some of her questions.
  If we are to try to get our policy right, we first have to ask ourselves the difficult question: "In what circumstances, if any, is it permissible for a British Government to supply arms to a country within the Commonwealth?" Or, looking at the converse question, under what circumstances should we cease to be a supplier of arms to a country in the Commonwealth? I tried to get an answer earlier from the right hon. Member the Leader of the Liberal Party to this, but all that he said was that if we had a treaty obligation we ought to sell arms. This would produce the surprising result that we would not be in a position to supply arms to Australia with whom we have no treaty, but we might find ourselves liable to supply Cyprus because we have a defence agreement with that country. That is not, I should have thought, a conclusion that many people in this House would welcome.
  I will, however, try to spell out three sets of circumstances in which Britain should cease supplying arms to a friendly, independent nation within the Commonwealth. But first, the hon. Member for Hamilton will, I am sure, agree that the right to independence carries with it the right to defend that independence, and that right must in turn carry with it the

  1675
  right to try to purchase what is thought necessary to defend it in the markets of the world.
  I begin on the basis that prima facie where we find a nation within the Commonwealth with whom we have friendly relations, then we should be prepared to supply them with such arms as we think are reasonable in all the circumstances. But there are three provisos to that. The first is that before we continue to supply arms we must be satisfied that they will not be used against another Commonwealth nation, and it is that which justifies British policy over the non-supply of arms with India and Pakistan. If there is a possiblity of this sort of dispute, then that kind of prohibition is reasonable.
  Secondly, we would have to be satisfied that the arms would not be used for purposes outside the Charter of the United Nations. As far as I know, the Nigerian war and the activities of the Federal Government in relation to that war have not been declared to be outside the Charter of the United Nations. As the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, if attempts were made to raise it in New York it is extremely unlikely that it would get on the agenda.
  The third proviso is that those arms should not be used for purposes which we in the United Kingdom would regard as being basically contrary to international law or the normal and accepted tenets of civilised behaviour between nations, even if there is a conflict going on. But having said this then, subject to those provisos, I see no reason why Britain should depart from our normal and accepted policy of supplying such arms as a friendly and independent nation within the Commonwealth might think to be necessary for its defence.
  If that is right the question we have to ask ourselves in relation to Nigeria whether there are circumstances, and if so what they are, inherent in the present situation in Nigeria which takes it outside our generally accepted principle of arms supply to friendly nations? Is there anything in what is happening in Nigeria to bring it within one of my three categories and thereby force a change in the British attitude? It has been suggested that there are two matters, both of which have been canvassed perhaps somewhat spasmodically in the debate,
  1676
  which put the Nigerian civil war in an exceptional category.
  The first is that there are allegations of genocide, either being committed, or if that allegation is shown to be unfounded, then being planned by the Federal authorities against the Biafran rebels. The second allegation, perhaps to a certain extent complementary to the first, is that the Federal Government is being wholly unreasonable, for the most malicious reasons, in its attitude to the relief operations. We should examine both propositions very carefully.
  Let us take the first—genocide. If this be genocide it is the most peculiar genocide in the history of that crime. The fact is, and some hon. Gentlemans on both sides do not seem to be capable of recognising it, that there are large numbers of Ibos living in Federal territory, and not just Federal territory which has been won as a result of Federal military success, but in Federal territory which has seen no part of the war, and where there has been no military activity.
  Ibos are living in Lagos. As far as I know, and all the evidence goes in this direction, not only are they living there, they are working there, carrying on their businesses there and are being treated in exactly the same way as any other Nigerian citizen. They are under no legal prohibition. There are no legal disabilities on the Ibos living in Federal territory, such as the Hitler régime in Germany passed on Jewish citizens there. None of this applies, and yet it is argued that the Federal Government are either committing or planning genocide against these people.
  Let us look at this proposition and the absurdity it contains. It cannot be argued that the Nigerian are committing genocide against the four million Ibos living in Federal territory because they are still there, visible and seen. Politicians and journalists go and see them working and living there. They are still alive, and therefore by definition genocide is not and has not been committed on those 4 million. In which case we have the astonishing and absurd proposition that in relation to the 4 million Ibos whom the Federal Government could kill they are not killing them, but in relation to the remainder whom they cannot now reach they are planning genocide.

  1677
  If this be genocide it is the most astonishing example in the history of this crime. But fortunately it now seems to be almost accepted, except by some of the more extreme proponents and apologists for Colonel Ojukwu, that genocide is not in the mind of the Federal Government.
  The second proposition is that somehow or other the Federal Government's posture on the whole relief operation in Nigeria is so extreme, irrational, and unreasonable that it ought to force a change in the British Government's attitude. I have listened carefully to all the debate so far and have tried to read the policy statements on both sides as they have affected the whole scale of relief operations. One point that has been made, which has some substance, is that it ought to be possible—my right hon. Friend said something about this in his opening statement this afternoon—to persuade the Federal Government to accept day-time flights, neutrally supervised, if with Nigerian observers attached, operating from non-Federal territory. This is an acceptable proposition which ought to be examined.
  But let us remember, however, what the converse proposition is. In my view it is reasonable further to insist that if day-time flights are acceptable night-time flights are not. From the military point of view the one thing that the Federal Government cannot reasonably be expected to continue to acquiesce in are night-time flights into Biafra. We know that arms are getting into Biafra, and we have some idea of where they are coming from and how they are getting in. A fair quantity is getting in by air at night and the trouble is that if relief planes are going in at night as well, it is impossible for a radar screen on the ground to distinguish adequately between what is a relief plane and what is one carrying arms. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen must not forget that there is a war going on, and that the Federal Government are anxious to bring it to a successful conclusion.
  It is grossly unreasonable to ask the Federal Government to acquiesce in the operation of relief flights which only take place at night, since that gives a considerable military advantage to the other side.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) made
  1678
  an impassioned speech and said how dreadful it was that Her Majesty's Government were associated with
  "… the inhumanity of organised starvation."
  Even allowing for his sincerity, any suggestion that the Government are involved in organising starvation in any part of Nigeria is grossly improper and untrue, and my hon. Friend should withdraw it. There is a war in this part of the world which has to be brought to an end.
  Mr. Peter Mahon: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the million people who have died have died from any other cause than starvation?
  Mr. Richard: I do not suggest anything of the sort. I suggest that my hon. Friend should withdraw his accusation that our Government are pursuing a policy of organising starvation, or—
  Mr. Mahon: I said that the Government were culpable, and I stand by that.
  Mr. Richard: Perhaps my reading of the facts is slightly different from my hon. Friend's.
  I began with doubts about the Government's policy on Nigeria. When the war started and we had our first few debates, on the whole I took the view that it was a conflict in which it would be wiser for Britain not to express a view or give any kind of assistance to one side or the other. As the war has gone on, my conviction has, however, grown that, since one may be forced to declare support for one side or the other, it is in the interests of Africa and the whole world that the Federal Government of Nigeria should be successful in this war if it has to be fought to a military conclusion. From the point of view of the well being of that continent, if there has to be a military solution, it is important that the Federal Government should win.
  The question which is finally raised is whether it is necessary for the war to go on to that military conclusion. I think that Her Majesty's Government have done almost all that can reasonably be expected to try and get negotiations going. Assuming that relief flights cannot get into Biafra by day and that negotiations without pre-conditions cannot start, then

  1679
  I am forced to conclude that if blame has to be apportioned and culpability to be attached it does not attach to the Federal Government of Nigeria but rather to the other side.
  8.32 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Fisher: I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), because I agree broadly with almost everything that he has said, and, if I may say so, he said it extremely well.
  The only point which worries me is that we are debating Nigeria for the fourth or fifth time in a calendar year. We have said it all before from our respective and very different points of view, so I am not sure why my right hon. Friends chose the subject for one of our few remaining Supply days. I am sure that their motives were excellent, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) certainly made his usual distinguished personal contribution.
  But I am a little worried that, by debating the matter and making the same points again and again we shall only succeed in irritating the Federal Government. After all, they are the independent sovereign Government of Nigeria, and they may feel that we are being a little paternalistic and patronising with our moralising and in giving them advice as to how they should behave in their own country. I have in mind particularly the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) and other rather emotional speeches which have been made on this subject. By having yet another House of Commons debate, we may relieve our own consciences, but I do not think that we shall influence or affect what is happening in Nigeria.
  I want first to comment on relief supplies. One reason, albeit a minor one, for the present Ibo civilian food shortage may be that, not unnaturally, the Ibo soldiers have the first pick of the relief supplies both local and international and that to that extent, therefore, the Ibo civilians have gone short. I do not find that surprising or even very reprehensible, but it is both a fact and a contributory factor.
  1680
  More important is the fact that General Gowon has agreed to a land corridor and/ or daylight flights with food and medical supplies, and he has agreed to neutral observers verifying the cargoes on Federal soil to make sure that they are not tampered with. It is Colonel Ojukwu who has so far refused this offer. If he persists in that refusal I do not think that he can escape the very grave responsibility of sacrificing the lives of his people in pursuit of his own political aims.
  In effect—and I do not think that I am over stating it—Ibo civilians are starving in Biafra, because their own leaders will not allow them to be fed. We all know precisely why Colonel Ojukwu prefers night flights—because they are a cover for arms running and because he prefers arms for his troops to food for his civilians. That is a perfectly understandable military priority.
  But to criticise the Federal Government for wishing to prevent that is naïve and unrealistic. Indeed, it must be almost without precedent for a nation at war to allow neutral observers to umpire its conduct of that war and also to allow food to be flown in to relieve human suffering on the other side, well knowing that it is also being used to sustain the troops on the other side. As the Foreign Secretary pointed out in his recent statement, European wars certainly have never been fought with such restraint, such humanity and such magnanimity. In fact General Gowon could be criticised and has no doubt been criticised for it in Nigeria, because the Federal Government are apparently as a matter of Policy, not really making an all-out military effort, which would normally include blockade. That no doubt is because General Gowon is anxious to avoid the worst features of a civil war so that the Ibos can ultimately be reabsorbed into a united Nigeria. That is a commendable and a wise attitude on General Gowon's part which is credit to his statesmanship. But it is prolonging the war.
  On the other side, the supply of arms to Colonel Ojukwu and the supply of food by the great international agencies have also contributed to prolonging the war. Of course relief supplies have saved life, but the lengthening of the war has caused the death of far more people than any relief operations could possibly have

  1681
  saved. So what has seemed humanitarian has in fact led to greater agony and greater loss of life by prolonging the struggle. I do not think that anybody can deny that that has happened.
  I turn, now, to the supply of arms. To ban arms supplies, or to try to do so, is, I believe, a totally unreal policy. To be viable it would have to be universal. For us to ban unilaterally would be ineffective and prejudicial—I do not see why one should not say this—to our commercial and investment interests in Nigeria, which are very large. As the right hon. Gentleman has told the House, Russia has actually stated that she will not stop her arms supplies no matter what we may do. That does not surprise me. Neither the United Kingdom nor the United Nations could conceivably shame Russia into any arms embargo. Russia is not shamed into anything which she thinks conflicts with her own interests. I think it rather pathetic to believe, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone apparently believes, that by our example we could influence Russia to a major change of policy which she does not consider to be in her interests. That is a very naïve point of view. Anyway, if arms are not supplied by Governments they would still be supplied by private interests. I believe that even the Swiss are supplying relief with one hand and arms with the other.
  The truth is that both sides in this war passionately believe that they are in the right, but it is not fair to assume that, just because the Ibos have suffered more acutely than the Federals, their cause is necessarily the more just. As I have said before in this House, I do not at present see any basis for a negotiated peace. The aims of each side seem to me too diametrically opposed for that. Therefore, on the assumption that Colonel Ojukwu cannot win the war and I believe that there cannot be a negotiated peace in the immediate future, the only solution is a Federal military victory. I believe that our policies are based, and should be based, on that assumption.
  Mr. Winnick: Obviously the hon. Gentleman thinks that the most humane way of waging the war is for the Federal Nigerian forces to wage it without restraint and to deprive the Ibos of food because plainly he believes that that will end the war more quickly.
  Mr. Fisher: It will save a great deal of life if the war ends quickly, and that is the basis of my argument. As I think that it can only end in a Federal victory, I should like that victory to come more quickly rather than be spread over a longer time with correspondingly greater loss of life. Even if in the end the Ibos succeeded in seceding, that would be a very bad solution because it would almost certainly lead to the total fragmentation of Nigeria, which would begin to break up into regional groupings. The future of Nigeria, particularly with the development of its great oil resources, could be so prosperous and so important for all Nigerians, including the Ibos, that it would be a tragedy if it were to break up. That is basically why the large majority of African States want to preserve the integrity of Nigeria and why I and many other hon. Members on both sides want Nigeria to remain one country.
  I should like to end on a slightly more constructive note by drawing the attention of the Foreign Secretary to Motion No. 373 on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) and several hon. Members on both sides of the House and by asking him a perfectly genuine question: Does he think that it would be practicable to suggest to both sides the possibility of acceptance by both sides of the injection of a small international force to assist in the distribution of relief supplies and as a reassurance to the Ibos that they will not be massacred, because although I do not think that there is any question of genocide, they think so, and that is the point—
  Mr. Heffer: They are right.
  Mr. Fisher: I accept that many of them believe it because of the Ibo propaganda. The hon. Gentleman thinks that they are right for a different reason. I accept that they believe this. Therefore, as a reassurance to them, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that he could make this proposal to both sides? If he thinks that this idea could be a starter, will he discuss it with the United States and other Governments to ascertain their reactions, because obviously this would be an international operation and probably we could not even form a contingent for it because we would not be acceptable to the Biafran side? On the other hand,

  1683
  if he does not think that this is a practical idea—and if he says that I am prepared to accept it because he has thought deeply about these matters—I hope that he will continue and indeed intensify his present policy of supplying arms to the Federal Government to enable them to end the war and the suffering in the only way that it can be ended, as quickly as possible.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. John Lee: The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) has a reputation in this House for being a courageous and enlightened person on racial matters. For that reason I found his speech the more deplorable and the more incomprehensive. I found it in extraordinary contrast to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), with whom I also have differences, but who. I thought, took a much more reasonable line on this matter.
  The House owes a debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), and to my right hon. Friend for pitching the note of the debate on a fairly thoughtful and moderate tone. I find myself in surprising agreement with many of the matters mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, but I feel that although he was very conciliatory, and genuinely so, in the last analysis his conciliatory attitude was contingent upon the whole idea that everything must be subjective to the idea that Federal Nigeria should be re-unified.
  I think that I understand this. I understand the dilemma of those who think that if we once concede the idea of secession to an African State—and there are many African States in which there have been fissiparous tendencies in the last few years—there will be no end to this; that if we do this it will not be just balkanisation but the creation of a whole series of Montenegros, tiny enclaves of no significance and total unviability.
  To state that is to miss the point that there are already vast differences in size and in economic capacity among the States in Africa. Cheerfully to lump together a country as large as Nigeria with small countries like Gambia, or the Ivory Coast, or Dahomey, or Togo, and to say
  1684
  that secession in one will be impracticable and therefore it is impracticable in the lot is totally unrealistic.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite chided my party 20 years ago over the division in India. We were criticised, perhaps not unjustly, for not creating an independent Punjab State, and by virtue of not doing so we were in some way responsible for the massacre of a large number of people in Amritsar, Lahore, and so on. Various Governments could be criticised for failing to take account of minorities in Somalia, in Kenya, and indeed, the Karens in Burma, because these are bigger countries. But Nigeria is not only a very large country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) said, and a multiracial country, but a very artificial creation altogether, even by the standards of colonial Africa. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) said, it was brought into existence only in 1914. It is as artificial a creation as, say, Panama, the creation of Teddy Roosevelt, which came into existence more or less at the same time.
  This links up with one of the blindnesses of British colonial rule. As the House knows, I was a colonial service officer. I defend many of the things that we did, but one of the things which I shall not defend, and which has bedevilled our relations with many parts of the world, is the way in which we have deferred to Moslem traditional authorities in Northern Nigeria. To some extent we did this also in India, in the Malay States, in Brunei, in Zanzibar, and in those absurd shiekhdoms of the Persian Gulf which we are still propping up the same principle is applied. We were far too gentle, far too inhibited, in our dealings with the emirates of Northern Nigeria, and this is one reason why the Ibos have these fears, and why this present situation has arisen.
  My principal argument is that it is not for us to promote or encourage cessation, but if we get a situation, as one has here, where people are fighting in these appalling circumstances—and whatever may have been the intention of the war I do not think anybody deliberately wanted to promote genocide, with the possible exception of Colonel Adekunle—the fact is the inevitable end product is mass death on a scale which exceeds even that in Vietnam. In a situation like this,

  1685
  putting down this rebellion is bound to lead to a repetition of the same appalling process for many years. The hon. Member for Surbiton is totally wrong, and almost everyone else has disagreed with him. Whatever may have been said in the first place about a quick kill, there is no question of that now. This will be a slow, agonising, atrophying process, with no certainty of when or how it will end.
  In those circumstances, we are right to reconsider our position. Even if we were right to treat—I suppose that there were prima facie grounds for treating—Nigeria merely as a friendly, sovereign Commonwealth State, this is no longer the case. Even if one accepts, as I do up to a point, that Gowon could have been and might have been a more ruthless military leader than he has turned out to be, one cannot hope to perform a mediatory function by supplying one side and not the other with arms and then offering one's services as a mediator: they will not be accepted. It is a sheer muddle-headedness for Ministers to delude themselves that they will be able to perform the rôles which they genuinely want to perform. Less difficult men than Colonel Ojukwu would find this position intolerable.
  One analogy from our own history is a dilemma which concerned this country much more directly, because we had direct constitutional responsibility, and that was the position in Ireland. I wish that the history of the nineteenth century had been different, and there had been no Irish independence movement. It would be far better, economically and from many other points of view, if we were all part of the United Kingdom at the same time. But it was clear, by about 1910, that, whatever the merits, the force of grass roots Irish nationalism was so strong that it could be resisted only at the price of untold misery and bloodshed. Therefore, it was right to concede.
  I wish that the secession of Biafra had never taken place. I wish that the fears that precipitated this secession had never arisen. If that had been the position, we would all be much happier and this dilemma would not exist. But it does, and it is no good trying to gloss over the matter. It is time that the British Government quietly pointed out to the
  1686
  Nigerian Government the folly of trying to suppress by force a movement which could only be suppressed, if at all, after a long war which is bound to be of the greatest bitterness. The longer that it goes on, the more difficult it will be for moderate Federal Nigerian leaders to restrain their followers and conduct the war in a comparatively humane way.
  It is always our experience that, although wars start with a certain amount of humanity, they tend to degenerate. Even in the Second World War, this is evidenced by the growth of mass bombing which culminated in Dresden on the one side and the bombing of many allied cities on the other. Although I want to give due credit to the Nigerians for the restraint which they have shown in some measure over relief supplies, my right hon. Friend is not entirely correct to say that it is unique in history for a Power which is apparently winning, or even one which is not, to make concessions of this kind.
  I find an example in the Second World War, surprisingly, when several ships were sent cross the Channel under a flag of truce for the exchange of badly-wounded prisoners of war. In that war we had the remarkable occasion when exchanges took place between the Italian and British Navies following the battle of Matapan so that surviving sailors could be picked up in the sea after their ships had been sunk. There was the truce at Halfaya Pass on the desert front for the passage of medical supplies in the midst of one of the most bitter battles of the war. All sorts of other truces occurred earlier in history, including that extraordinary truce covering the Christmas period on the Western Front in the 1914–18 war. I therefore do not believe that my right hon. Friend was entirely right to vest in Colonel Gowon an absolutely unique degree of virtue in these matters.
  The question of air supplies has dominated the debate rather too much in our discussion of relief. Air supplies, whether by day or night, are bound to present problems. If they go by night there is the danger of deception, or imagined deception, with added navigational hazards because of aeroplanes having to land on improvised air strips in the middle of the bush. If they go by day there are also difficulties because, while it may be easier to police their activities, the volume of supplies that

  1687
  can be flown in is not great enough to meet the requirements of the situation.
  I am, therefore, inclined to think that further efforts should be made to try to get the Cross River access open. This would undoubtedly provide more supplies more quickly and be easier to police for the neutral officials who would be responsible for supervising the supplies and seeing that no abuse occurs on either side.
  Even with the comparatively fluctuating land front, I still do not believe that it is impossible for some sort of passage to be made in the midst of the land fighting, particularly since there has been a greater measure of stabilisation in the last few weeks and months. One recalls the truce which occurred during the Korean war, for totally different purposes, when it was possible, even during the fighting, to have an enclave around Panmunjon demilitarised. At that time there were military forces on both sides conducting a bitter war of great ideological intensity. That truce was, for the most part, observed by both sides, and it did facilitate the agonising and protracted negotiations that took place, ultimately resulting in peace.
  We should not dismiss the possibility of having a land corridor as well. I pin my greatest faith, however, on the opening of the Cross River route, and I hope that my hon. Friend, who I am sure genuinely wants to help, will give due attention to this.
  I have criticised the Government, which I was bound to do because of their efforts being based on the dangerous illusion that the Federation of Nigeria must be preserved at all costs. Subject to that, I believe that Her Majesty's Government have gone some way to meet the objections which have vexed so many hon. Members.
  8.59 p.m.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: First, I should like to express to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary my personal admiration for the courage and fortitude he has shown in a very difficult situation. I have not always agreed with everything that he has said about the Nigeria-Biafra conflict, but I am quite certain that he has examined his heart and his conscience as well as his
  1688
  responsibility in this matter, and I express my considerable admiration for the way in which he has conducted his policy.
  I want to stress the importance of the British Government making clear to Nigeria the conditions on which, as I believe, we must continue our support for her. Nigeria is surely entitled, as a nation State, to defend her integrity. I believe that the British Government are right to continue to hold out the hand of friendship to her, and if it is necessary that she should have British weapons to that end, I believe that we should continue their supply.
  Mr. David Crouch: Shame!
  Mr. Griffiths: But I believe that we are entitled to impose two conditions on the continuance of that armed aid. The first is that we ought to be able to insist that the food shall go in, and shall go in forthwith. I believe that it is possible that the corridor of Cotonou can be brought into use, and I express the hope that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will succeed in his negotiations.
  The second condition that we are entitled to express to the Nigerian Government is that we must be persuaded that they are doing all in their power to achieve a cease-fire. I realise the difficulties, but I think that, with British opinion rightly roused by the suffering, it is imcumbent on the Government to show to the British public that we are at every stage pressing the Nigerian Government to accept a cease-fire. It is equally important that the British Government make clear to the Biafrans where exactly we stand. I believe that the Biafrans will continue to fight for some time, but I hope that the day will come when they will find some autonomy again within the Nigerian union.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) said at the beginning of the debate, we must make it clear to the Biafrans that Britain is anxious to see a cease-fire. At the moment, the Biafrans do not believe this: it is up to the Government to make sure that they do. Second. it is important that we demonstrate to the Biafrans that we, the British, are prepared to support and honour an international embargo on all

  1689
  arms supplies if it can be negotiated with the Federal union. Third, we must demonstrate to the Biafrans that we want a negotiated peace, and that within that peace Iboland will have a clear identity and, perhaps, a greater measure of autonomy within the Nigerian union. Fourth, and last, we must make it clear to the Biafrans that we, the British, would be willing to be guarantors of the cease-fire and of the settlement which I think will come.
  The present situation is a tragedy, an issue of great emotion, but during the debate I have been struck by the contrast between emotion, deeply felt, and responsibility. It is wrong to suggest that those who bear the responsibility lack the emotion.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: They have the wrong policy.
  9.3 p.m.
  Mr. Bernard Braine: Though many differing views have been expressed in this debate, and expressed with conviction and sincerity, it must by now be clear to the Government that the whole House is uneasy and disturbed by the continuing Nigerian tragedy. There are good reasons for this.
  First, there is the widespread feeling that this is one situation about which we should be doing something. We are not involved in the Vietnamese conflict. We could not lift a finger to help the Czechs. But we are involved in Nigeria and, whether we like it or not, we have been involved there from the very beginning.
  Second, we are all only too conscious of the fact that it was our country more than any other that helped to create Nigeria, to prepare her people for self-government, and that, after independence, felt a justifiable pride in the way in which the new State began to exert, as she did, a moderate and constructive leadership in African world affairs. It was sad enough to see that creation break apart; it was tragic to witness a nation with so much potential for good plunged into a bitter and bloody civil war; but it is truly shattering for us to have to accept, whatever the reason, that British arms are being used against those for whom we were once trustees.
  It is, of course, pointless for us here to argue the rights and wrongs of the matter.
  1690
  All war is tragic, but the special tragedy of civil war is that it is a question rarely of right versus wrong but of wrong perpetrated by both sides in the name of right. In any event, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) said—and this has been echoed by a number of hon. Members—Nigeria is an independent sovereign country in which the issue can be settled only by one side winning an outright military victory over the other, or by an effort of will on the part of both to find a negotiated settlement. From the outset the only question for us should have been how we as friends of Nigeria can bring about conditions for a cease-fire, an end to the suffering of the people, and an honourable settlement.
  Some hon. Members have said we should have done better not to supply arms, or at least when it became clear that there could be no early end to the war, that we should have sought a total ban. Hitherto the Government have justified the supply of arms to Federal Nigeria on two grounds. The first is that to have stopped traditional supplies would have been to have taken sides in a rebellion designed to break up a friendly Commonwealth country. Second, nothing would be gained by such a policy since the arms we failed to supply would be supplied by others and we should lose any influence that we might have on the side of clemency and conciliation.
  Mr. Crouch: That is a horrible argument.
  Mr. Braine: That may be. It is not my argument.
  Mr. Crouch: I cannot support it. It is revolting.
  Mr. Braine: I am not arguing this, but others have said that by a ban we would lose any influence we have on the side of clemency, conciliation and reconstruction.
  As for the first argument, it is clearly in the interests of no one, least of all the emergent African countries, to encourage balkanisation. This is why the Organisation of African Unity has shown such scant sympathy for the rebel cause. With respect to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig), no one has suggested that there is any clear-cut issue

  1691
  of self-determination here. Indeed, it is clear that secession would not solve the problem of self-determination since many of the non-Ibos do not wish to be ruled by Ibos, and if they were, one source of bitterness would merely be replaced by another.
  What is needed, and has so far eluded the peace-makers, is a generous political settlement which recognises the ethnic facts of Nigeria and the need to avoid domination of minority tribes by one or other of the three major tribal groups, whilst preserving a framework of unity within which this vast country can develop its resources for the benefit of all its peoples. Such a solution manifestly cannot be imposed from without; it can come only after a cease fire and a conscious effort of will on both sides. As my right hon. Friend said the kernel of the matter is to get negotiations going for a ceasefire and a new approach is therefore necessary, possibly through the Organisation of African Unity. I gather that the Foreign Secretary agrees.
  As for the second argument, the Government are still under an obligation to show that the influence they claim to have preserved as a result of their arms policy is producing results. This is what the debate is about. It is true that they can claim that they have always been ready to help bring the two sides together by supporting wholeheartedly the efforts of the Commonwealth Secretary-General and the O.A.U., and though the talks at Kampala and Addis Ababa were unsuccessful, that is not the fault of the Government. It is true that the Hunt Mission, which they were able to persuade the federal side to accept, accomplished much in the field of famine relief and might have accomplished much more if General Ojukwu had been more forthcoming at the time.
  It is true that they persuaded the federal authorities to accept the team of international military observers, who reported that the Federal Government were not engaged in genocide. It is true also that since the shooting down of the Red Cross plane last month they have been doing what they can to reconcile the federal authorities with the voluntary agencies with the object of resuming relief flights.
  1692
  All this we recognise. I think, too, that the House would want to acknowledge the work that the Under-Secretary, in particular, has done in this connection. But the war has continued to drag on. Foreign arms have been reaching the Ibos in quantity. The prospect of a federal victory seems as remote as ever, and meanwhile the toll of civilian suffering continues.
  It seems to me that throughout the Government have been over-optimistic. They have clung to the belief that the end would soon be in sight. Almost a year ago the then Commonwealth Secretary told the House that the secessionists were losing the battle, that the Federal Government were in a winning position. The events of the last fortnight suggest that this false optimism has been allowed to extend to the vital question of relieving starvation in the rebel-held areas.
  On Monday the Foreign Secretary told us that the Federal Government were ready to permit daylight mercy flights, subject to inspection in Lagos, or at other points which might be agreed, and on conditions acceptable to the relief agencies; he had seen Dr. Arikpo, the Nigerian Commissioner for External Affairs, who had
  "confirmed his Government's willingness to co-operate fully in the provision of relief by air, land or river … as a guarantee against tampering with relief supplies and as an assurance that the inspection procedures would be speedy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1969; Vol. 786, c. 952.]
  the Federal Government would agree to neutral observers. Anybody who opposed the sending in of relief on this basis would bear "a dreadful responsibility". Those were the words of the right hon. Gentleman.
  I listened to what the right hon. Gentleman said today. I accept what he said completely and without reservation. But I thought that he gave the distinct impression on Monday that a sensible plan had been drawn up and that all that remained was to secure General Ojukwu's agreement. Unhappily, this does not appear to have been the position at all. [Interruption.] I am not talking about what the right hon. Gentleman said. I am talking about the impression that he gave. A great sigh of relief was heaved in the House at the time. One got the impression that a plan had been formulated. This is not the position.

  1693
  The relief agencies reacted strongly. Certainly consultation with them seems to have been woefully inadequate. International Red Cross officials in Geneva were surprised by the Foreign Secretary's statement that agreement had been reached in London between Professor Freymond, the Vice-President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Dr. Arikpo. One of their spokesmen commented:
  "The most that can be said is that contacts between the Red Cross and the Federal Government have been re-established".
  That is good as far as it goes, but it is not a plan.
  Joint Church Aid, for example, which organises more relief into Nigeria than the International Red Cross, and which, incidentally, has sent more food into the federal areas of Nigeria than into the rebel territory, claims that it was not consulted at all. As a result, the relief agencies have been complaining bitterly ever since that the Foreign Secretary misled the House on Monday.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I hope that I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly. He is not accusing me of misleading the House? I hope that I understood him correctly on that.
  Mr. Braine: Certainly. I said a little earlier—I am sure that the Secretary of State heard me—that I accept completely what he said. Much of the trouble in this life, however, is caused by failure of communication. All I am saying is that the statement he made on Monday created the impression in the minds of a good many people that a plan had been agreed when, in fact, no plan has yet been formulated.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is advancing a rather curious doctrine, that a Minister or Member speaking in the House must be held responsible not for what he says but for misleading impressions which other people form from what he says. If any hon. Member chooses to read again what I said, he will see that its meaning is exactly clear. I stand by it.
  Mr. Braine: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to today's Guardian in which Joint Church Aid is reported as making the clear statement that,
  1694
  "Nigeria's plan—backed by Britain—for relief flights to Biafra originating from Federal-held territory is unworkable … Mr. Stewart has been misleading"
  when he told the House
  "that relief organisations had accepted the plan".
  I do not for a moment say that there was any intention on the Foreign Secretary's part to do that. I am talking about the impression which he gave and saying that it indicates an extension of the optimism which the Government have shown in regard to the situation for a long time. The relief organisations have made this bitter complaint. The truth is that, so far, no plan has been drawn up, and the suggestion that General Ojukwu is the sole stumbling-block is not correct. Let us get the facts straight.
  Neither is it correct to say that General Ojukwu is opposed to daylight flights. Is is not a fact that he accepted them on 1st January and again on 18th June, subject to the condition that they should not endanger his basic security? I shall return to that in a moment.
  On Monday, again—as the Foreign Secretary has invited me, in effect, to go into detail on his statement, I shall do so—why did he ignore the question about relief going in under other arrangements? What about the plea of the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Rogers, that the Cross River route might be opened up? The right hon. Gentleman referred to that today, but when he was asked about it on Monday he completely ignored the question.
  The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) spoke of an American ship waiting in Lagos now, laden with relief supplies, which could, I understand, sail to the Cross River at once if permission were given and guarantees provided that it would not be fired upon by the belligerents. Today the Foreign Secretary said that Dr. Arikpo hoped that discussions on the use of this route would be resumed. But this is a means of getting relief almost immediately into the Ibo area. What is holding up discussions? We are entitled to know.
  We recognise, of course, that the Federal Government, in dealing with a rebellion, are within their rights in asking that relief supplies should go in under conditions that the aeroplanes do not

  1695
  carry arms. No one will quarrel with the Foreign Secretary's statement that the Federal Government's readiness to permit relief to go in is a humanitarian gesture the like of which is rare in the history of war. But what we are concerned with in this debate is not good intentions but the practical implementation of a relief plan. Frankly, I do not think that the Foreign Secretary's premature announcement on Monday, coupled with critical remarks about General Ojukwu, really helped.
  If lives are to be saved, and quickly, a plan must be devised which is acceptable to both sides, and that means a plan which takes into account the psychology of the combatants and the realities of the situation. What are the chances of finding such a plan? Those who have recently been in the rebel area and have spoken to General Ojukwu say that his fear is that relief planes flying in during the period of a cease-fire may be followed by attempts to seize or destroy the airfield. Although he wants relief supplies, he is not prepared to trade his basic security for them.
  One does not have to be a sympathiser with the rebel cause—I most certainly am not—to see that the airfield is Biafra's sole lifeline to the outside world. Moreover, there is the persistent fear in the rebel area that food coming from Federal Nigeria may be tampered with. All this may be unreasonable. I am sure that it is. I believe that General Gowon is absolutely sincere when he says that he wants an honourable settlement and reconciliation with his Ibo brothers. But we all know that tribal fears run deep in Africa. We saw it in the Congo, and we are seeing it now in Kenya. Any plan must take account of them if it is to get off the ground.
  It is a tragedy, of course, that the Government have no direct contact with General Ojukwu, although hints were given today that there were means of contacting him. Even if there are such contacts, there appears to be no means of knowing what is in his mind.
  The heart of the matter, therefore, is the question of reassuring the Ibos that they will not be utterly destroyed if they lower their guard. This is not a new thought. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney),
  1696
  who knows and cares so much about Nigeria, reminded the House, some of us pressed well over a year ago for the setting up of a Commonwealth peacekeeping force which, at the appointed time and with the approval of the Federal Government, could be moved in to give the Ibos an assurance that they would not be wiped out. I believe that if this had been done the situation would have been easier by now. I remember asking a year ago what was being done about the preparation of a British contribution to such a force. The Minister who replied to that debate gave me no answer.
  This is not a case of outsiders seeking to impose unwelcome and impractical ideas upon an unwilling Nigeria. In July last year at Niamey, General Gowon accepted the principle of an outside force to give a sense of security—as he put it—to the Ibos once the rebellion was over. A few weeks later, at Addis Ababa, Chief Enahoro went further and proposed a force drawn specifically from Canada. Ethiopa and India.
  The immediate need, of course, is to lend our support to a plan which provides not only for neutral inspection of relief cargoes but for neutral policing of the air corridors. I cannot see why the Canadians, who are respected by both sides, who have already helped with relief to both sides, and who have experience of sophisticated organisation second to none, should not now be asked to provide the means of policing the air corridors and ensuring effective inspection of cargoes. Any objections which General Ojukwu might have would then surely fall to the ground.
  Surely it is not impossible that some flights should start from outside federal territory? I was very glad to hear the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary concede that thought might be given to this. If such flights were properly organised, notified in advance to both sides and the cargoes properly inspected, there would be no threat to the security of either side. Why was not all this considered before the Foreign Secretary's much misunderstood announcement on Monday? Why try to throw the blame for failure in advance upon General Ojukwu before he, or the relief agencies for that matter, could know precisely what daylight flights would involve, and before all the details had even been agreed

  1697
  with the federal authorities? We require an answer to these questions from the Minister who is to reply.
  There is another consideration—the time factor. When the right hon. Gentleman made his announcement on 30th June he quoted General Ojukwu as having said on 1st June:
  "We seem to have overcome the once imminent danger of mass starvation".
  The implication was clear. It was that the talk of starvation in the rebel areas was exaggerated. The right hon. Gentleman should have known that this statement completely ignored the passage of events and the cessation of relief flights following the shooting down of the Red Cross plane over three weeks before he spoke.
  If, at the beginning of June, relief supplies were feeding 3 million Ibos every day and 1 million once a week, and then those supplies were suddenly cut off, one would surely have expected a serious situation to arise. It has now arisen. The relief agencies tell us that there is now an acute protein shortage. Kwashiokor is spreading rapidly among people who are appreciably weaker than they were before last year's famine. The death rate is beginning to mount, and within a matter of weeks tens of thousands will perish.
  The whole point is that the situation will not wait upon arguments between Governments. Let the formula on relief advanced this afternoon by my right hon. Friend be put at once to General Gowon and General Ojukwu. If necessary, empower an authoritative person, with power to negotiate, to go out without delay and see them both. Mr. Malcolm Macdonald has been suggested. I can think of no one better fitted by character or experience to undertake this task.
  One feature of this debate is that no one—not even, I gather, my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher)—is now advocating a purely military solution. There is little evidence that such a solution is possible. Indeed, there is evidence that the Ibos will go on fighting because they fear extermination.
  That fear, I readily concede, may not be justified but it is there all the same. The trouble in this vale of tears is not what the facts are but what people believe the facts to be. In these circumstances,
  1698
  should not the Government consider again the idea of an international peacekeeping force which, without putting into question the sovereignty of the Federal Government, might be interposed between the combatants, allowing time for tempers to cool, relief to flow in and a political settlement to be discussed in an atmosphere free from suspicion and fear.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire said that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary should test the ground at the United Nations on the possibility of a total embargo on arms. This was not a new idea. My right hon. Friend urged it a year ago and in a foreign affairs debate at the end of last year. Hitherto, the Government have argued that the objections to such a course—and this is a weighty argument—are, first, that it might invite a veto from one of the other arms suppliers and, second, that the points of entry cannot be effectively policed unless there is a ceasefire.
  The Government may be right on both counts but how can one be sure unless they try? As my right hon. Friend said months ago, if the Russians use their veto the responsibility for prolonging the agony will be pinned where it really belongs. But supposing the United Nations did come out in support of a ban on arms? Would this not perhaps encourage a ceasefire and so remove the technical difficuties about inspection and control which seem to have worried the Government?
  Let the Government take new initiatives on these lines and the whole House will applaud them. There was a hint in the right hon. Gentleman's speech that he is ready to consider new initiatives. He must be given the chance to do so. But he must be left in no doubt that the message of this debate is that time is now desperately short; starvation is beginning to take its horrible toll for the second year in succession, and the conscience of the world cries out for an end to this dreadful war.
  9.28 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Maurice Foley): There have been in the debate—and one can understand it—speeches of great passion because of the human tragedy involved, and I do not

  1699
  wish to take from anyone their own intense feelings on this subject. The view that many would take is that this is a moral problem and that each of us must be the custodian of his own conscience if we take a moral view of the situation.
  I think that first one has to answer the question why we are involved. This was put to me by the Leader of the Liberal Party, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) and others. In the first place, we have to recognise that in the newly independent Commonwealth countries there are residual commitments which one cannot get out of very easily. There is the problem that independence is not the end but the beginning. The people then build their nation and there are commitments, or there is an assumption, that the former colonial power will continue in a relationship until each evolves a new relationship. This is the case in many countries in Africa, where one has seen the pace alter from time to time. But basically one starts by having this involvement that one cannot ignore. It is in this respect that one had no option in terms of commitment to the Federal Government.
  Mr. Gilbert Longden: But does not the hon. Gentleman see a difference between our providing arms to an ally and Commonwealth partner to fight some outside enemy and providing arms to such a Government which will be used against people who only recently were also subjects of Her Majesty?
  Mr. Foley: This is a Commonwealth country whose forces have been trained by us and which has had arms from us in the first instance for internal security as well as external threat. I do not know how these can possibly be divorced one from the other. I am sorry that I gave way, because I wanted quickly to explain why we are involved. First, we could not get out of the commitment and involvement in the early days after independence.
  Second, and this, too, is a moral problem—if the 2,000 tribes in Africa south of the Sahara were to be given a chance, or were to be encouraged, to have their own governments and their own parliaments, Africa would be a perpetual economic backwater, and we
  1700
  have a measure of responsibility in this respect which we cannot ignore. That is not to say that many of the frontiers of these States are not artificial. One of the reasons why they have devised their own organisation, the Organisation of African Unity, is so that they can work out peacefully conflicts between one and another. But in essence the idea of giving respectability to tribal secession is one on which all countries in Africa, with the exception of four, have all turned their backs, and we have a responsibility to support the Federal Government.
  In Nigeria, both prior to independence and since, there has clearly been a tremendous economic and social imbalance between various areas—this was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee)—between the Moslem north and the Ibos in the Eastern Region. It was the Ibos who were the most dominant in asking for the creation of the Federation of Nigeria; they were to the fore in that demand.
  In the whole history of Nigeria, both prior to independence and afterwards, there was this abrasiveness between the Ibos and the Hausas in the North which I saw with many others, and atrocities were committed. No one can ignore this.
  The question we must ask is whether going to war was the way to solve the problem. Frankly, I think that it was wrong. There were legitimate grievances without a shadow of doubt, but going to war to solve the problem was wrong. was folly. What started by being an opting out of the Federation turned into civil war and to the very people who objected to being in the Federation arriving 60 miles from Lagos and wanting to take over the country. This is the reality.
  The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) asked what we meant by an international arms embargo and a cease-fire. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should take a new initiative and seek a total arms embargo. My right hon. Friend explained the steps we had taken and the soundings we had taken at the United Nations and the efforts we had made to discover the minds of the Russians and others. I should like to give an instance of the problems involved.

  1701
  We are all aware of the recent incident concerning Count von Rosen. Sweden is a neutral country, anxious to live up to its obligations, but civil planes were sent from Sweden to somewhere else where they were changed to military equipment to arrive in Biafra in this conflict. Sweden was not responsible. When the planes were sold they left Sweden as civil planes and it was somewhere else where they were altered, and they arrived as military equipment. Sweden subscribes to the policy of neutrality and would subscribe to such an international arms embargo, but unless the belligerents allowed on the ground a means of controlling what came in, such an embargo would be a gesture and not much more. There has to be participation by both sides on the spot in an arms embargo.
  This is the first point. The second is that, if one wanted to achieve an international arms embargo, policed on the spot, it could be done only in the atmosphere of a cease fire which also was policed. There is a history of efforts at cease fire and propaganda initiatives by both sides which have not worked. So the two go together, and to achieve them, one must at least get people to talk, to say that this is what they want. Indeed, if one can get them to that stage and start formal talks, and if the first item on the agenda is the cease-fire and an arms embargo policed on the spot, and the second is the political dialogue, one is making real progress.
  This is what we have been trying to do. This is where we are committed, and have been committed, to a negotiated settlement. We have not subscribed to the theory of a quick kill. We believe that, in the short run and the long run, in the best interests of all the people who make up Nigeria, we should do whatever we can to bring them together, sit them down, ease relationships and get a political settlement. This is what we have been working for. It is not true to say that we have no links with any of the leading Biafrans. My officials and I myself see leading Biafrans when they go through Britain to the continent regularly. People visit me every week who are either just coming out of or just going into the enclave.
  Equally, if I felt that it was of value at any moment of course I would want to use Lord Hunt and Mr. Malcolm
  1702
  Macdonald. There is no lack of mediators but only a lack of will to negotiate.
  Mr. Crouch: Is the hon. Gentleman really trying to persuade the House that Her Majesty's, Government can be an effective mediator in this terrifying civil war when we are a major participant on one side? I cannot accept that.
  Mr. Foley: I do not suggest for one minute that we could be an effective mediator. That depends on the people concerned, on both sides. What I have said is that we are in touch, and this of itself is of value and might take us much further. This is where one comes to the dilemma that there is a history of mistrust, if one considers the posture of Colonel Ojukwu. He wants a cease fire first and then talks. I can understand his difficulty. He does not want to give up his negotiating posture at the outset of negotiations. Equally, on the Federal side, General Gowon has said that he is willing to enter into talks but is determined to retain one Nigeria.
  At the time of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, an offer was made by the leader of the Nigerian delegation that he would meet any senior Biafran who was in London and talk to him without any conditions whatever. They had a senior man here. I saw him for two hours and he, had no mandate to talk. I said, "You have ten days in which you can do something," and he failed to do it. Nevertheless, one must keep on trying. This is an effort at determination which one must keep at. Indeed, the other day, Dr. Arikpo on his tour of Europe in a public statement said that he would meet any representative of Colonel Ojukwu immediately without any pre-conditions whatever.
  What one needs to do, clearly, is to hope that, at some time, there will be a response and something can happen. I must say to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) that there is no magic wand which one can wave to solve everything just like that. We may have a very minor rôle in bringing these people together. We may have no rôle. We can only keep on trying and encourage others to do the same.
  I turn now to the basic question of relief and the problems connected with it. There are two major international bodies involved in getting relief into the enclave

  1703
  and into Federal Nigeria as well. They are the International Committee of the Red Cross and Joint Church Aid, which is an amalgam of the various church groups, Roman Catholic and Protestant. For over a year, they have been flying relief into Biafra at night, though not with any written agreement from the Federal Government. The Federal Government have acquiesced: "We do not like it, but you feel you must, so go ahead." That has been the basis. While those flights were going on, there was this series of negotiations and discussions in Niamey, in Kampala and in Addis Ababa to try and define various routes by land, river and air which could be agreed by both sides. There is an enormous wad of literature on those discussions setting out what was achieved.
  In this context, too, there was discussion of a cease-fire with a view to separating both sides for a period to ease tensions and bring about gradually a normality of relationships. Along with others, especially the Commonwealth Secretariat, we have done contingency planning with that in view. But again, it cannot be imagined that we can achieve this in spite of the Federal Government or Ojukwu. One has seen the sad disaster of the Italian oilmen. Presumably because they had white faces, it was assumed that they were mercenaries. Some of them were killed and other taken prisoner. In a war situation, what we all have in mind cannot happen without the agreement of both sides.
  That leads me on to why it is that the Federal Government have reacted in the last few weeks in the way that they have. Rightly or wrongly, they believe that relief flights at night give respectability to arms flights. They believe that relief planes and arms planes are mixed up going into Uli airport and that the situation would be much healthier if they were separated.
  Equally, they believe—and I believe absolutely to the contrary—that the I.C.R.C. has been involved in flying in arms. I have said publicly and to Ministers in Lagos that I do not believe that there is a shred of truth in the idea that the I.C.R.C. is responsible for, has connived in or been involved in the flying in of arms. Nevertheless, here is a situatin in which the Federal Government be
  1704
  lieve that the relief agencies are giving help and encouragement to the rebels. They believe that they are doing that not merely in terms of flying in relief. Selected numbers of journalists who are propagandists for the Biafran cause are flying in on relief planes. Some hon. Members of this House, many of whom could not be said to be propagandists for the Biafran cause but others who were predisposed in that direction before they went, have gone in by similar means. Other hon. Members of this House would like to go in but have been refused entry because Colonel Ojukwu decides who will fly in, and no one gets on a plane either at Sao Tome or Santa Isabel unless his face fits.
  The Federal Government have reacted saying that this is wrong and that they must do something about it. What has happened is that the Federal Government have made their announcement and had their conference on 30th June. Virtually the first thing that they said was that they wished their own Commission on Rehabilitation to take over the supervising and organising of work in Federal Nigeria. This was being worked out last November with the I.C.R.C. This is nothing new. We know full well that the main problem in the Federal area is less relief and more rehabilitation. Apart from the refugees who come out and require feeding daily, it is a case of giving people agricultural implements and a niece of land and letting them settle down. This is the problem on the Federal side.
  So with this meeting of all the relief organisations, with the exception of Joint Church Aid, which was not present. I.C.R.C. was present, although it took no part in the discussions. All the church organisations were represented, as was Oxfam, and they accepted and publicly endorsed the proposals of the Federal Government.
  We then come to the second leg of the relief aid—the relief flights into the enclave. The Federal Government have laid down a number of conditions for this to happen. Incidentally, it is of interest that the Federal Government have publicly committed themselves to continuing the relief aid into Biafra. Indeed, far from it being a policy of starvation, this is a public commitment made in Lagos with representatives of all the churches,

  1705
  the Y.W.C.A., Oxfam and all the relief agencies other than the two major international ones. They are all committed to suporting this policy.
  Mrs. Ewing: I hope that the Minister, as he nodded when I made the point, will comment on those most alarming quotations which I read from the Daily Times of Nigeria in which the Chief of Staff of the Nigerian Army and Chief Awolowo said that starvation was a legitimate weapon to use against the rebels.
  Mr. Foley: I recall the quotations which the hon. Lady read. It is a pity that she was selective. If she had taken the newspaper of 30th June she would have seen the published policy document of the Federal Government. It is not unknown—it may not be so in the party that the hon. Lady represents—for Members of the same party to speak with a different voice on different subjects. But the policy statement of the Federal Government is the basis on which they discussed and agreed with the relief agencies, and it is public knowledge. It is a clear commitment of the Federal Government to feed their people in the enclave. The question is the conditions under which this is done.
  The Federal Government have said, first, that flights must come in by day, and guarantees must clearly be given in terms of air corridors and effective control from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m.
  Secondly, that they will itemise the kind of goods that can be carried. As my right hon. Friend said, these include seeds, clothing, medicine and food.
  Thirdly, that the planes must be inspected somewhere on Federal territory. They can fly from where the stockpiles are in Cotonou, Fernando Po and Sao Tome, but they must be inspected on Federal territory, and they are willing to have international observers present.
  We then come to the apparent rupture between the I.C.R.C. and the Federal Government. There have been some strong statements made in Geneva and one or two rather odd statements made here. Rather than go into the whole details, if hon. Members are satisfied with the fact that the President of the I.C.R.C. is at the moment in Lagos negotiating, I should just say that if it
  1706
  was not for our efforts I do not believe that he would be there.
  What is he negotiating about? First, the mending of their fences in Federal Nigeria and, secondly, I am sure, the problems they face in feeding their people in the enclave. I assume that this will not be the end of his journey and that he may well go on. If he does not, someone else from the relief agencies will go and talk to the people in the enclave.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Has the hon. Gentleman put it to the Federal Government that they could perfectly well inspect the flights on the ground at Cotonou, which is only a few minutes away from their frontiers, and can fly non-stop?
  Mr. Foley: I am aware of the geography of the area, too. The Federal Government have taken their policy attitude. Clearly, in terms of getting anything acceptable to the other side, there must be some degree of negotiation and give. I should not have thought that it was helpful for us publicly here to do the negotiation which should be done privately both in Lagos and with Colonel Ojukwu somewhere else. I do not want to exaggerate, but we can take a measure of credit—and I feel that one or two people, rather grudgingly, might give us this—for initiating the beginning of a rapprochement between the Federal Government and the I.C.R.C. Everyone should welcome this because we are deeply concerned with the problem of the plight of the people in the enclave.
  The picture which I have of the situation there is that there will be a serious problem in the refugee camps if relief stops altogether. My understanding is that there are about three, four or six flights a night by the joint churches into the enclave. But this of itself is totally inadequate. There will very quickly be a shortage of protein. There is already, and has been for some time, a shortage of medicine and drugs. Therefore, clearly we must all be seized with the urgency of getting something done.
  Mr. Longden rose—
  Mr. Foley: I am sorry, but I have given way a few times and I have other points to deal with.
  One of the problems is that the Federal Government's position has been explained

  1707
  in the policy document. I have a measure of confusion about precisely what Colonel Ojukwu will accept. Reference has been made to the statement of 18th June. There is the published statement by the unofficial representative in London. There was the statement made in Paris on 5th July by Mojekwu, who is the Home Minister, in which he was rather firm. If it is right, I am most encouraged, because it is the first clear statement that I have seen in which he says, "We will allow daylight flights and surface routes subject only to the proviso that our security must not be hampered". If this is the clear position of Colonel Ojukwu, there are grounds for optimism.
  It is not for us but for the relief agencies to see what they can do in working out a compromise. I assure hon. Members that we have urged the Federal Government to be as flexible as possible in their interpretation of the problem.
  Mrs. Anne Kerr: Is my hon. Friend aware—
  Mr. Speaker: The Minister has not given way. The hon. Lady must resume her seat.
  Mr. Foley: I would give way, but I must deal with the points raised by Members who were present, in fairness to them.
  The question of the Cross River route has been raised by a number of hon. Members.
  Mrs. Kerr rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Mere insistence does not make an hon. Member give way.
  Mr. Foley: The initiative for the Cross River route was taken by Professor Fergusson, who is the United States man specially appointed in this field of relief.
  He had discussions with Colonel Ojukwu, and also with General Gowon here in London. He entered into negotiations with representatives of both sides in Washington, and they reached an agreement in principle. The proposal is to use the Cross River route from Calabar, using two Second World War ex landing craft, under I.C.R.C. auspices, with inspection. These craft can take a volume of goods which 25 flights could not
  1708
  carry. Both sides have accepted the proposal in principle. There is argumentation about the modalities of inspection, and security considerations. We are behind these endeavours, and we hope that the matter can be resolved with urgency. I stress again the sad situation in the enclave, and the need to use whatever initiatives and goodwill we can find to give expression and support to this initiative.
  Virtually we come to the fact that the relief agencies themselves must persevere in searching for a degree of compromise and flexibility on both sides to achieve a break-through, either in daylight flights, or in the Cross-River route. One does not deny that they are both needed, and that they are both needed with a considerable degree of urgency.
  I ought to mention in passing, because it was raised by the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), the confusion over Joint Church Aid. The right hon. Gentleman implied that somehow we had misled the House in this respect. Joint Church Aid was not present at the discussions in Lagos. Lord Shepherd was asked whether the Joint Church Agencies were all present, and he said that he thought they were. In essence, the churches were present. I have a list of those present at the meeting in Lagos. They included the Roman Catholic hierarchy, the National Council of Women, the Nigerian Red Cross, the Quaker Service, the Save the Children Fund, Unicef, the United Nations Mission of the Secretary General to Nigeria, and the Y.M.C.A. of Nigeria. That is a fair cross-section of all those involved in the activities.
  We hope that the efforts which we have made, along with the efforts made by many others, many of whom have probably done much more, and are in a position to do much more than we have been able to do, will, in the cause of humanity, lead to an easing of the situation, and a quick response on both sides, so that one can get relief in on the dimensions of need.
  Mr. Frank Allaun rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Mrs. Anne Kerr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Not now. I am putting the Question.

  Division No. 317.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Goodnew, Victor

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Alldritt, Walter

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Newens, Stan

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip

  Barnes, Michael

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Norwood, Christopher

  Bessell, Peter

  Gurden, Harold

  Orme, Stanley

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hastings, Stephen

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Hawkins, Paul

  Silvester, Frederick

  Crouch, David

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Hobden, Dennis

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Driberg, Tom

  Hordern, Peter

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  Jackson, Peter M, (High Peak)

  Winnick, David

  Evans, Cwynfor (C'marthen)

  Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

  Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Mr. Hugh Rossi and

  Goodhart, Philip

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Mr. Stanley Henig.

  NOES

  Anderson, Donald

  Freeson, Reginald

  Millan, Bruce

  Archer, Peter

  Gardner, Tony

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

  Ginsburg, David

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Molloy, William

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Binns, John

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hamling, William

  Moyle, Roland

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Harper, Joseph

  Murray, Albert

  Boston, Terence

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Neal, Harold

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  O'Malley, Brian

  Boyden, James

  Haseldine, Norman

  Orbach, Maurice

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hilton, W. S.

  Brooks, Edwin

  Hooley, Frank

  Oswald, Thomas

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Palmer, Arthur

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

  Howie, W.

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hynd, John

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Carmichael, Neil

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Pentland, Norman

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Chapman, Donald

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Coleman, Donald

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Concannon, J. D.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Cordle, John

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Rankin, John

  Cronin, John

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Richard, Ivor

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Judd, Frank

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Lawson, George

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P' c' as)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Roebuck, Roy

  Dell, Edmund

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Dewar, Donald

  Loughlin, Charles

  Ryan, John

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Luard, Evan

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Doig, Peter

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Dunn, James A.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Dunnett, Jack

  McBride, Neil

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwynell (Exeter)

  McCann, John

  Silverman, Julius

  Eadie, Alex

  MacColi, James

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Edelman, Maurice

  MacDermot, Niall

  Slater, Joseph

  Ellis, John

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Small, William

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)

  Taverne, Dick

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mackie, John

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Fisher, Nigel

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Tilney, John

  Foley, Maurice

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Tinn, James

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Marquand, David

  Urwin, T. W.

  Ford, Ben

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Fowler, Gerry

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Wallace, George

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Question put accordingly, That this House do now adjourn:—
  The House divided: Ayes 44, Noes 162.

  Weitzman, David

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Wellbeloved, James

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Mr. Alan Fitch and

  Whitlock, William

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  SCOTLAND (TAY ROAD BRIDGE)
  10.7 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to move,
  That the Tay Road Bridge (Scheme) Approval Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
  The House will recall that the original Tay Road Bridge Order of 1962 authorised capital expenditure on the bridge up to a maximum of £4·5 million. It also provided that any excess expenditure above this should be defrayed by means of a scheme agreed by the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board and its three constituent authorities—namely, Dundee Town Council, Fife County Council and Angus County Council—and approved by the Secretary of State.
  Under this provision the maximum capital expenditure was increased in 1966 to £6·5 million, in the light of costs as then estimated, when the works were not quite complete, and the need to allow a margin for the accumulation of interest on loans made towards the cost of the works, so far as the interest could not be paid immediately because of the insufficiency of toll revenue in the early years before traffic builds up.
  This Order, which increases the limit on the capital cost to £7·25 million, is required because the margin allowed in 1966 for accumulated interest has been used up by increases in the final cost of the works and a compensation settlement with the Dundee Harbour Trust higher than had been envisaged.
  The present cost of the scheme, including compensation and accumulated interest so far is £6·6 million. It is expected that accumulated interest will bring this to £7·038 million in a few years' time, after which the toll revenue will be sufficient to allow repayment to begin. The margin between £7·25 million and £7·038 million will allow for any errors in estimating toll revenue.
  The remaining provisions of the Order are consequential. They continue the present arrangements under which advances towards capital expenditure are made by the Secretary of State and the constituent authorities of the Joint Board
  1714
  in the proportion 75:25, and the local authority loans are given preference in repayment over the Government loan.
  I assure the House that neither we nor the Joint Board see any difficulty in repaying the loans within the statutory period of 60 years, and on present traffic trends the Joint Board has just decided not to increase the present tolls, a decision which the House will welcome.
  10.10 p.m.
  Sir John Gilmour: I fully appreciate what has necessitated the Minister of State seeking this increase, but I am still rather worried that the underlying reason is that about £100,000 extra compensation has to be paid to the Dundee Harbour Trust over and above what was expected. I understand that not only has that extra £100,000 been paid, but the accumulated interest as well. Is that accumulated interest to be paid to everyone concerned, and not just to the Dundee Harbour Trust?
  I have received a letter from a constituent, who writes:
  "In a recent copy of the Dundee "Courier" appeared an article in which it said you had asked the Scottish Secretary if all compensation had been paid in connection with the Tay road bridge. I wish to bring to your notice that I have not been paid for garden ground at Taygrove owned by me and taken from me in 1963 by the Joint Tay Bridge Board to build the Fife end of the bridge on."
  I do not suppose that anyone questions that it was necessary for the Joint Board to acquire ground, but from that letter it appears that there has been great delay in paying compensation. The Minister will know that correspondence has passed between us in this connection. What sticks out, as it were, in respect of this Order is that the main reason for tabling it is the extra £100,000 to be paid to the Dundee Harbour Trust, with accumulated interest on the money from the date when the Joint Board took over ground in order to build the bridge. I want to be certain that all my constituents at the south end of the bridge who had ground taken over to make way for the bridge will be treated in the same way.
  When I put down a Question to the Secretary of State on this subject I was told, I suppose quite rightly, that it was a matter not for him but for the Joint Board. I would not like to think that

  1715
  my constituents were being treated differently in regard to accumulated interest from the date on which the Joint Board entered on their ground—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must link what he has to say with seeking by this Order to borrow further money.
  Sir J. Gilmour: The Secretary of State is seeking to borrow more money, and as the constituent who wrote to me has still not got his money, although his ground was taken over in 1963, I am rather worried whether the intention is to pay him his money and the interest as well, I do not want the Secretary of State to borrow more than is necessary, but I want to be quite certain that he borrows enough to pay my constituents compensation, and interest on it, from the time when the Joint Board entered on their ground and started to build the bridge. If I can get an assurance that the Secretary of State has enough money to pay the compensation and the back interest, I will be perfectly happy to support the Order because it is the fair way of arriving at a common solution.
  It is nice to know that the Tay Road Bridge is carrying more traffic than was expected, and I think that we can look forward to the money spent on it being repaid. The bridge is proving most useful. It is doing a great deal of good, not only to Dundee but to the north-east corner of Fife. We are very happy to know that it is carrying more traffic than was thought likely when it was built. That is a good thing, but let us make certain that enough money is provided under this Order and that all the compensation and back interest is paid. If that happens I shall be happy.
  10.16 p.m.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I am glad to support this Order. I wish to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) has said. We are glad to know of the service which this bridge is giving to people not only in the Dundee area, but to the whole of Fife and further north. It is a bridge which I used frequently. We know what a power it is in development of the area.
  1716
  We debate this Order against a background of rising capital costs. Originally, in 1962, the maximum amount authorised was £4·5 million. That rose to £6·5 million in 1966 and now we are asked to authorise £7·2 million. This is an increase from the original Order of just over 60 per cent. and it is a very considerable sum. We do not question that because the bridge is performing a very useful function in that area of Scotland. When we debated the last Order, in 1966, the Minister of State emphasised that the increase in cost at that time was on account of additional work in relation to the land, the approaches, toll equipment and compensation which were not fully taken into account when the original Order was made in 1962. This evening the Minister has said that the increase is largely in relation to capitalisation of interest.
  I should like the hon. Gentleman to say what proportion related to additional work which has been carried out is represented by extra costs. The original costs of the bridge have risen from £4·386 million in 1962 to £5·892 million at the time when it was opened in August, 1966 and is now £6·6 million. The increase since the last Order is in the region of £1¼ million. The Minister of State explained why it is necessary to go above the actual capital cost incurred so far from £7·038 million to £7·25 million.
  On the question of the extra safety margin we are budgeting for, are there still payments outstanding for capital works and compensation? It is very important to know that proper provision has been made not only for capital costs but what may be due to individuals compensation or whether the extra money needed is largely because of unpaid interest which is still expected to accrue and, therefore, has to be capitalised.
  On the question of the capitalisation of interest, what proportion is due to the local authorities concerned, which, as the Minister of State said, have the first call under the Order in relation to the capitalisation of interest charges, and how much is due to the Secretary of State? We should be grateful if the Minister of State would be more forthcoming on this point. When we last debated this subject the Minister of State said this:
  "We do not want to get involved too much in interest on interest and such other matters

  1717
  of capitalisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1966; Vol 725, c. 1659.]
  That may have been all right then, but since then we have received the Fifth Report from the Public Accounts Committee and the reply contained in the Treasury Minute dated November, 1967. It would not be in order for me to rake over that ground. That is history now. The Public Accounts Committee drew attention to the fact that failure originally to secure the capitalisation of unpaid interest due to the Secretary of State which was secured under the 1966 Order and which is reaffirmed in this Order could amount to an extra loss to the Exchequer of £750,000. The Treasury Minute in reply to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee said that the amount of loss was likely to be considerably less.
  I hope that the Minister of State will take the opportunity of enlarging on this matter this evening, because I hope that the amount of loss is less than the £750,000 which was alleged by the Public Accounts Committee. This was done advisedly at the time that the first Order was introduced in 1962 and was designed to get agreement with local authorities concerned. It would be interesting to know to what extent the Treasury Minute is correct and the amount of loss on interest is less than the £750,000 which it was claimed it would be. It would be encouraging to those of us who always believed it was right to build the bridge to know that the loss is rather less.
  Finally, looking to the future, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us when he expects—he was fairly general in his opening remarks—that the revenue from the bridge after meeting the operating and maintenance costs will be adequate to meet interest payments and thereby avoid the capitalisation of interest, thus ceasing to add to the capital cost of the bridge. So I am asking: when will the break-even point be reached? The Dundee Courier and Advertiser of Friday, 4th July, quotes the Treasurer of the Board as saying:
  "It will be five years before the bridge is able to meet its annual charges."
  I would be grateful if the Minister of State would confirm whether this is correct. We on this side are encouraged by the Minister's assurance that the
  1718
  break-even point will be achieved through the increase in traffic and not through the increase in tolls.
  I, for one, am convinced that there is a great danger that, if the tolls on this bridge were increased, we would frighten long-distance traffic away. As was borne out by an article in the Scottish Geographical Magazine, by Messrs. Jones and Pocock, the actual effects of the bridge are limited to a very close area around Dundee and the north-east part of Fife. I am convinced that, if tolls were increased, there would be a great danger that we would frighten traffic away.
  We on this side welcome the Minister's assurance this evening that he does not expect the tolls to be increased. The Order, in increasing the amount of capital borrowing that is possible, will carry us forward to the period when the bridge will break even, when the revenue will meet, not only the operating and maintenance costs, but also interest charges.
  All of us in the House are encouraged in that traffic on the bridge has been in excess of the original estimates. To this extent we welcome what the Minister of State has said. It would be helpful to all of us interested in this part of Scotland if the Minister could be more specific as to when this break-even point will be reached. The sooner it is reached, the happier we shall all be, because we shall know that the bridge is a thoroughly viable, economic proposition.
  The hopes and aspirations of the local authorities and individuals concerned in building the bridge will then be justfied. It is in that spirit that we support the Order tonight.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Doig: I welcome the Order. I must emphasise straight away that the bridge is not purely a local bridge. Even the Department now admits that it is more than the local bridge, as originally intended. I have that in mind when I wonder whether we are borrowing too much. The Government have contributed nothing towards the bridge, but, considering that it is now rapidly becoming part of the main road network south, they ought to consider paying something towards it, towards approach roads, and so on, instead of expecting all the charges to be met by tolls. The Government should have been a little more lenient.

  1719
  As one of the original members of the board, I assure the House that we did not think that there was a mistake as regards capitalisation of interest, and neither did the present treasurer of the board. We thought that it was the Government's way of giving some sort of subsidy towards the bridge. But it now turns out that they have backed down on that.
  I am convinced that the sum is adequate. I know personally the people who are concerned, people very well experienced in this sort of thing and competent to make the calculations. I accept it when they say that this sum will be adequate. If we borrow too much, we shall be paying extra interest unnecessarily, and the tolls may have to go up, or, putting it the other way, there will be delay in the reduction of tolls.
  As I say, I am inclined to think that we are borrowing too much rather than not enough, and the Government ought to give something towards this bridge which is of more than local importance.
  10.27 p.m.
  Mr. James Davidson: I declare an interest from the start. I use this bridge fairly regularly. I can correct any impression that it is a local bridge. After many experiments, I have discovered that the quickest way between Aberdeenshire and Edinburgh is via the two bridges.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I did not say that the bridge is not a service to a much wider area. It is. The significant point about the use of the bridge and its real economic influence—I think that the Minister of State will agree—applies to an area roughly from Montrose down into Fife rather than a far wider area. But the real economic benefit has been far greater locally than was ever envisaged in the early days.
  Mr. Davidson: I accept that explanation of what the hon. Gentleman meant.
  The shortcoming of the route, if there be one at all, is the lack at present of a suitable road between the Tay Bridge and the Forth Bridge. When we have that, we shall have a really swift road between the North-East of Scotland and Edinburgh. Whatever the criticism of the road linking the two bridges however
  1720
  I am sure that we shall all echo the immortal words of William McGonogall:
  "The New Yorkers boast about their Brooklyn Bridge,
  But in comparison to thee it seems like a midge,
  Because thou spannest the silvery Tay
  A mile and more longer I venture to say".
  I have two questions to put. What happens if revenue will not meet interest and repayment charges? Do we then expect another Order like this in a year or two? Second, if revenue, on the other hand, exceeds expectations and greatly exceeds the charges, what happens to the surplus?
  10.30 p.m.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I think that McGonagall also said:
  "The Tay, the Tay, the silvery Tay
  Flows from Perth to Dundee in a day and back".
  He never could scan. But I think that that was a reference to the older bridge, the railway bridge that was involved in the disaster.
  I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) must concede, as a member of the original committee of agitation as well as of organisation, that the Tay acquired this bridge much in advance of the Erskine Bridge on Clydeside because it made a bargain with the then Government over an arrangement which it must now honour. The Renfrewshire and Dumbartonshire County Councils are in the unfortunate position of seing as fine a bridge as the Tay Bridge built and with tolls charged by the State and with no burden on the ratepayers before theirs. They have lost the advantage of time, which the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has illustrated by the fact that this bridge proved to be of significance not only locally, but to many parts of Scotland beyond Dundee and the north-east corner of Fife. That is just as well.
  My hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite must recognise, also, that if we start to make an alteration in this bargain it means that we must postpone investment in some other part of Scotland to that value. It is as simple as that.
  I have always said that whenever that point is asked of us hon. Members must say to us, where do we postpone this? I am glad to confirm that in the recent

  1721
  White Paper that we discussed this morning in the Scottish Grand Committee we had a reference to the new road between the bridges across Fife—the Fife regional road. We shall be very pleased when the survey of the line of road and the procedures are completed so that we can get on with the building of that road. Perhaps that is a compensation for the complications surrounding the Order inherited from the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board itself.
  The need for the Order arises in part because of the recent settlement of a claim of the Dundee Harbour Trust. We are raising the limit on capital expenditure from £6·5 million to £7·25 million. The settlement is £240,000. The accrued interest of £90,000 due since the land was acquired cannot be paid until the draft Order is approved. We also have outstanding claims. I would not dare comment on the one which the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) mentioned, because I cannot recall it precisely, but as far as I am aware there are five claims not fully settled, one of which I hope is the one the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Part payment has been made in the case of three. I believe that one claim has not been admitted by the Joint Board and has not been raised again, and we presume that it is now finished. The five still to be settled are not substantial.
  At the same time, it is right that we should have a margin, and the margin we have here is about £200,000. In view of the history of the situation, I do not think that it is unreasonable to have such a margin. It is not extravagant in the circumstances of the Order. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we are not going too far in suggesting this.
  The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns asked me about the breakdown in terms of capital cost. The balance of the Logan contract is £20,000. The balance of the cost of properties, we are told, is about £10,000 and the balance of the Tay Ferries debt is £60,000. With regard to compensation, the West Dock claim, on which interest only is outstanding, is £90,000.
  The position is adequately covered by the Order. I repeat that the information I have from the clerk to the Joint Board is that it has been decided not to in
  1722
  crease the present tolls because of the present favourable traffic trends. Both we and the Board believe that there should be no difficulty in repaying the loans within the statutory period of 60 years.
  Sir J. Gilmour: Can the Minister confirm that interest on whatever compensation is payable is back-dated for everyone to the date of entry?
  Dr. Mabon: It is normal, I agree, for interest to be payable from the date of entry to the date of settlement in such cases, and I hope that the increased limit, with the margin I have suggested, will enable us to ensure that sufficient funds are available. But the hon. Gentleman, who is fair minded, will be the first to admit that I cannot specifically comment on a specific case. On the general principle, however, the answer to his question is, "Yes."
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the break-even point of the finances of the bridge, when it will start repaying interest and not having to capitalise interest, which is one of the purposes of the Order, will be in about five years' time?
  Dr. Mabon: Without notice, I would not like to say "Yes" or "No" to that. If the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to put down a Question, I will look into the point. We are not completely free agents in this matter, for we have to take advice from the Board and it must be an estimate that we agree with the Board. I will write to the hon. Gentleman if he likes, but in view of the general interest perhaps he would prefer to put down a Question.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Tay Road Bridge (Scheme) Approval Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.

  MICHAEL COLLIERY, WEST FIFE (CLOSURE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Miller.]
  10.36 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: The fire at the Michael Colliery, in my constituency, in September, 1967, was a disaster of the greatest magnitude not only in terms of the lives lost, but also because, overnight, over 2,000 men lost their jobs, and that in an area already finding great difficulty in providing a sufficient number of jobs, especially for its male population. It was a situation which no planner or planning mechanism could have foreseen or provided for.
  The Michael was a large colliery, producing about 17,000 tons of coal a week at a productivity rate of 3,500 cwt. per manshift, and it was within roughly three months of the closure that the National Coal Board decided, as it was entitled to do, not to reopen the colliery. It gave and has since given reasons why it took that decision.
  The first was that the cost of repairing the damage by fire and water and of carrying out work to make the pit profitable was, at that time—December, 1967—roughly £5 million. The second was that it would take about three years to bring up the output to what it had been before the pit closed. The third was that the production from the pit was not essential to the Board's operations, that the lost production could be made up from other sources from within Scotland.
  As I have said, that cost estimate was made in December, 1967. It was based on certain assumptions about underground conditions, about the speeds of drivage, the extent of the repair work required, and so on, and it was clear, and I think that the Board made it clear, that only experience could tell how great the actual problems were when it got down to them.
  I have subsequently—indeed, quite recently—been in contact with the Board, with my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay), and the latest figure that the Board has provided is that the total amount of investment required to reopen the pit would now be about £8½ million, made up as
  1724
  follows: capital expenditure, £2½million; interim losses, £2·8 million; working capital, £700,000; interest payable during construction, £700,000; the value of existing work, £1·8 million.
  It is estimated by the Coal Board—my hon. Friend will be familiar with these figures, for they were given to us by Lord Robens—that it would be possible to produce 960,000 tons of coal a year by 1972–73, and we were provided with the results of that estimate. Assuming that that figure was reached by 1972–73, output per manshift at the face would would be 202 cwt. and the overall o.m.s. 48·9 cwt. with a manpower of 1,909.
  On the financial side, the proceeds would be £4,740,000, roughly 98s. 9d. a ton, and the costs would be £5,148,000, or 107s. 3d. per ton, so that the loss as the Board calculated it before the payment of interest would be £408,000, representing a loss of 8s. 6d. a ton, and the calculation after the payment of interest is £1,003,000, or a loss of 20s. 10d. a ton. So the Board has calculated that there would be a loss both before and after the charging of interest. I make the point that this is the Board's case for not reopening on the financial estimates which it has made.
  On the marketing argument, the Board estimates that the total production in Scotland by 1972–73, without the Michael, would be roughly 13 million tons a year, and that demand at that time would also be roughly 13 million tons a year. In addition, there would be strategic stocks of coal at Longannet power station, which is not due to come into full operation until 1972–73, and there would be similar stocks at other stations and, therefore, adequate supplies to meet the market without the Michael.
  The Board has pointed out that there are substantial low risk reserves at the Michael—it estimates 13 million tons—and large quantities of other reserves which would depend on extensive proving and development.
  The long-term prospects into the mid1970s, Lord Robens pointed out, would depend on success in reducing the costs of production and, in particular, on the electricity market, for the electricity industry now takes 8 million tons a year. If that market is to be maintained, coal prices must be competitive, and the Board

  1725
  makes no attempt to minimise the size of the challenge facing the coal industry.
  The current pithead price of electricity coal in Scotland is given as 5s. 2d. per therm, which is among the highest in Britain, and even at that high level Scotland incurred a loss in 1968–69. But if costs are reduced to competitive levels and the electricity market is kept at 8 million tons, after allowing for reductions in other markets, the demand in 1972–73 is not expected to exceed 11 to 12 million tons. The level of production that year is expected to be 11¾ million tons, again without the Michael.
  Some point has been made about the shortage of coking coal in Scotland for supplying the steel industry. But Lord Robens was at pains to point out to us that that was an irrelevant argument in relation to the Michael since it does not produce coking coal.
  As for the manpower situation, we know that 2,184 men were employed when the pit was closed. Of those, 1,019 have transferred to other pits since the closure, 1,026 were redundant or retired, 122 left the pit of their own accord, and 17 are still employed at the Michael, presumably on care and maintenance.
  According to an article in the April, 1969, issue of The Miner, the Scottish mineworkers' journal, a sample survey in January of this year showed that 21 per cent. of the 350 men who found work outside the industry would go back to it if they had the opportunity—which is only one in five—and 25 per cent. would go back if there was a more secure future in the industry.
  The latest figures that I have, supplied to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs are for June, 1969. In the Kirkcaldy Employment Exchange area on 9th June, 1969, the number of redundant unemployed miners under 55 years of age is four. The number who are 55 and over is 38. In the Leven area, the number under 55 is only 10. and the number over 55 is 214. In the Cowdenbeath area, the number under 55 is nil, and the number who are 55 and over is 41. Clearly, there is not very much manpower in the area.
  If one looks at the figures for the Leven area specifically—and although not all of those ex-miners were employed at the Michael, a good many were—only 10 are under 55, 56 are between
  1726
  55 and 60, and 158 are between 60 and 64, making a total of 224. So clearly the reopening of the Michael would intensify the manpower shortage and, according to the Coal Board, add to the difficulties of manning up existing high investment pits in the area.
  The conclusion seems to be that the reopening of the Michael offers no financial return, according to the figures provided by the Coal Board and, therefore, there is no point in investing millions of pounds to produce coal for which there is no foreseeable demand, which would be produced at a loss and which would embarrass the manpower problem in other pits.
  The Coal Board points out that expenditure on pits now in production in Scotland since vesting day has been £91 million and it argues that the main job of management in Scotland is to secure increased efficiency and productivity from those pits to bring down costs in order to secure the future viability of the industry.
  As the Minister knows, my hon. Friend and I have written to him and seen him on several occasions in the past few months on this very problem. Recently, we saw both the Minister and Lord Robens on consecutive days, on 30th June and 1st July. The Minister pointed out that the question of reopening the Michael was a matter for the commercial judgment of the Coal Board. Accordingly, we went the next day to Lord Robens. He emphasised at the outset of his talks with us that the fact that the pit is not to be reopened now is no indication that it will never be reopened. In its way, that is a helpful sign, and we are thankful for any helpful sign that we get in this direction.
  Lord Robens said that the capital cost of reopening would not be the deciding factor whether the pit would be reopened. The deciding factor, he emphasised, would be the build up of power station demand. If the electricity demand of power stations and the general demand for electricity in other industrial development in Fife and that part of Scotland was to leap forward, the case for reopening the Michael Colliery would become that much stronger. He said that if, for instance, there was another Glenrothes where the geological difficulties compelled them to close that pit, that

  1727
  would be a new situation which would strengthen the argument for re-examining the prospect of reopening the Michael Colliery.
  Lord Robens quoted the example of the Longannet mines which will supply the Longannet power station. If those mines failed to meet the power station demand in the early 1970s, again the reopening of the Michael Colliery might be re-examined. But we cannot tell whether the Longannet group of mines will or will not meet the full demand of the Longannet power station, because it will not come into full production until about 1973.
  Lord Robens also made the point that if the Michael Colliery was to be reopened one day, it would be highly mechanised. The Board would train its own men and would have to keep them after they had been trained by paying them wages competitive with the other industry which is increasingly coming into the area. I say "thank goodness" for that.
  I must add that I am not one of those who will ever enthusiastically campaign for the opening or reopening and keeping open of coal mines. My father worked in the pits for most of his working life, and he is now choking to death with pneumoconiosis. Therefore, I speak with considerable feeling on this matter.
  I want to see new male employing industry providing healthy working conditions, security and high wages in a diversified economy. We are now getting that in Fife, thank goodness.
  I have travelled round many of the new industries in Fife, which is now the electronics centre for Europe, and I have never met an ex-miner working in another industry who would willingly go back to the pits. When I have said, "But you can get more money if you go back to Seafield", or wherever it may be, he has replied, "Not on your bloody life. I am not going back to the pits." I hope to see the day when no man has to go underground.
  There has been a little misunderstanding between the Minister of Power and the Board of Trade about the figures. I have been in contact with the Board of Trade, and I have the permission of the Parliamentary Secretary to quote the
  1728
  figures which I have been given. This letter, which I received only this morning, states:
  "However, the jobs in prospect expected to arise in the area"—
  that is, the Fife area—
  "within the next four years in authorised new industrial building and in existing building taken over by manufacturing firms are:—
  Kirkcaldy travel-to-work (covering the Employment Exchanges of Kirkcaldy, Glenrothes, Leven and Methil, and Burntisland) total 4,754, of which for males 2,723.
  Glenrothes alone"—
  where I think the misunderstanding arose over the Burroughs project—
  "total 1,630, of which for males 886."
  The Minister points out that she cannot disclose information relating to individual developments. I tried to get the figures for Burroughs, but the Ministry was either unwilling or unable to give them.
  Having said that, it is left for me only to say that so long as there is a sizeable demand for coal in Scotland—and the same applies to the United Kingdom as a whole, but we are concerned at the moment with Scotland—and there will be for a long time yet, it will have to be met by the sweat and the toil of Scottish miners. If the Michael Colliery has a part to play in meeting that demand, I hope that the Coal Board and the Ministry will give an assurance that nothing will be done by them to hinder it. I am sure that that assurance will be given by the Minister tonight. I shall be very disappointed if it is not, and if it is not, we shall return to the subject until it is.
  Meanwhile, whether the Minister gives that assurance or not, the Ministry and the Coal Board can be certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs and I, whose constituency interests are directly affected, will give the matter our continuous and critical scrutiny. That is our obligation and our duty, and we shall not fail in discharging it.
  10.56 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): May I, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, give the assurance in the terms that were sought, that if, in the commercial judgment of the National Coal Board, there is a case for reopening

  1729
  Michael Colliery, it will not be for us to stand in the way of that. But before saying anything else, perhaps I might congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on the clear statement that he has made to the House on the problem of reopening Michael Colliery, and, indeed, on other related matters in the locality.
  My hon. Friend, together with his and my hon. Friend, the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay), who, I see, is in the Chamber this evening, have been assiduous in their discussions and contacts with my right hon. Friend and myself, as well as the N.C.B. and the Board of Trade on these matters, and therefore my hon. Friend will understand that in view of the extensive information that he has obtained I am bound, to some extent, to be repetitive in replying to his observations.
  As my hon. Friend said, after very careful investigations, following the tragic fire, the N.C.B. decided that it was not a sensible, commercial proposition to reopen the Michael Colliery. This decision was taken on the basis of the cost of bringing the colliery back into production, and the time that such a decision would take to be implemented. Thus, over a period since then the work force has been dispersed, and has been absorbed into other employment. By 30th June of this year only 169 Michael men remained on the books of the employment exchanges in the locality. From a manpower point of view alone, therefore, the colliery could be reopened only by drawing men from other Scottish pits.
  My two hon. Friends have been to see my Minister to discuss the problems of their constituents fully in relation to Michael Colliery. They have also discussed them with me, so they know that none of my comments tonight are meant in any way to belittle the Government's concern over the unemployment problem in East Fife. It is a very real problem indeed. In the travel-to-work area covering the employment exchanges of Kirkcaldy, Leven and Methil, Glenrothes and Burntisland, there are 2,032 unemployed men registered. Of those, 279 are exminers affected by colliery closures, most of whom are over 55. The percentage of unemployed in the area is 4·8, as against
  1730
  3·5 for Scotland as a whole. There is no doubt that action is needed, and, indeed, there is no doubt that action is being taken by the Government to meet this situation.
  It was because the closure of Michael Colliery came on top of existing unemployment that the Government included Leven and Methil and the special development areas announced in 1967 soon after the fire. Four advance factories have been authorised in the travel-towork area, two have been completed and allocated to firms. One more has been completed and is awaiting allocation and the fourth is now under construction.
  During the past 2½ years, 26 industrial development certificates have been issued, totalling 1,048,000 square ft. of factory space. The President of the Board of Trade estimates that in the next four years the area will have 4,754 new jobs, 2,723 of which will be for men. This is rather greater than the present figure of 2,032 men unemployed.
  There is no shortage of the type of coal produced at the Michael Colliery. The lost production has been made up from elsewhere and the cost of reopening would be enormous. It was estimated at £5 million in 1967 and the House has heard from my hon. Friend that the present estimate is now much higher. In any case, it would be three years before the work could be completed and the colliery returned to full production. Expenditure of this order to produce coal which can be supplied from elsewhere makes no commercial sense and it can be said that there are more productive ways of spending public funds to develop the regions. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that this is very much in line with Government policy in this part of Scotland and elsewhere.
  There is no doubt that there are cogent reasons for not reopening Michael Colliery, but if more coal mining capacity were needed in Scotland in future I have no doubt that the N.C.B. would be prepared to consider very seriously the possibility of reopening this colliery. I hope that I have made it clear that the Government are fully aware of the difficulties in East Fife, as we are aware of similar difficulties in other parts of Scotland and other regions in the country. I hope that I have made it clear that we are taking action to attract new industry to the area,

  1731
  and there have been some excellent examples mentioned this evening.
  There is no doubt that this district is becoming one of the finest centres for science-based industries, not only in this country but in Europe. This is the kind of development which as my right hon. Friend rightly emphasised, the Government and the community at large should be encouraging. It is this kind of positive approach to meet the problems facing such a district which must be encouraged. It would, indeed, have been the kind of approach needed had there not been the tragic fire in 1967. This fire underlined the need for the kind of action which the Government are taking.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Has any estimate been made as to whether the Longannet series of mines can supply all the demands made by the power station when it comes into full production in 1973?
  Mr. Freeson: I have not been in touch with the N.C.B. about this recently but I recall that on a visit to the N.C.B. in Scotland, when I discussed Longannet I was given this general assurance. I will check this through the Department and write to my hon. Friend.
  The important point here, apart from the position of the coal industry in the locality, is that we are taking action to
  1732
  attract new industry to the area. There are enough jobs in prospect in the new and expanding industries to reduce the level of unemployment greatly. This is the correct solution for the future, rather than reopening the Michael Colliery. I stress that none of this is said smugly. I would never like to talk about any problem related to areas of high unemployment in the regions with any sense of smugness or even to give the impression of complacency, when we are stating the facts about Government action and policy, that sometimes gets about when people read our words in the locality.
  In stating what we are seeking to do—the kind of changes that are going on—I am not trying to pretend that there does not remain a very serious problem in the area. What I am stressing tonight is that the answer does not lie in the reopening of Michael Colliery; indeed, if anything, this might exacerbate a difficult situation—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at six minutes past Eleven o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Commission on Industrial Relations
  Commission on Industrial Relations
  Company and Factory Agreements
  Company and Factory Agreements
  Racial Discrimination (Complaints)
  Racial Discrimination (Complaints)
  International Labour Conferences
  International Labour Conferences
  Industrial Safety Advisory Council
  Industrial Safety Advisory Council
  Strikes, Lock-outs and Shutdowns (Lost Working Days)
  Strikes, Lock-outs and Shutdowns (Lost Working Days)
  Spring Bank Holiday
  Spring Bank Holiday
  Holiday Camps (Working and Living Conditions)
  Holiday Camps (Working and Living Conditions)
  Pensioners (Cost of Living Index)
  Pensioners (Cost of Living Index)
  Stephenson Clarke and Co. (Dispute)
  Stephenson Clarke and Co. (Dispute)
  Employers (Payments to Union Funds)
  Employers (Payments to Union Funds)
  Ambulance Crews (Terms and Conditions)
  Ambulance Crews (Terms and Conditions)
  Transport and General Workers Union (Industrial Negotiations)
  Transport and General Workers Union (Industrial Negotiations)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Manual Workers (Weekly Earnings)
  Manual Workers (Weekly Earnings)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Prices and Incomes
  Prices and Incomes
  Bank Employees (Pay)
  Bank Employees (Pay)
  Yorkshire Coalfield (Training Centres)
  Yorkshire Coalfield (Training Centres)
  Employment Exchange Areas
  Employment Exchange Areas
  Container Terminals (London Docks and Thames Estuary)
  Container Terminals (London Docks and Thames Estuary)
  Docks (Industrial Relations and Efficiency)
  Docks (Industrial Relations and Efficiency)
  Mergers
  Mergers
  European Economic Community (Exchange Programmes)
  European Economic Community (Exchange Programmes)
  Machinery (Noise)
  Machinery (Noise)
  Service Industries (Labour Requirements)
  Service Industries (Labour Requirements)
  Agricultural Training Board
  Agricultural Training Board
  Punfield and Barstow (Mouldings) Ltd. (Dispute)
  Punfield and Barstow (Mouldings) Ltd. (Dispute)
  Liverpool Docks (Manpower)
  Liverpool Docks (Manpower)
  Building and Construction Industry (Selective Employment Tax)
  Building and Construction Industry (Selective Employment Tax)
  A.E.I./G.E.C. (Reorganisation)
  A.E.I./G.E.C. (Reorganisation)
  Safety Officers
  Safety Officers
  Trade Unions (Recognition)
  Trade Unions (Recognition)
  Directors' Salaries
  Directors' Salaries
  Brickworks (Scotland)
  Brickworks (Scotland)
  Unofficial Strikes
  Unofficial Strikes
  Industrial Accidents
  Industrial Accidents
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Woodley, Reading (New School)
  Woodley, Reading (New School)
  Local Authorities (Student Grants)
  Local Authorities (Student Grants)
  Older Pupils
  Older Pupils
  Community Association Movement (Grants)
  Community Association Movement (Grants)
  New Schools
  New Schools
  Colleges of Education (Teachers)
  Colleges of Education (Teachers)
  New Primary School Places
  New Primary School Places
  Primary Schools (Parents)
  Primary Schools (Parents)
  Secondary Education (Harrow)
  Secondary Education (Harrow)
  Comprehensive Education
  Comprehensive Education
  Welsh Colleges
  Welsh Colleges
  National Film School
  National Film School
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Drowning Accidents
  Drowning Accidents
  Taxicab Driver (Accident)
  Taxicab Driver (Accident)
  Explosives Stores (Security)
  Explosives Stores (Security)
  "No Waiting" Prosecutions (Disabled Drivers)
  "No Waiting" Prosecutions (Disabled Drivers)
  Holland Villas Road, London (Party)
  Holland Villas Road, London (Party)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  United Nations Report (Trade Unions)
  United Nations Report (Trade Unions)
  Oder-Neisse Frontier
  Oder-Neisse Frontier
  Chemical and Biological Warfare
  Chemical and Biological Warfare
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Guyana (Defence and Police Forces)
  Guyana (Defence and Police Forces)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Immigrant Population
  Immigrant Population
HOSPITALS
  Building Trade Operatives (Incentive Bonus Schemes)
  Building Trade Operatives (Incentive Bonus Schemes)
  Shelton Hospital, Shrewsbury (Fire)
  Shelton Hospital, Shrewsbury (Fire)
HEALTH
  Mr. W. R. Macey (Brentwood)
  Mr. W. R. Macey (Brentwood)
  Coronary Disease
  Coronary Disease
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Foreign Currency Borrowing Nationalised Industries and Local Authorities)
  Foreign Currency Borrowing Nationalised Industries and Local Authorities)
RAILWAYS
  Border Union Company
  Border Union Company
ROADS
  Urban Highway Building (Committee)
  Urban Highway Building (Committee)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Equine Influenza
  Equine Influenza
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Office Development (City of London)
  Office Development (City of London)
  Planning Appeals (Transfer to Inspectors)
  Planning Appeals (Transfer to Inspectors)
HOUSING
  Building Work (Section 38 Land Commission Act)
  Building Work (Section 38 Land Commission Act)
  Empty Council Houses and Flats
  Empty Council Houses and Flats
  CONSUMER PROTECTION (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  CONSUMER PROTECTION (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES (SPEECH)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES (SPEECH)
  QUESTIONS (POPULATION MATTERS)
  QUESTIONS (POPULATION MATTERS)
  NOISE
  NOISE
  HIGHER CIVIL SERVANTS (PAY)
  HIGHER CIVIL SERVANTS (PAY)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Research Establishments
  Research Establishments
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Account (Acknowledgment)
  Account (Acknowledgment)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Businesses
  Businesses
  Directory Inquiries Service (Operation)
  Directory Inquiries Service (Operation)
COAL
  Mining Information
  Mining Information
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  British Embassy Building, Madrid (Cost)
  British Embassy Building, Madrid (Cost)
SCOTLAND
  School Building Programme
  School Building Programme
  Youth and Community Services (Crofting Counties)
  Youth and Community Services (Crofting Counties)
TECHNOLOGY
  Marine Sciences
  Marine Sciences
  Anti-pollution Equipment Demonstration (Pevensey)
  Anti-pollution Equipment Demonstration (Pevensey)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Holidays in Britain
  Holidays in Britain
WALES
  Reservoir, Radnorshire (Surveys)
  Reservoir, Radnorshire (Surveys)

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

TRADE DEFICIT FOR 1968: OVERSEAS SPENDING AND INVISIBLE EARNINGS
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order P
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government—

(1) what was the overall trading deficit for 1968;

(2) the amount of Government overseas spending for that year;

(3) the total income accruing from private invisible earnings for that year.]

LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the deficit on current balance for 1968 was £419 million; net Government overseas spending on current account was £462 million. This figure excludes official exports and imports, which cannot be separately identified, payments for United States military aircraft and net official payments of interest, figures of which will be published in the Pink Book on the Balance of Payments shortly. The total private invisible earnings were £403 million, excluding private net earnings of interest, profits and dividends, figures for which will also be published shortly.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that most helpful reply, and to put two supplementary questions to him. First, can the Minister say how much of the Government overseas spending was on overseas military aid? Secondly, would the Minister consider showing our monthly figures, of which everybody takes so much notice, in the kind of way in which he has answered my Question?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the overseas expenditure on military account was rather more than half of the total which I mentioned; namely, £244 million. As for the presentation of the accounts, there is a case for what the noble Lord suggests, and this is now being considered.

FALKLAND ISLANDS AND THE ARGENTINE
3.7 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: 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 further developments have taken place in respect of the Falkland Islands and the claim of the Argentine Government.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, since I repeated in your Lordships' House the Statement which my right honourable friend made in another place on December 11, further talks have taken place with the Argentine authorities. The purpose of these has been to continue to explore possible means of narrowing the differences which exist between the two Governments in this problem, and I hope for that reason that it will be possible to go on with the discussions.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, may I first ask my noble friend whether actual discussions have taken place between our own representatives and the Argentine Government representatives? Secondly, can he give some idea of the nature of the proposals which are designed to narrow the gap? In what way is it being narrowed?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, as I indicated in my original Answer, there have been these discussions; they have been taking place between representatives of the British Government and representatives of the Argentine Government. I hope that my noble friend will not press me to say in detail what has taken place during these discussions, as the talks have so far been confidential.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Falklanders have been kept in the picture in connection with these talks?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, we shall of course keep the Government and, through them, the people of the Falkland Islands in touch with any development that takes place. So far there have only been talks, and there has been no development of any kind which requires that the people of the Falkland Islands should be informed of it.

SCOTTISH TOURISM AND CRAIGNURE HOTEL
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: 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:

(1) whether the construction of the Craignure Hotel, Mull, is on a fixed price contract;

(2) what rent the operators are paying;

(3) whether they consider this rent to be a satisfactory return on the capital;

(4) where the facilities for fishing and stalking mentioned by the Minister on June 19 will be provided.]

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, the contract for the construction of the hotel has been placed on a firm price basis. The terms of the lease between the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the operating company are a matter of commercial confidence and it would not be proper for me to say more than that the rent is a fixed annual charge plus a share of tie profits. The Board regards this hotel as a key project in its plans for the development of tourism in Mull, and the return is regarded as adequate in these circumstances. The activities which I mentioned on June 19 are those for which the Board is seeking to improve or develop facilities: fishing and stalking rights have not yet been negotiated.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his reply and also for settling the first part of my Question, that the contract is on a fixed price basis, which is extremely important for the Island of Mull, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that many people may think it rather odd that the Highlands and Islands Development Board should give this extraordinarily large sum of money, over £300,000, and that we are not told the amount of rent? Further, is the Minister aware that many people think that this hotel ought to have been put out to tender, so that all hoteliers could have had the opportunity of taking it? Furthermore, may I ask the noble Lord—
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, would the noble Viscount give way? I am rather in danger of losing the thread of what question, if any, he is asking. In order that I may return to the scene, would he perhaps make clear at the next stage of asking his question whether he is talking about going to tender for the building of the hotel or going to tender for the letting of the hotel?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I am talking about going to tender for the letting of the hotel.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, may I then answer that part? During 1968 the Board had discussions with eight leading Scottish hotel groups, and it was following these discussions that the lease was fixed with this particular one.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that it will be extremely difficult to make a profit on an hotel in this area? The noble Lord said that the Highlands Development Board were engaging with the operators on a certain profit-sharing basis. Regarding the last part of my Question, the noble Lord is aware that the—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, may I interrupt? If the noble Viscount knows the noble Lord is aware, there is no need to ask him. Without wishing to harass him, I would ask the noble Viscount whether he could put a rather more direct question. Or perhaps he feels he has got enough information already.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, the form in this House, as the noble Leader knows, is that one has to say, "Is the noble Lord aware", or, "May I ask".
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord was not saying "Is the noble Lord aware"; he was saying "The noble Lord is aware".
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I apologise, my Lords; I thought I said, "Is the noble Lord aware?" that the majority of fishing and stalking rights in this area, the properly regulated sporting rights, are already let and are fully utilised.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the conditions of this House are not that noble Lords use the words "Is the noble Lord aware?" in order to get away with a speech which would otherwise be out of order.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, may I ask the Minister one further question on this matter? The noble Lord will agree that a substantial sum of public funds is involved—over £300,000. Could he say whether a rental of something of the order of 5 per cent., which would provide a figure of £15,000 a year return on capital, is the sort of figure that he would indicate as a fair return?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I indicated that to a certain extent this was a matter of commercial confidence. The percentage which the Highlands and Islands Development Board will actually get will, of course, turn on what their share of the profits is. May I return to something the noble Viscount said: that it was difficult to earn profits? All this company are going to get out of it is their share of the profits, so they will presumably expect that there are going to be some.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware if the rents charged for these hotels, et cetera, are, or are not, eventually subject to the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Commitee? I do not know whether they are or not, and I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell me.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am not aware.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us what is the objection to informing the House of the amount of the rent, and even the share of the profits?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, because it is the established practice that in commercial transactions of this nature they are not disclosed. This is not something which is confined to the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, this is public money: surely the public is entitled to know how its money is being used and what return it is getting.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.17 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL rose to move, That if the Committee stage of the Divorce Reform Bill is not finished this day, proceedings in Committee on the Bill be not resumed on any Friday. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I have put this Motion down to-day because I believe that the Divorce Reform Bill is the most important social measure which has been debated in Parliament in the course of this Session. For that reason, I believe that it merits the presence in this House of as large a number of your Lordships as possible. It seems to me that on Friday there is a very thin attendance and therefore this very important measure cannot be debated as it should be.
I just want to remind your Lordships who were not here on the Second Reading of the two fundamental principles in this measure which will completely change our divorce laws. There is, first, divorce by compulsion of the innocent spouse and, secondly, divorce by consent after two years separation. In both those cases, there is failure to provide adequate financial provision. I am sure that those of your Lordships who did not attend the Second Reading will realise that if we put measures of this kind on the Statute Book they must have far-reaching implications. I have been told that it is normal to have a Private Member's Bill on a Friday. I think that to call this a Private Member's Bill is not quite correct, because in another place it was given Government time. Furthermore, I

1185
would say that a Private Member's Bill is always looked upon as a Bill of not great significance and of having perhaps only limited application. This Bill will have national application, and indeed will be a matter of concern for every family in the country.
I would remind the House of what happened in another place, and the reasons why I feel that we should have a greater opportunity to debate this Bill. The Third Reading was taken very late at night on a Thursday, and less than 25 per cent. of the Members entitled to do so registered their votes. Can this possibly reflect the feelings of the country on this Divorce Bill, which embodies such far-reaching changes? I suggest that our House can now give it detailed investigation, and can decide by Amendment whether it should go on to the Statute Book.
By a curious coincidence, my noble friend Lord Stonham, in speaking last Thursday on the Children and Young Persons Bill, rose at about 8 o'clock at night and said that he proposed to adjourn the discussion in order to resume in full strength on Monday. I am asking only for the same treatment of the Divorce Bill. Sit to-day, yes—but not too late. Let us adjourn early. as the Government quite wisely decided to do last Thursday on an important Bill, so that we can have a full vote. Then, instead of meeting to-morrow, let us meet on Monday when, again, we can examine the Amendments. I see that there are 46 Amendments down and, apart from my own, nobody can say that the names attached to those Amendments are insignificant. I am gratified to see that the noble and learned Law Lords have seen fit to put their names to some of these Amendments, and we should surely avail ourselves of their advice. Therefore I am asking that, instead of debating the Bill on Friday, we should debate it on other days.
In conclusion, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Stow Hill feels as I do on this matter—and I recall his very clever winding-up speech, which I quite understood—because he had sat here during the Second Reading and had heard noble Lords on both sides of the House get up and criticise one principle after another in this Bill. It is quite clear that the House was not agreed that this Bill should go forward as it is, and my
1186
noble friend realised this. He understands—he is a lawyer—and in his winding-up speech he said:
"If this Bill receives a Second Reading, obviously one must envisage a very intense debate in Committee on paragraph (e) and the five-year separation. If your Lordships decided in Committee to put a pen through that paragraph you could do so and the rest of the Bill could survive. Certainly it is a most important and fundamental provision, in my judgment at any rate, but the Bill without it would nevertheless be what I would describe as a viable Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30/6/69, col. 439.]
He then went on to Clauses 4 and 6, which are concerned with the financial provisions, and about which there was some discussion. He said:
"… but those, again, are matters which obviously cry out for further discussion in Committee."—[col. 440.]
"Cry out", my noble friend said, and he chooses his words very carefully. He then told the House that it was going to have its opportunity. He finally said:
"I beg your Lordships to say that it would be a great pity, after this tremendous labour by devoted people, inside and outside Parliament, if the Bill did not at least proceed so far as the detailed and minute examination to which it should be subjected, which nobody would deny, if it gets its Committee stage before your Lordships' House."—[col. 440]
I am asking your Lordships to-day for that detailed and intense examination for which my noble friend pleaded the other clay. Therefore may we sit on clays other than Friday, when there is only a thin attendance? I beg to move.
Moved, That if the Committee stage of the Divorce Reform Bill is not finished this day. proceedings in Committee on the Bill be not resumed on any Friday.—(Baroness Summerskill.)
3.24 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, of course my noble friend Lady Summerskill is in order in moving her Motion, but under the same Rules my noble friend Lord Stow Hill is in order in putting down his business for consideration tomorrow. When there is this conflict between the two requirements it will be for the House as a whole to decide, and I imagine that, by Division or otherwise, it will wish to come to a conclusion as speedily as Possible.
There is, however, one consideration that I would venture to put before your Lordships. This Motion puts forward a very attractive proposition, that we should

1187
not sit on Fridays. I must say that this is very attractive to me, and I have no doubt that all noble Lords would consider it a very easy way out. What it does not take into account, and what is much more difficult, is to decide when we should consider our business if we do not take it on a Friday. In July every year, since long before my time, this House has a great deal of business to consider. July is the busiest month of the year. Although we have tried very hard to make it a more even two-way flow as between this House and another, when the flush of legislation comes from the other place we have considerable problems in this month of July.
This month we have the Housing Bill: we have the Post Office Bill we have the Education (Scotland) Bill; we have the Development of Tourism Bill; we have the National Insurance Bill; and we have the Transport (London) Bill—which now has some 80-odd Amendments down to it: 62, I may say, from one noble Lord. That Bill is down for consideration on Monday. That is the business which my noble friend says she would like to sweep away. And we still have to come from another place the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill, which I understand will probably receive full treatment from your Lordships' House.
If we are to fulfil our responsibilities as a revising Chamber, we can either sit very late into the night and into the early hours of the morning, or we can go further into August, which I understand is not desired. Or we can use five days of the week, which does not seem to me (and I discussed it through the usual channels) an unreasonable proposition. There is nothing unusual about this. We sat last year for six successive Fridays; and in the year before the present Labour Government took over (I turned it up) we sat for six successive Fridays in June and July. The last time divorce was considered in this House, it was considered on a Friday, in the proceedings on the Matrimonial Causes Bill, and I am told that it was not a thin House. Although the total membership of the House at that time, five years ago, was less, there was a very considerable vote. I therefore suggest to my noble friend that we have to take other matters into account.
1188
In all this, I would say that the Government themselves do not have control of the business: we are acting only as an honest broker. My noble friend, Lord Stow Hill, has been most considerate, most understanding and most sympathetic in moving his own Bill about, in order to fit in with the requirements of the Government. We have found it possible—and I thank those noble Lords who have co-operated—to make Thursday, to-day, available, which was not the original intention. We have also moved business about next Tuesday, and a good deal of inconvenience has been caused. But we shall now have Tuesday for this Bill. As I said, my noble friend Lord Stow Hill has been extremely understanding and co-operative in this matter. I am bound to say that I only wish my noble friend Lady Summerskill had been equally co-operative.
3.29 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, in accordance with the practice and rules of the House, the mover of a Bill has some responsibility for the choice of date when he puts it down, and in those circumstances I think your Lordships would wish to have an account from me of the thinking which led me to decide to ask your Lordships to undergo the undoubted inconvenience of reassembling on Friday. May I say at once, with real sincerity, that I am extremely sorry if I have caused inconvenience. It is a thing that I should be most reluctant to do, but I was confronted with this situation.
My noble friend Lady Summerskill has read out passages from a speech which I ventured to make on Second Reading, when this Bill was before your Lordships previously, and I endorse every word of it. I am most anxious that your Lordships should have a full and ample opportunity for considering each one of the clauses most minutely and in the fullest possible detail. The choice, in those circumstances, was this: either I could (if this is the appropriate language) choose Thursday, to-day, which was made available by the kindness of my noble friend Lord Beswick, plus Friday, thereby incurring the reproach of causing your Lordships inconvenience, plus Tuesday of next week, thereby securing three days during which your Lordships could consider this Bill in Committee; or I could, as it seemed to me, avoid inconveniencing your Lordships by rather rushing the

1189
debate in Committee by trying to crowd it into the Thursday and the following Tuesday.
I was confronted, in those circumstances, with a balance of considerations. Should I occasion inconvenience to the House, or should I adopt the choice which I in fact adopted of bringing it about, by the dates I chose, that your Lordships had a full three days, or nearly a full three days, in which to go through this Bill and examine it in Committee? hope your Lordships will think that I did right in deciding that three days were better than two days; and I am a little surprised by the argument which was put forward so convincingly by my noble friend Lady Summerskill, that we should cut the time available by one-third. It would mean that we should have to skimp the Committee stage consideration of this Bill; and it seemed to me that the argument which she was advancing to your Lordships would have resulted in precisely the opposite conclusion to that which she wanted to reach.
I hope that after three days your Lordships will feel that this Bill has been properly and thoroughly examined. It may be changed or it may not be changed; but if it emerges from its consideration in Committee at least one can say of it that it has been subjected to a profound examination in this House and that this House has in every sense fulfilled its function as a revising Chamber. If we cut the time by one-third, it probably will not be possible to say that, and that is a result which I personally should very much regret. In those circumstances, I can only, as it were, throw myself on your Lordships' mercy and hope that your Lordships will endorse the decision which I took, with the assistance—and may I acknowledge with great gratitude the assistance I have received—of my noble friend Lord Beswick, and will think that I was right, in all the circumstances, in asking your Lordships to meet on Friday.
Before I came to that decision I examined very closely what the precedents were. My noble friend Lord Beswick has read them out. It is not as if I were asking your Lordships to do something which is wholly unknown in this House. Your Lordships have discussed both Government business and
1190
Private Member's Bills on a Friday. It very often happens in July; and in July it is rather the usual thing, in a sense, for the business of this House to be rather crowded because measures come from the other place at the last minute. It is difficult to avoid that situation. In those circumstances, I greatly hope that your Lordships will not accede to the arguments of my noble friend Lady Summerskill, and will decide that if we do not complete the Committee stage debate this evening, as I imagine we shall not, your Lordships will be ready to resume that debate tomorrow.
3.33 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, we are, I think, placed in some difficulty, because we have listened to two very reasonable speeches, one from the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and one from the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and I have sympathy with both of them. I sympathise with the noble Baroness about Fridays, and I have said so before. It is perfectly true that we sometimes have to sit on Fridays, and I have no doubt that the practice was started by a Conservative Government, if that gives any satisfaction to noble Lords opposite. But it is, on the whole, a last recourse. We try not to do it; and we try not to take important business on those Fridays because a large number of noble Lords do other jobs and so arrange their affairs that they do those other jobs on Fridays, when the House is not sitting. It upsets everybody's plans if we sit on important Bills on Fridays, and as a general rule I think that that is a very bad thing, and I said so forcibly on the last occasion. I am sorry if I offended the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, by saying that he was not taking things seriously; but I think it is a bad thing.
My Lords, on most occasions I am inclined to blame the Government for everything, but on this particular occasion I do not think, in honesty, I can; because what happens, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick has said, is that every July we are used as a dumping ground for all the legislation coming up from the other place which they have studied and amended at their leisure. Then we, in a short month, have to decide on all these matters. As a result, July is an extremely crowded month. I have looked—because I have had the opportunity of talking to

1191
noble Lords opposite—at the timetable which faces us for the next few weeks, and I should like to say, if I may, that I think the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip have really done their best. They have given two Government days to this Bill, and so far we are being asked to sit on only one Friday. When we originally discussed this matter I do not think that any Government days were given to it—or, at any rate, if so, only one. I think that they have tried. So, much as I dislike sitting on Fridays, and much as I regret that a Bill of this importance should be discussed on a Friday, I have come to the conclusion that it would be far worse that your Lordships should refuse to sit on a Friday in order to discuss a measure of this importance, and that if we did the House might very rightly be blamed for it.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to endorse what has just been said by the noble Lord. I appreciate the noble Baroness's case, which she put very reasonably to the House, but, equally, I think we have to realise that at this time of the year we are expected—we are obliged—to work a five-day week, and particularly to deal with a measure of this importance. I can see no reason, inconvenient as it is to many of us, why we should not, on a measure of this importance, have a very full attendance tomorrow on this Bill; and I do not think one gets more time for a measure by passing a Resolution not to sit on Fridays. I should like to add that I think it is time we made known again to the other place that we should like to start more Bills here, so that they can get them at this time of the year and relieve some of the pressure on this House.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, as the person who raised this issue last week, I should like to add a further word. We on this side do not normally agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, says, but I believe that noble Lords on all sides of the House who take their Parliamentary duties conscientiously and feel that your Lordships' House has an important role to play, not least on these social reforms, agree with her that this is an important Bill. I think it is the most important Bill in the way of social reform that I
1192
can remember in the ten years I have been in your Lordships' House: certainly it is the most far-reaching. I have no objection at all to working five days a week at this time of the year. What I object to is taking a Bill of this importance on a Friday and not seeing the rest of the Government's business adjusted to make way for it.
The reason I have for saying that is the way in which this matter has been handled so far. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out on Second Reading what a respectable ancestry this Bill has got and how thoroughly it had been dealt with in the Commons. The Commons certainly spent a long time on it. They discussed it over a period of six months. They started on December 2, and finally passed it on June 12. We are now asked to deal with all stages of the Bill in three weeks. That is the kind of thing we have complained about many times before.
We never seem to get any change; and it appears to me that the Government are constantly asking Parliament to pay the price for their lack of foresight. There must have been a business programme in the eyes of the Government from the moment of the Queen's Speech. None of the measures which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has mentioned were not in the gracious Speech. We knew they were all coming. In fact, circumstances do slightly alter cases, but in this case we have not had the House of Lords Reform Bill, which we were expecting, and we have not had the Industrial Relations Bill, which we were promised—and still the Government are in a jam. For myself, I feel that if Parliament does not take a stand—and this seems to me a good point at which to take a stand—in order to have time to handle these important Bills properly when they come to us, we shall never get anywhere. If the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, cares to press her Motion to a Division I shall certainly support her.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, there are two aspects of this matter to which I should like briefly to draw your attention. First, your Lordships have a reputation for conducting business in a highly civilised way. For that reputation I think that no small amount of thanks is due to those most industrious and helpful people

1193
responsible for organising what have come to be known as "the usual channels". Recently, I think there have been occasions when they may have received more kicks than ha'pence. I do not think that this is really the kind of thanks they deserve—and I refer to "the usual channels" not only in the person of Lord Beswick but to the usual channels on all sides of the House.
The other fact that I think should be remembered—and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, seemed to overlook it—is that this is not a Government Bill. This is a Bill which could not be a Party political Bill. No Government of any political colour could introduce such a Bill. This is a Bill of great social reform and it has followed the pattern through your Lordships' House that other Bills of Social reform have followed in the past. I agree with the noble Baroness—I seldom disagree with her—that it is a pity that we have to consider these matters on a Friday; but this is a busy month of the Session and we are within three weeks of the end of that month. The alternative seems to be to prolong the Session for Government business into August. I am sure that that would be a much greater evil than having to deal with these matters of great importance for a few hours on a Friday, in addition to the other day that the Government have generously found time to devote to it.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I should not like to suggest that my noble friend Lady Summerskill, in moving this Motion, is trying to lose this Bill. After all, we have four Bills coming up on a Friday in the last few weeks of this Session. One of them is an extremely important Bill, the Children and Young Persons Bill. I think perhaps that my noble friend, as a great feminist and as one who has done a great deal for the rights of women in this country, would have been wiser to hurry along the Divorce Reform Bill in order to press for the matrimonial property legislation about which she is so concerned. I believe that the Divorce Reform Bill will act as a catalyst for the marital property legislation. That is all I have to say.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: My Lords, as a Backbencher I should like to say that I have not been convinced by any of the speeches made this after-
1194
noon that there is any real reason why this House should not sit on a Friday. I feel that the noble Baroness has moved this Motion merely as a delaying tactic to prevent this very important Bill from going through this Session.
LORD MACANDREW: My Lords, this is a Private Member's Bill. In the other place Private Members' Bills are governed by a very strict timetable. The result of that is that it is very difficult to get them through. Very often they should not be got through. This is a Private Member's Bill which has not been starred; but the Government are giving it every facility. On the one hand, the Government say that they are neutral; on the other, they are doing everything to help the Bill. It is inconceivable to my mind that they should do that—star it or not!
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I would acquit my noble friend Lady summerskill—it was apparent from the moderation of her speech—of any desire to delay this Bill by spinning out the discussion now. I must say that I am grateful to noble Lords for the moderation with which among other things, they have treated the noble Lord, Lord Beswick and myself. I must say that if by some strange chance I ever find myself in Opposition I shall be much more sympathetic than I was when I was in Opposition previously. I agree with noble Lords that it is unfortunate that we get stuff "shovelled" down to us at the end of a Session. Successive leaders and Chief Whips of all Parties have tried desperately to prevent it. I agree that it has happened again. This is one of the matters in which we had hoped that House of Lords Reform would have produced a greater degree of equality. But it is too late to discuss that now.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that the Government do plan their timetables but that the timetables do not always work out. I must say that I have not previously known a Session in my life time in which major Bills have disappeared and new major Bills have suddenly appeared to add t the turbulence of our affairs. I think that we have done our best. We have given up another Government day to this Bill. Although we cannot achieve perfection in this matter, I hope that the House

1195
will feel that we have tried to be as cooperative as possible. My noble friend has a right of reply but I think that apart from her speech (I do not, of course, wish to prevent anyone speaking), the feeling is that we should like to come to a decision on this Motion.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I want to make only a short reply. Tuesday, the other day referred to, was put in after my Motion was put down. Most of the debate will take place tonight and tomorrow, Friday. There are some matters of such principle to which the noble and learned Law Lords will address themselves that, frankly, I feel it will be a great disappointment to the whole House not to hear them. Therefore I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I think that we must go to a Division.
On Question, resolved in the negative and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

AUCTIONS (BIDDING AGREEMENTS) BILL
3.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Colville of Crelross.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ST. HELENS in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Persons convicted not to attend or participate in auctions]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 22, leave out ("his representative") and insert ("that person and any representative of him").
The noble Viscount said: In moving these Amendments, I am aware that we have spent a little time in discussing whether we should have the Divorce Bill tomorrow or not. I will therefore try to deal with them very quickly. If any
1196
Member of the Committee has any point that he wishes to raise on them, I will try to explain. Otherwise I hope that I may be forgiven for giving only a fairly brief resume of the points of the Amendments.
In the case of the first one, it has been said to me—and I think it is probably right—that the form of the order the court may make under Clause 2 of the Bill as drafted would he only of one sort. The court could only make an order prohibiting the person convicted, together with any representative of him, from attending auctions in accordance with the rest of the provisions of the clause. I do not think that that is sufficiently flexible. I believe that the court ought to have power to make one or two sorts of order: either to ban the person convicted, by himself, or, if it is a suitable case and they feel it necessary, to ban him together with any representatives of him. I believe that orders under this clause may be pretty rare—indeed, convictions under the existing Act have been non-existent. One hopes that that may be put right. Nevertheless, I believe that the court should have the widest flexibility in accordance with the general policy of giving flexibility to a court in sentencing. It is in order to try to ensure that that I move this Amendment now. I beg to move.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Cuirass, has clearly explained the purpose of this Amendment, which is to make quite clear the scope of the ban which a court may impose, and to give the court discretion to exclude representatives of a convicted person from the ban when it is appropriate to do so. I am happy to say that Her Majesty's Government agree with him and we support the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 22, after ("not") insert ("(without leave of the court)").
The noble Viscount said: This is a point which perhaps has a little more substance than might at first appear. I have heard it said that a ban under Clause 2, an order preventing a person convicted from attending auctions, might be unfair because of one of two reasons: the circumstances might change or, alternatively,

1197
it might be that the person is a dealer who has been convicted for belonging to a ring and he normally operates in one particular field, say the fine arts, but is also, as are most of us, a gardener, and he wishes to go to a country sale to buy a potato sieve, or something of that nature. If the order by the court is strictly observed he cannot go to the other sort of auction at all. That is quite wrong and again there ought to be more flexibility.
How it is to be done is suggested by this Amendment and I hope that the Committee will approve of it. If the person wanted to go to some special sort of auction outside his ordinary line of business he would be able to apply to the court and I have no doubt that the court would allow him to go. It might be that he would be able to persuade the court to lift the order altogether—that, after all, does happen in other cases such as a disqualification from driving; it is possible in such a case to go back after a period of time to the court who convicted you and ask them to review the disqualification. Therefore there is a respectable precedent for this measure that I suggest. I have considered whether any procedure ought to be mentioned in the Bill, but I think it is inherent in the wording that the court would be allowed to entertain an application for a review of this matter; accordingly I do not think it necessary to put in anything more than appears in the Amendment. I beg to move.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I am again pleased, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to tell the noble Viscount that I can support the Amendment which would, as the noble Viscount has so clearly pointed out, introduce some flexibility in regard to the ban. We are extremely fortunate to have someone like the noble Viscount to tender these Amendments and make clear their purpose to us all.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are on the same point. They correct what is perfectly plainly a mistake. The clause as it stands does not allow the magistrates or, alternatively, quarter sessions or assizes to impose an order for less than one year or less than three years. It cer-
1198
tainly ought to be a maximum period and the Amendment makes that clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("less") and insert ("more").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I am happy to tell the noble Viscount that Her Majesty's Government support the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("less") and insert ("more").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 28, leave out from ("goods") to ("or") in line 30 and insert ("intended for sale by auction are on display").
The noble Viscount said: This is little more than a drafting Amendment. As the Bill is now drafted, a person upon whom an order has been made would commit an offence—or at least he would do if one of my later Amendments is accepted—if he went into a public hall which was going to he used for an auction the following Friday, even although he went in to attend a whist drive. That is plainly absurd. On the other hand, one wishes to maintain the position that he should not go in when subject to one of these orders, even to look at goods on display before an auction. I hope I have devised (I must say with some assistance) words which happily draw the line between what is undesirable and what is desirable, and those words are in the Amendment which I beg to move.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I am happy to tell the noble Viscount that I can support this Amendment. I have always hoped that there would be an occasion when I could accept all the Amendments to a Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE of CULROSS: Amendment No. 6 is a drafting Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 31, leave out ("public").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) In the event of a contravention of an order under this section, the person who contravenes it (and, if he is the representative of another, that other also) shall be guilty of an offence and liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £400;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.

( ) In any proceedings against a person in respect of a contravention of an order under this section consisting in the entry upon premises where goods intended for sale by auction were on display, it shall be a defence for him to prove that he did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that goods so intended were on display on the premises, and in any proceedings against a person in respect of a contravention of such an order consisting in his having done something as the representative of another, it shall be a defenece for him to prove that he did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that that other was the subject of such an order.
( ) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this section by reason only of his selling property by auction or causing it to be so sold.")
The noble Viscount said: There are three new subsections in this Amendment. I have put them all down at once, and I hope that will not be considered improper. I do not think there is anything very startling in any of them. The first makes it an offence to contravene an order already made under Clause 2. If this part of this Amendment were not inserted I do not think that anything much could be done, by a magistrate's court at any rate, if someone on whom an order was made flouted it; he would go scot free. Therefore the penalty which is set down in the first part of the Amendment is necessary. The actual penalties suggested, which are, of course, maxima, seem to be in line with the rest of the penalties under this Bill, and I hope, therefore, that they are satisfactory.
The second new subsection provides for two defences. In the first place, it applies to anybody who is the subject of an order under Clause 2 and it lays down that if he goes into a place where goods intended for sale by auction are on display it would be a defence for him
1200
to show that he did not know the goods were there and had no reason to suspect it. That seems a perfectly reasonable thing to provide for. If the person did not know, he could not have had the guilty intention which is necessary to establish a criminal offence anyway. The second defence concerns an order which includes representatives of the person on whom the order was primarily made and who had been convicted. It provides that if any such representative takes part in an auction in such a way as to contravene the order, he has a defence if he shows that the person he was representing was not to his knowledge or suspicion the subject of any order. Again, this would seem entirely reasonable. If he did not know that there was any order applying to the person who had been convicted he could hardly be guilty in any sense of a breach of the order. The second part of the second subsection is intended to provide a defence for that.
The third subsection would seem to be a reasonable provision when a person is subject to one of the bans or orders under Clause 2. It is to prevent his taking part in an auction where he goes to buy, or to bid for things hoping that he will buy them. There does not seem to be any point in preventing him from selling his own goods, or indeed goods belonging to anyone else, because he is not likely then to take part in any of the dishonest activities of which he has been convicted. Therefore any order under Clause 2 would not be infringed if the person to whom it related sold by auction his property, or the property of someone else. I hope that is an adequate explanation of the last part of the Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD RAGLAN: I wonder whether I might ask a question of the noble Viscount on a point of clarification? He said that the first subsection provides for a maximum sentence. I notice that subsection (b) provides for a fine. Is that an unlimited fine?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, is quite right. There is no maximum on the fine which may be imposed on indictment, either by quarter sessions or assizes. This is a very common provision in criminal Statutes and a large number of other cases could be shown to the noble Lord. It is a very ordinary thing and nothing

1201
to worry about, but the noble Lord is right—this is one of the occasions where no maximum is laid down.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: In Clause 1, on summary conviction, an offender is liable to a fine not exceeding £400 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both. Under the proposed new subsection, he is liable only to a fine and not to a term of imprisonment. I feel that this is a matter in which imprisonment could be a useful deterrent, because the sums involved are so vast.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am grateful to the noble Duke for making this point, which is something I should like to look at. If it was a serious case, where somebody had been guilty of a serious offence in the first place, had had an order imposed on him and in a serious way infringed that order, there would be no difficulty in dealing with him on indictment, in which case he could be sent to prison by quarter sessions or assizes. If he came up before the magistrates, they could not send him to prison for any length of time and would only fine him. I should like to look at this point again. Probably the Amendment as it stands is enough, subject to anything I may consider in the meantime before Report stage.
LORD STRABOLGI: I should like to congratulate my noble friend on these Amendments and on putting this clause right. There were reservations about it in another place and the noble Viscount had reservations about it on Second Reading, as I had. I think that the Amendments are a great improvement and I am glad that they have the support of the Government and indeed, I hone, of the whole Committee. I am glad that the Bill is having such a happy passage.
There is one question I should like to ask. Does this Amendment introduce a defence for the representative who is buying something on his own account? The Amendment allows a representative to sell something, but I am not clear whether he is allowed to go to an auction, not necessarily to represent his partner who may have been convicted, but on his own account to buy something, maybe of a different kind. I am not clear whether that is a sufficient defence under the wording of the clause as it stands at present.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for his kind words as, indeed, I am to the noble Baroness for her encouragement. I think the answer is this. If an order were to include the representative, it would not include anybody by name; it would merely apply to the person convicted or any representatives of him. Therefore, at any time for the period of the order it is a question of fact whether or not somebody is acting as representative of the person convicted, who is the main subject of the order.
If the partner of a convicted dealer goes to an auction and buys something on his own account, he is not doing that as a representative because he is not doing it on behalf of the person convicted. I appreciate that evidential proof of this matter may be extremely difficult to obtain, but I should have thought that it was a perfect defence by a person accused of being a representative and infringing an order if he could show the court that he was acting not on behalf of the person convicted but on his own account.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. The matter is now clear. I thought it was worth getting it on the Record.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should like to add my thanks to the noble Viscount for the spendid way in which he has dealt with the various questions that have arisen. My notes on the three subsections puts in a slightly more complicated way what the noble Viscount has so clearly explained and therefore I have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

NATIONAL MOD (SCOTLAND) BILL
House in Committee: Clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

SMALL FARM (BUSINESS MANAGEMENT) SCHEME 1969
4.8 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Draft Small Farm (Business Management) Scheme 1969, laid before the House on June 10 be approved. I trust that it will be convenient, when dealing with this Order, to deal also with the Small Farm (Business Management) (Scotland) Scheme 1969. As foreshadowed in the Annual Review White Paper last March, it is proposed to extend these Schemes for a further twelve months from September 1, 1969.
Your Lordships may wish to be reminded briefly of the terms of these Schemes, which are open to small farmers occupying holdings of between 20 and 125 acres and where the size of the farm business is between 250 and 600 standard man-days a year. A grant of up to a maximum of £1,000 is payable over a period of three years to a farmer who carries out an approved programme which is designed to increase the efficiency of his business. He must keep specified farm records, on which he can base future farm management decisions. Programmes may be either complete, providing for the attainment of objectives in each of the three years of participation as well as the maintaining of records; or basic, with provision for record keeping over the three years but objectives for the first year only. Most basic programmes are subsequently modified to include objectives for the second and third years after records for the first year become available.
The new Scheme is in all major respects the same as the present one. One change, following the Transfer of Functions (Wales) Order 1969, concerns the sharing of administration of the Scheme in Wales jointly by the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister. In addition, the arrangements which were made last year to prevent a farmer from obtaining double grant, by participating simultaneously in the 1965 and the 1968 Schemes, have been extended to include the new Scheme. The response to the 1968 Scheme has been comparatively modest but at a steady rate. We hope that more small farmers will take the opportunity to join since we know that
1204
those who are taking part are learning a great deal, and that the efficiency of their businesses is being substantially increased.
In the debate last year the Government undertook, in response to a suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, to see what could be done to publicise the Scheme by way of farm walks, and I am pleased to say that a number of open days of this kind have been arranged. Demonstrable evidence of the benefits of membership is one of the best means of encouraging neighbouring farmers to enter the Scheme. The future of the Scheme will be considered at next year's Annual Review in the light of progress made by that time. The extension of these Schemes has been welcomed by the Farmers' Unions. My Lords, I commend them for the approval of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Small Farm (Business Management) Scheme 1969, laid before the House on June 10, be approved.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to

SMALL FARM (BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SCOTLAND) SCHEME 1969
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Scheme be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Small Farm (Business Management) (Scotland) Scheme 1969, laid before the House on June 10 be approved.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BACON CURING INDUSTRY STABILISATION (VARIATION) SCHEME 1969
4.12 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be now approved. I can be brief in presenting the Order to your Lordships. The Variation Scheme embodied in the Order relates to the Bacon Curing Industry Stabilisation Scheme 1969 which your Lordships approved in March this year. That principal Scheme applied only to bacon produced in the six months up to September 30. The effect of the

1205
Order now before your Lordships is to extend that Scheme to bacon produced during a further six months up to March 31, 1970.
Noble Lords will recall that the Government explained why they had introduced the principal Scheme relating to six months bacon production only. The Industrial Reorganisation Corporation is looking at the curing industry to help ensure that it is well placed to take full advantage of the opportunities open to it. At the same time, the Corporation is considering the effect on the performance of the industry of the present stabilisation arrangements or of possible alternative forms of support. The Scheme originally covered six months only in order to allow any recommendations made by the Corporation and accepted by the Government to be implemented without delay. But it was made clear when the original Scheme was before your Lordships that, if it proved to be necessary, the Government would lay before Parliament a Scheme extending the present arrangements for a further short period, pending the Corporation's final recommendations. The Corporation is engaged on its work and will complete it as soon as possible, but we can obviously delay no longer in extending the present arrangements for a further six months to March 31, 1970, which should allow time for the Corporation to complete its work and the Government to consider the need for and extent of a longer-term scheme. It will of course be possible to consider any interim report from the Corporation earlier than this, in so far as it can be implemented within the existing Scheme.
As noble Lords will be aware, owing to a rise of 50s. in the price of British bacon the Scheme at the moment requires the payment of levies by bacon curers, so that for the first time the self-balancing nature of the Scheme, to which attention was drawn when the parent Scheme was before your Lordships, has become a little more than a merely theoretical feature. How long a levy will continue to be paid will, of course, depend on how long the bacon price remains at its present levels.
The Variation Scheme at present before your Lordships' House is an extremely simple one and merely extends the operation of the present Scheme to bacon produced up to March 31, 1970. No other change is being made.
1206
During the debate on the principal Scheme the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, enjoined the Government to give the I.R.C. enough time to do its job effectively. It is to ensure that this is done that we are asking your Lordships to approve this Variation Scheme, which will extend the original Bacon Curing Industry Stabilisation Scheme for a further six months—or, more correctly, to a further six months' bacon production. I commend the scheme to your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Bacon Curing Industry Stabilisation (Variation) Scheme 1969, laid before the House on June 11, be approved.—(Lord Hilton of (Upton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DIVORCE REFORM BILL
4.17 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stow Hill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ST. HELENS in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Breakdown of marriage to be sole ground for divorce]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, after ("Act") insert ("in accordance with the provisions of section 11").
The noble Lord said: This is only a paving Amendment to my Amendment No. 43. on Clause 11, which we shall not reach until the end of the Committee stage. I do not think there is need for the Committee to spend long upon this Amendment unless the Committee wish to do so; nor have I any intention of pressing it at the moment: I shall wait for Clause 11. I feel, however, that I owe it to the Committee to explain briefly at the outset of the Committee stage what I seek to do by my Amendment No. 43. It is not self-evident from that Amendment what its purpose is, but since the Amendment, if carried, will affect the whole Bill, it ought perhaps to be mentioned at this early stage.
My Amendment No. 43, for which, as I have said, Amendment No. 1 paves the way, is to secure that this Bill, if it is enacted, cannot come into force until both Houses of Parliament resolve that it should. I believe that the movers of Amendment No. 42 seek to do the same thing. Their reasons for doing so are clear from the terms of their Amendment, which is concerned with a variation of Clause 2(1)(e). However, their reasons differ from mine. My reasons are broader. They are to give both Houses of Parliament a further opportunity to satisfy themselves, after full debate, that Her Majesty's Government have done everything that is necessary, and that it lies within their power and responsibility to do, to prepare for the operation of whatever Act emerges—if it does emerge—from this Bill.
This preparation for which the Government must, in my view, assume responsibility includes the financial provisions for wives divorced under Clause 2(1)(e). But, to my mind, it should cover also the further measures and the further provisions that must be taken and made, which only the Government can see to. I refer to the whole question of legal aid, National Insurance, supplementary benefit pensions and increased resort to marriage guidance agencies. All these matters were touched on by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and by many other speakers in our Second Reading debate. There may be other factors, as well, but these are the more obvious ones, and they all have a bearing on the working of this Bill.
On all these things the information given in another place was extremely fragmentary, but we have faired a good deal better here. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was, I think, as helpful as he could possibly be at this stage. He read out to us a very full letter that he had had from Mr. Justice Scarman, the Chairman of the Law Commission, who gave advance information about what he thought his Commission might feel able to recommend in a forthcoming Report—which we have not yet got—on financial provisions. Mr. Justice Scarman ended his letter by saying:
"We also intend to make some recommendations regarding the determination of disputed rights in property to the acquisition or
1208
improvement of which both spouses have contributed, and regarding actions for enticement and damages for adultery."
I think your Lordships will agree that this information, useful and interesting as it is, and constituting as it does an advance on anything that was revealed in another place, does not yet give Parliament anything like a sufficient assurance about the precise way in which Her Majesty's Government will discharge their responsibilities even in these limited fields. We need assurances in these other fields that I have mentioned before the Bill comes into operation. Although it is more the concern of the other place, Parliament has not yet been given, in my view, a proper estimate of the total cost of divorce under all these fields under this legislation.
Having given that brief explanation to the Committee of the purpose behind Amendment No. 1 and, particularly, Amendment No. 43, I am content to place myself in the Committee's hands. If the Committee felt it helpful to discuss Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 43 now, and to settle the matter at the commencement of the Bill, at the outset, I should be willing to press this Amendment, if necessary, and press it now. The Committee, having had that preliminary explanation, may now want to leave this point until we come to Clause 11, and in that case I will gladly withdraw this paving Amendment, and keep my powder dry until later on. I thought at least I owed it to the Committee to make my purpose clear at the outset.
LORD MESTON: I am utterly opposed to these two Amendments. I know it is not in order to talk about what has happened in another place, but I may say that ever since this Bill has been introduced it has been the subject of every kind of procedural objection and obstruction in every way. This is really going too far. These two Amendments provide, in effect, that this Bill has to be dealt with twice over, and it is an impossible situation. I suggest that for the first time we get on with this Bill, and that we get on with it with electrical speed.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I hope that we will have the main discussion on this question when we come to Clause 11. We shall then see what is the content of the Bill. I do not agree with the noble Lord

1209
who has just spoken, because in view of what has been said about the financial situation of divorced wives, I think it is essential that Parliament should be satisfied that adequate provision has been made before this Bill, if it passes, is brought into operation. If there is a gap it might inflict great loss upon them. Surely, the right time to consider that is when we get to Clause 11. There is an Amendment down in my name, and that of my noble and learned friend, of a slightly different kind from that of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and I suggest that it would be easier to consider the whole matter then.
LORD HENLEY: May I also support the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. I think it would be utterly wrong to decide this question at the outset of the discussion at the Committee stage. In so far as there is any argument for making Parliament as a whole discuss this again at a later stage, we can decide that after we have considered it on Committee stage, and not before.
4.25 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: On the actual sequence of the discussion, I am entirely in the hands of the Committee. It occurred to me at this early stage, even though it may he the desire of the Committee to revert to the matter later on, that I could give an indication which the Committee might think of help. I do not want to argue the matter now at any length, in view of the expression of wishes which we have just heard. May I say that my own feelings with regard to the Amendments which are down to Clause 11 (which will be looked at in more detail later on) are that I should very much dislike a suspensory clause, as it were, which would have the effect of holding in a state of uncertainty—very distressful uncertainty—very large numbers of people who are asking themselves whether this Bill will help them to a more orderly and less distressing form of life than that which they are undergoing at the moment.
May I say in principle now—briefly, I hope—that I would not recommend to the Committee that there should be any provision introduced into the Bill which would make it uncertain when it is likely to come into operation, and uncertain in
1210
a very real sense—uncertain because it would depend on a number of events, the time of which would be difficult to predict and would prolong a feeling of unhappiness in a number of people which I think could be avoided.
Having said that, it might be for the assistance of the Committee if I give an indication of a suggestion, at any rate, which I should like to make, which during the course of the debate noble Lords who have put their names to the Amendments initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, might like to think upon. Their desire is that before this Bill is brought into operation—if it is brought into operation—Parliament should know precisely what it is the Government are prepared to do in order to alleviate the financial position of wives who are divorced in particular circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in moving this Amendment, indicated the respects in which he felt uncertainty about the matter: national insurance provisions, legal aid, and the projected Bill about matrimonial property. He also made a reference to what I think is Section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1894.
I should have thought that possibly one could obviate the difficulty about a suspensory provision of this sort if one tried to fix some actual time when the Bill should be brought into operation. What I should like to throw out now as a suggestion, so that it may be considered, is that the present provision of Clause 11, the result of which would be that the Bill would come into operation at such time as the Lord Chancellor orders, should be removed from Clause 11 and that instead a provision should be inserted indicating a particular time at which the Bill will come into operation. Then, at any rate, everybody would know precisely where they stood. It that is an acceptable suggestion, the question is, what is the right sort of time? Bearing in mind the anxiety which is the mind of noble Lords who stand behind these Amendments, and in particular that they would wish to see and to examine thoroughly in all its stages the Matrimonial Property Bill in particular, it seems to me that the right way to go about this would be to fix upon a time when that Bill would have gone through all its stages in Parliament.

1211
At the moment the Committee has before it the undertaking given by the Lord Chancellor that he would not, if this Bill is passed, exercise his power under Clause 11 to bring it into operation until he had placed before the House his proposals, whether on Second Reading or not I do not quite know. At any rate, the matter would have gone no further than proposals, and the Bill would not have passed into law and have been subjected to the scrutiny to which this House and the other place would subject it. That being so, the time at which I should like to suggest that this Bill be brought into operation—the specific time—would be January 1, 1971. That would have this advantage: it would mean that the whole of the rest of this year and the whole of 1970 would have gone past, and in the ordinary course of things a measure introduced by the Government in order to improve the matrimonial property situation would in fact have passed through all its stages. Therefore, I do not ask the Committee to come to a final conclusion on this matter at this moment but rather than throw it out, as it were, at the end of the debate, I should like the Committee to know what I should like in due course to suggest. That is the suggestion I would make.
I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to ask leave (without prejudice, I think, under the Rules of the House to his Amendments on Clause 11: certainly without prejudice to the similar Amendments in the name of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne) to withdraw his Amendment so that we may revert to the matter and the Committee can take a decision on the question whether the proposals that I have put meet the anxieties which are indicated on this particular aspect of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): It is not my intention to take any part in the Committee stage of the Bill unless I can assist the Committee on a question of law or a question of fact, or unless there is something with which the Government are concerned. But I should like, if I may, to take advantage of the opportunity to correct a figure which I gave on the Second Reading of the Bill. The Committee may remember that I pointed out to the House that the most common ground for
1212
divorce was still adultery alone, which accounted for nearly half the cases, and that of those petitions about half were petitions by wives against alleged adulterous husbands, and about half were by husbands against wives. The correct figures for 1966 are as follows: petitions by wives, 10,531; petitions by husbands on the same ground, 11,010; 1967, wives' petitions, 12,031; husbands' petitions, 11,624; 1968, wives' petitions, 13,171; husbands' petitions, 12,840. I am sorry that, inadvertently, in respect of one year I gave the figures for decrees absolute, based on the same ground, of adultery alone, instead of petitions. Therefore it is perhaps right that I should also give the figures for decrees absolute. They are as follows. In 1966 there were 9,751 decrees in favour of wives, and 10,212 in favour of husbands; for 1967, the figures were 11,061 and 11,016. Therefore the Committee will see that, whether one takes petitions based on adultery alone or decrees absolute given on adultery alone, within a few hundred each year, out of 23,000, the figures for husbands and for wives are substantially the same.
With regard to this particular Amendment, there is of course nothing unusual about the Bill in its present form where rules have to be made. There is nothing unconstitutional, or indeed unusual, in the course adumbrated by my noble friend Lord Stow Hill of fixing in the Bill a date on which it is to come into force. In my own opinion, there is nothing at all unconstitutional, since Parliament can do what it likes, in the form of Amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in his Amendments Nos. 1 and 43. But I should perhaps inform the Committee as a matter of fact that I have not been able to find any Act which provides that it is not to come into force without an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses; except the Easter Act 1928, which one noble Lord constantly brings up because it is now 41 years since it was passed and we are still waiting for the Affirmative Resolution.
LORD SANDFORD: We shall be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that correction. I should like to go on straight away to say that the last thing I want to do is to be accused of impairing the consideration of this Bill on Committee by procedural

1213
devices. Having had that short debate, and that indication, both from the Government and from the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, about first reactions to the Amendments we are proposing to Clause 11, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment No. 1.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Proof of breakdown
2.—(1) The court hearing a petition for divorce shall not hold the marriage to have broken down irretrievably unless the petitioner satisfies the court of one or more of the following facts, that is to say

(a) that since the celebration of the marriage the respondent has committed adultery and the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent;

(b) that since the celebration of the marriage the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent;

(d) that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and the respondent does not object to a decree being granted;

(e) that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.

(2) On a petition for divorce it shall be the duty of the court to inquire, so far as it reasonably can, into the facts alleged by the petitioner and into any facts alleged by the respondent.
(3) If the court is satisfied on the evidence of any such fact as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, then, unless it is satisfied on all the evidence that the marriage has not broken down irretrievably, it shall, subject to section 4 of this Act and section 5(5) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, grant a decree nisi of divorce.
(4) For the purpose of subsection (1)(c) of this section the court may treat a period of desertion as having continued at a time when the deserting party was incapable of continuing the necessary intention if the evidence before the court is such that, had that party not been so incapable, the court would have inferred that his desertion continued at that time.
(5) For the purposes of this Act a husband and wife shall be treated as living apart unless they are living with each other in the same household.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD ROYLE): Before I call Amendment No. 2, I must point out that
1214
if Amendment No. 2 is agreed to obviously Amendments Nos. 3 to 12 cannot be called.
4.35 p.m.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2 which stands in my name upon the Paper. This Amendment deals with one of the major changes that this Bill would bring about in our divorce laws. Your Lordships will recall that by Clause 1 of the Bill the sole ground for a petition for divorce will be that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. That is a very far-reaching and important change. It means, in the first place, that the matrimonial offence, which is the basis of our present divorce law, will disappear from divorce law altogether; at least, that is what one would expect to find.
I do not think that any tears of regret will be shed for the passing of the matrimonial offence. The fact that our law has been very largely based upon the matrimonial offence has, I think, done more to bring our divorce laws into ridicule and contempt that any other aspect of the law. The matrimonial offence as a basis has of course been roundly condemned. The Archbishop's Group condemned it in no uncertain fashion. The minority of nine on the Royal Commission who referred to it in their Report condemned it with equal emphasis, and I suspect that the Law Commissioners entertained the same view about its value as a factor in our divorce law.
In the light of this universal condemnation one would have expected that this Bill, if it is really to substitute a new basis for divorce, would have treated proof of the matrimonial offence in a petition of divorce as something which is totally unnecessary. But that is riot the case, because when one turns to Clause 2(1) of the Bill one sees set out five sets of circumstances, one at least of which must be proved to the satisfaction of the court before the marriage can be held to have irretrievably broken down. When one looks at those five facts or sets of circumstances one finds that they are not very dissimilar from the existing matrimonial offences. That in paragraph (a) is not substantially different from the present law on adultery. There

1215
are changes, and some of the changes are good and some perhaps not so good; but there are changes and I accept the changes. But still paragraph (a) remains substantially the present matrimonial offence of adultery.
When one comes to paragraph (b), here again there have been amendments in the law which I welcome; but paragraph (b) is still substantially the existing law of cruelty again. When one comes to paragraph (c), although here again there are amendments, this paragraph is still in effect the present law of desertion. I need not trouble your Lordships with paragraphs (d) and (e) because rather different considerations apply to them. However, the fact remains that in a petition for divorce one at least of these sets of circumstances must be proved before the court can hold that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.
If the matrimonial offence is no longer to be one of the grounds of divorce there is really no need for any one of these facts to be proved in the course of the petition. Of course the parties can prove one of these facts if they desire to do so. If it will advance their case to prove a matrimonial offence they are at liberty to do so, but as the Bill stands there is an obligation, which they cannot escape, to call evidence of at least one of these sets of circumstances. It is that part of the Bill which the Amendment proposes to change. It proposes to omit altogether subsection (1). The position then would be that the only obligation on the court to do anything specific is contained in subsection (2):
"It shall be the duty of the court to inquire, so far as it reasonably can, into the facts alleged by the petitioner and into any facts alleged by the respondent."
That is what the court has to do, and I should have thought there was no great difficulty in that. Indeed it is what the Court has to do in any case. But if the court also has to go on and find that one of these sets of circumstances in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d) has not taken place, then the court must hold that the marriage has not irretrievably broken down and the petition must be dismissed.
I am glad to see my noble and learned friend Lord Reid here this afternoon, because he analysed Clause 2 during the Second Reading debate in, I thought, a
1216
most masterly fashion. I have not repeated any of the analysis that he then made, but I hope he will be able to repeat some of it this afternoon. This is a relatively simple Amendment, but it goes to one of the fundamental matters which this Bill is intended to put right. But if the Bill remains as it stands at present there will not be any great difference between a trial for petition of divorce under the existing law and a trial for a petition of divorce under the law as it will be altered by this Bill. I beg to move.
LORD MESTON: I am utterly opposed to this Amendment. I have been a silent Member of your Lordships' House for a good many years and I have heard a good number of Amendments made from time to time, but this I can only call a piece of legislative assassination. I use the word "assassination" intentionally, but I suppose, capital punishment having been abolished, that people take chances to-day that they would not have done in the past. The object of the Amendment is to cut this Bill out for all practical purposes. During the Second Reading debate it was proposed that the Bill should go forward on this basis. I sincerely hope your Lordships will vote against this Amendment forthwith, without any discussion whatever.
LORD GOODMAN: I am not sure that I can take quite as clear-cut an attitude to this Amendment as the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I think we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, because he has confronted us with a dilemma that we ought to face at the very outset of this debate. There is a palpable inconsistency in the Bill; but, on the whole, human affairs al e often better regulated when one accepts a certain degree of inconsistency. In my view, for all the inconsistency we shall have a better divorce law by enacting this Bill. Nobody is pretending that the Bill is total logic—of course it is not—but what we can be certain of is that if we were to agree to this Amendment we should have the completely impossible divorce law. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I would say that the investigation by a court as to whether a marriage has broken down at large and without guide lines to determine what matters were to be investigated, would involve endless expense, endless delay, and inquiries into

1217
matters of intimate human behaviour that I do not think it is appropriate or right for a court to inquire into. I do not think that within a modern society a court is entitled to inquire into matters that are personal and intimate, as to whether or not a marriage has broken down, in the sense of hearing both sides and investigating every aspect of the personal and private life in which they have been engaged for many years. In my view that would be substituting for our present divorce law a completely intolerable prospect of investigation.
I think there are inconsistencies here. There is no doubt that in a sense we are perhaps not paying much more than lip service to the breakdown principle; but I think it is valuable that we should recognise it, and valuable that we should enunciate in the opening paragraph the principle that ordinary human beings accept when they embark on matrimony. The clause then indicates those matters which enable a marriage to be dissolved. On the whole, I think that is not a bad rule. The alternative rule, of leaving the court to investigate the whole area of matrimonial activity and to hear both sides at immense length—as indeed they would so depose, and anyone acquainted with matrimonial disputes can aver with burning sincerity and a good deal of sorrow—would be disastrous. I think we should do far better to dispose of this Bill altogether in the dustbin than to make this particular Amendment.
LORD REID: I rise only to draw your Lordships' attention to what I believe would be the effect of accepting the Amendment. To begin with, by deleting paragraphs (d) and (e) we should abolish all time limits, so that anybody who alleged breakdown, be he guilty or innocent, could bring his action the day after the Act came into force. There would be no need for him to wait at all. There may be a difference of opinion as to how one proves breakdown. My own view is that if the petitioner goes into the witness box and says, "In no circumstances will I go back to my husband"—or wife—that is not only sufficient but complete proof of breakdown. The only way one could get past that would be to find that she, or he, is a liar. On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has said, if the interpretation turns out to be different from that, then there would
1218
be a formless investigation into all kinds of things. This would be possible enough in a defended case, but how we should ever get through the undefended cases if that sort of thing happened, I do not know. My own view is that this proposal is simply a charter for any body to come forward, in an undefended case at least, and say, "This marriage has broken down. I am not going back to my wife"—or husband, as the case may be—and if there is no competing evidence a decree would have to be pronounced there and then without any delay whatever.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: I sympathise very much with the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. On the face of it, there does seem to be an inconsistency here. Equally we must have some kind of inbuilt criteria as to when there is irretrievable breakdown. I wonder, however, whether in the last resort there is an inconsistency, because, as I see it, the important point is that these which are at present matrimonial offences would, under the new Bill, never by themselves be sufficient, would not even be necessary and would be put out only as possible criteria of irretrievable breakdown, of which there may be other criteria as well. So in the end I do not think there is a form of inconsistency. They are, in fact, helpful criteria as to whether a marriage has broken down irretrievably, without being them elves either necessary or sufficient, but only possible.
LORD STOW HILL: The noble Lord. Lord Ilford, has raised as has been pointed out, a consideration which is crucial and fundamental to the Bill; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said, it is right that we should at the outset decide whether we do accept that measure of inconsistency which resides in its terms. I hope the Committee will say that it is prepared to accept it. So many powerful speeches have been made against the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Ilford. that it hardly befits me to add my own submissions to them, but I should like briefly to say one or two things.
We have the great advantage in the consideration of this Bill of the fact that these issues were first considered by the Royal Commission over which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, presided with such distinction.

1219
That was the first thorough inquiry. That was followed by Putting Asunder, a document, I should have thought, which was instinct with human understanding, a most valuable document. The third stage was that the proposals in Putting Asunder were subjected to the analysis of The Field of Choice, by the Law Commission, an equally valuable document, and I should have thought of the greatest possible help to us in our deliberations.
What the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, wants to do is to go back to Putting Asunder and to reject The Field of Choice. The Law Commission in The Field of Choice, stated I should have thought, with the greatest possible succinctness and clarity the difficulties in the way of the proposal contained in Putting Asunder that there should be a general inquisitorial process to ascertain whether there was in a real sense a breakdown. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, put so clearly, if I may say so with respect to him, the difficulties in the way of that. The Law Commission, I thought, put the same point very succinctly on page 31 of their Report, where they said:
"A detailed inquest into the whole married life would prove more distasteful and embarrassing than proceedings under the present law."
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, pointed out, you might have one of two sets of circumstances. A number of judges all over the country, county court judges, nine out of ten cases undefended, will be called upon to decide. One could very well say, if I may adopt the words of the noble and learned Lord, "Here is a grown-up person who tell me that in no circumstances will he or she ever resume cohabitation with his or her spouse. She looks sensible, sane and grown up and seems to be telling the truth. That is enough". Another learned judge, bringing equal care and conscientiousness to the decision, will say, "I cannot reach a conclusion unless I have subjected the parties to a full and minute questioning of every aspect of their married life together". It would be most distasteful. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said, that is hardly the right sort of thing to ask a court to decide upon; it involves prying into intimacies which should be the private property of the two parties concerned.
1220
The defect of Lord Ilford's argument was that he did not attempt to give one reason in answer to the arguments contained in the Law Commission's analysis, The Field of Choice. I hope that your Lordships will at the outset decide, as it has already decided, that the principle should be breakdown; that it is right that there should be certain factual situations chosen as prima facie indications that breakdown has occurred. That is the form of the Bill. It is not being realistic, if a husband or wife comes and says, "My husband (or wife), my spouse, has committed adultery on a number of occasions and I find it intolerable to go on living with him (or her)", to say, "Oh yes, but cannot you overlook it? Cannot you treat that as of no importance?" It almost always is of great importance. Sometimes, it is perfectly true, individual acts of adultery are not very significant in the matrimonial life of the parties. Equally, cruelty or unreasonable behaviour, as described in subsection (1)(b), or desertion. These things are all clearly prima facie indications that the marriage has broken down. I should have thought that the form of the Bill, with its inconsistency, which one has to accept in human affairs, nevertheless is rightly framed in that it selects certain factual situations and it predicates of them that they should be regarded as prima facie indications that the marriage has broken down.
When one looks at Clause 2(3) one sees that the court is required, in the event of that factual situation being established, to pronounce a decree unless, when all the evidence is looked at, the court comes to the conclusion that the marriage has not in fact, contrary to appearances, broken down. I should have thought that was the right and only practical form. I hope that the Committee at the outset of its consideration will accept that as a general principle, because it runs right through the Bill. If it is right, a great deal of the rest of the Bill follows. I would respectfully advise the Committee that the noble Lord's proposal should not be accepted and that his Amendment should be rejected.
LORD ILFORD: I think the Committee is determined to persist in its inconsistency, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Before I call Amendment No. 3 I must point out to your Lordships that if it is agreed to I cannot call No. 3A and No. 4.
4.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 13, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble and learned Viscount said: It may be to the convenience of the Committee, if the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodson, agree, if we discuss Amendments Nos. 3, 3A and 4, which all relate to paragraph (a) of subsection (1), at the same time. Despite the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I feel that we should be failing in our duty if we did not give very close examination to the terms of this measure. It is one for which I voted on Second Reading. I have for a long time wanted to get away, so far as one could, from the proof of the matrimonial sin and get to the establishment of the fact of breakdown of marriage. This Bill goes some way. As we have just heard indicated, it does not go the whole way. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, said that there would be no tears of regret for the passing of the matrimonial offence. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has pointed out that the matrimonial offence is preserved in subsection (1) of Clause 2; but it is not preserved in quite the same form as it exists now, and the differences are very important and very material.
The first thing I would have to say about paragraph (a), which my Amendment seeks to leave out, is that the conduct which would come within it—that is to say, adultery—would certainly be covered, I submit, by the language of (b). The words in paragraph (b) are:
"that since the celebration of the marriage the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent;"
Those words seem to me to be apt and wide enough to cover the commission of adultery, and if that be so then paragraph (a) is unnecessary.
There is a very curious thing about (a) when you contrast it with (b). In relation to (a) two things have to be proved. I did not quite understand what my noble friend Lord Stow Hill said about proof of these matters constituting a prima facie case. Proof of one of these
1222
matters is essential if a decree is to be granted. But it is necessary to prove, first of all, commission of adultery, and then the petitioner has to say that he or she finds it intolerable to live with the respondent. Can one conceive of any case where a petitioner brings a petition before the court complaining of adultery on the part of his or her spouse where that petitioner will not say, "I find it intolerable to live with the respondent"? The wife might say, if she were asked the question: "What on earth do you think I have brought this petition for? I want my freedom. I cannot live with him any more." In that paragraph the test is absolutely subjective. I cannot envisage any case where a court would be in a position to say that that second requirement was not established by the mere affirmation of the petitioner; indeed, that is all that should happen in al undefended case.
Contrast that with paragraph (b). There you have a different test; namely:
"that … the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent."
That is an objective test; and surely that is the right test if you are really going to have regard to the principle that this has led to an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. It does not stop there. Another curious thing about paragraph (a) is that there is no ink in the clause—and we were told earlier that this has been a most carefully drafted clause, so I assume that the omission of a link is deliberate—between the commission of adultery and the petitioner finding it intolerable to live with the respondent. As it now stands, that clause would be satisfied if the petitioner found it intolerable to live with the respondent for reasons wholly unconnected with the adultery. That would come in. Therefore, I personally do not think that, as it stands, this particular paragraph is at all good.
Then what about this point? The discretionary bars have gone, or will go. As I understand it, it will be no bar to the operation of this provision that the petitioner has condoned the adultery, provided he has not lived for more than six months with his spouse during the period of condonation. It will be no bar that he has connived at it; and it will be no bar that there is collusion about it. I

1223
do not know whether it is right or not—the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, might take a different opinion—but under this clause as it stands, a man who has made his wife go out on to the streets and has lived on her immoral earnings can then turn round at any time he likes and say, "She has committed adultery. I find it intolerable to live with her", and that would be proof of the fact. The noble Lord may say that Clause 4 provides some safeguard against that, in that the court may say, if those facts become apparent, that it would be wrong in all the circumstances to grant a decree. We shall discuss Clause 4 in due course. I only say now that I have my doubts whether the language of Clause 4 is really a sufficient safeguard against matters of that sort.
If I may go one stage further, I would much prefer this paragraph to be left out. I think it would improve the Bill, and I think that you would lose nothing from the Bill. What would happen if this paragraph were left out? In cases where the trouble arose with the commission of adultery, the petitioner would come before the court and say "The respondent has behaved in such a manner that I cannot reasonably be expected to live with him again", and the commission of adultery would be behaviour in such a manner. Is that not enough? If paragraph (a) is kept in, is there any question but that the petitioner can obtain a decree on proof of the commission of one act of adultery by the respondent, even though the petitioner may have committed adultery on a great number of occasions?
I have put these points as shortly as I can, because I am worried about the inclusion of this particular paragraph, paragraph (a), in the Bill. I think it would be better if it were omitted. I do not think it would do any harm to the Bill if it were omitted. I do not think it would narrow its scope. But it would prevent the kind of abuse that it seems to me may yet occur if the wording of paragraph (a) remains in the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount for some guidance in this matter? As I understand the situation in the Bill, under subsection (1)(a) it would be possible for
1224
a spouse to obtain a decree on a single act of adultery. If subsection (1)(a) is deleted and the spouse has to fall back on subsection (1)(b), would it not be within the competence of the court to interpret that a single act of adultery did not cause an intolerable situation?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Well, it is difficult to make a hard ruling off the cuff on a matter of that sort. But I would assume that if the petitioner established the commission of adultery by the respondent—and a recent commission of adultery—at least there would be a strong prima facie case that the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.
5.7 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: May I come back in a moment to the answer that the noble and learned Viscount has given which I would submit is not quite a sound reply to my noble friend? May I deal strictly with the Amendment which he has on the Marshalled List, which is to leave out paragraph (a) of Clause 2(1). In the course of his argument he referred to other paragraphs, but may first fasten on to that one. Is it, or is it not, a good thing to specify, as a factual situation, adultery plus a feeling on the part of the petitioner that he really cannot continue his married life with the respondent? Or, as the noble and learned Viscount suggests, should that be merged into subsection (1)(b)?
I would respectfully submit to the Committee that it is an advantage to have Clause 2(1)(a). If one looks at the ordinary sort of situation, which a judge sitting in the divorce court has to consider, he has before him a petitioner who alleges that the other spouse has committed adultery. I should have thought, men and women being constituted as they are, their natures being such as they are, that if that has happened—I do not say in every case; far be it from me to say that—then quite often the spouse who is the petitioner will have been so worried and affronted by the commission of the act of adultery that you have, therefore, isolated and separated out and ringed around, a type of conduct which the court can easily look at, and therefore it may easily predicate that it is the sort of conduct which is a symptom of a complete breakdown. That, I should have thought, was a great advantage.

1225
I have some sympathy with the argument of the noble and learned Viscount to the effect that few judges, if they see a petitioner in the box charging adultery against his spouse, will find difficulty in coming to a conclusion that the petitioner is perfectly reasonable when he says, "I cannot go on living with my spouse." That, I should have thought, was almost self-evident. I think it is behind some of the thinking in an Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. Nevertheless, I should have thought it was not completely otiose.
When I ventured to address your Lordships on the Second Reading of the Bill, I put these considerations in the forefront of my argument. I said that what we are doing here is making a major change and substituting breakdown for the matrimonial offence. It is not possible to go the whole way. Something in the nature of a shortfall has to be accepted. If you want to make the thing at all practical you have, as the Law Commission pointed out, to compromise with certain given situations which prima facie are to be taken as sufficient to constitute breakdown. Surely this is an ideal situation for that purpose. Surely when you have adultery by one spouse, on one occasion or more than one occasion, that is the sort of situation which easily enables a court to say, "Here is a prima facie situation which shows that there has been breakdown".
Is it better to merge it in paragraph (b)? I should have thought not, for this reason: that if paragraphs (a) and (b) are merged and a petitioner comes before a judge and says, "My spouse has committed adultery" there is placed on the judge the invidious and almost intolerable task of inquiring from the petitioner what circumstances there are in the case which make that act or those acts of adultery conduct which the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to put up with. That is a most invidious and unseemly inquiry, and I should have thought that all judges would be most reluctant to undertake it unless they had to. Adultery proved, and the sane man or woman saying, "That is enough for me; I cannot go back and live with the respondent". I should have thought that that was a crystal clear situation in 95 cases out of 100 which would enable a court to conclude that prima facie that marriage was
1226
at an end. It is only prima facie, because the court has to look at the circumstances as a whole; but it would be a pity and a loss to the efficient working of this Bill if one eliminated that clear and straight path to the conclusion that there was in the particular case a breakdown.
It would be a great mistake to require a court, as a matter of ordinary routine when adultery is proved, to say, "We are not satisfied about that; we must ask whether all the circumstances are such that that adultery is something that the petitioner cannot be expected to tolerate." What is the judge to say? Is he to say, "Well, this is only just one act of adultery; there is surely not very much in that"? Is he to say, "You are both a young couple, you will forget it". That would be an intolerable form of inquiry. As the Bill stands now, with paragraph (a) in it, the judge can say, "This situation is proved; prime facie that is enough".
Should one have the words
"and the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent"
included in paragraph (a)? As I say, I accept that in nearly every case the judge would find very little difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner satisfies him of it. There may nevertheless be cases where there is still some doubt. There may be cases where you get an unstable, hesitant petitioner who does not carry particular conviction to the judge, and the judge may think it desirable to ask him or her some further questions. The judge may feel that that is a case in which Clause 2(3) is brought into operation, and that he should look more closely at the evidence as a whole to see whether or not it has established that there is no real breakdown, in spite of that adultery. As my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell said, if you leave those words out you simply have the fact that one act of adultery is an almost unbarrable path to divorce. The only obstacle then can be Clause 2(3). If you reinforced the requirement by saying that a judge should at least have to be satisfied that he has a petitioner before him who can make up his or her mind, who is not acting against a respondent to whom he or she is still very greatly attached, and can conclude without any hesitation that the petitioner has decided that married life between them is at an

1227
end, it would greatly facilitate the task of our divorce courts.
Therefore, whilst I, if I may respectfully say so, see the force of the noble and learned Viscount's argument, I hope that he and the Committee will accept from me that, on balance, it is better to keep this provision in. It facilitates the work of the court, and it will in many cases extricate the judge from a task which will be very invidious, distasteful and may provoke public comment and public dislike if the judge has to embark on what is, in effect, an inquisitorial process when there is an act of adultery proved before him. If that is so, there is, in my submission, great advantage in retaining this particular paragraph in the Bill.
Ordinarily, if I may stress this point before I sit down, adultery in most marital relationships is not something that can be just laughed off and brushed aside; it is something, generally speaking, indicative of a fundamental change in the relationship between the spouses: lack of trust; lack of affection, or something of the sort. It may not be, but ordinarily it is; and that being so I should have thought that that particular touchstone, that particular test or measure, whether the marriage has broken down, ought to be retained. I ask the Committee not to accept the noble and learned Viscount's proposal.
5.15 p.m.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: May I say a few words in support of this Amendment? I imagine that the real justification for paragraph (e), which we shall be discussing later, is the injury, the damage, to the children born out of wedlock when the guilty party has left the innocent; and for divorce by repudiation it seems to me that the possible damage to such children is the only real justification, if any. Surely that has to be balanced against the far greater damage to children who are born without a stable mother and father to look after them, with parents who are breaking up and strifing with each other. Therefore, as it seems to me, it is imperative in this Bill not to enable divorce to be easier and more children to be damaged. If one approaches it in that way it does seem to me, with all due respect, that paragraph (a) is divorce by consent, and nothing more. If that is the intention
1228
of the House, so be it. But collusion has gone, connivance has gone, and all that is necessary under this paragraph (a) is for the parties to get bored, for one of them to arrange to go through all the squalor of the hotel bedroom—which the divorce judges have been banishing slowly, and I think permanently—and for the other one to come forward and say not, "I am bored", but, "I find it intolerable to live with him"—or her. If that is not divorce by consent, I do not know what is.
It seems to me that, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, this can be dealt with under paragraph (b); and very much better under (b), because the court then has the opportunity of deciding whether, in all the circumstances, with that isolated act of adultery, it is reasonably to be expected that the petitioning spouse—he or she—should live with the other. As it seems to me, that is the proper approach, not for two people who are bored to arrange for one to go to the hotel bedroom and the other to bring proceedings and say, "I find it intolerable".
LORD SILKIN: I am in something of a dilemma about paragraph (a). It does not seem to me to cater for the situation where the petitioner has himself committed adultery. A case may arise where a petitioner is a consistent adulterer, yet is nevertheless able to take proceedings against his spouse on the ground that that spouse has committed adultery. While my first reaction to this was to support paragraph (a), I feel that, in the light of the discussion, my noble friend Lord Stow Hill will be well advised to look at paragraphs (a) and (b) again to sea whether we cannot meet this position where the real test is whether the judge will decide whether the marriage has reasonably broken down. It seems to me that one of the advantages in relying on (b) is that in a case such as I have predicated, where you get an admitted adulterer coming along and petitioning, the judge could well say, "It is not reasonable. I cannot believe that you find it intolerable to live with your spouse. You are just as bad". It would then be a matter for the judge to consider whether a divorce ought to be granted.
Most of us who supported the Second Reading were not out to make divorce easier, but were out to make it more

1229
rational and more in line with public feeling, and this is a matter at which we might well look again between now and Report stage. I suggest to my noble friend that if we took that course, those who moved these Amendments would not press them, and we could return to the matter again at Report stage.
5.21 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: I have never liked the presence of this paragraph in the Bill and I have always wished it away. I do not believe that the paragraph is at all necessary. It brings back the matrimonial offence in its most odious and dangerous form, because it retains all the worst features of our present law concerning the ground of adultery for divorce while removing such protections as the present law contains.
Of course, adultery excites in the minds of all decent people a deep revulsion, and it is no doubt for that reason that so many people feel that adultery is an obvious ground for divorce, or an obvious and irrefutable sign of breakdown. But though adultery is a very grievous sin, it is not an unforgivable sin. Though, indeed, it strikes a grievous blow at the marital relationship and destroys or cruelly weakens the trust and confidence which should exist between the married pair, adultery does not of necessity inflict a lethal blow. Married couples have recovered a certain amount of mutual trust and confidence, in spite of the adultery. I should have thought that it was a matter of common experience, particularly among the clergy and the judges, that a single act of adultery brought as a ground for divorce by the aggrieved partner, with a certain amount of impetuosity, suffering under great shock, and indeed anger, was a most insecure foundation upon which a court should find that a marriage had irretrievably broken down. We clergy, at any rate, know any number of marriages where adultery has occurred and where the marriage has been continued and has then been happy.
I do not think that this paragraph is necessary because, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said, a really gross and scandalous and persistent adulterer can be brought under paragraph (b). And with the ordinary act of adultery—if I may use such a phrase—if the other party is unable to
1230
forgive it, is unable to continue to live together and separates, then, in nine cases out of ten, at the end of two years the case could be brought under paragraph (d), because the other partner would not usually object after two years of separation.
This would be a great improvement on our existing law, because it would make these quick remarriages after divorce much more difficult. For it is our experience among the clergy that the second marriages which break down are almost always those which are contracted either as a result of the adultery which was the cause of the divorce, or very quickly after the divorce. The second marriages which are contracted later are much more likely to be stable. Therefore, I think that the omission of this paragraph would not damage in the least the purposes of the Bill and would improve the present marriage law. I think that the inclusion of the paragraph is unnecessary and, on the whole, harmful.
LORD GOODMAN: It has been suggested that it would be convenient to discuss my Amendment at the same time as Amendment No. 3, which I am very willing to do. May I say that I have heard with very considerable sympathy the speeches in favour of leaving out this paragraph, but I think, once again, that the Committee has the dilemma of having to decide whether it is going to accept something which it does not particularly like because the alternative is something very much more disagreeable. May I venture to speak as a practising lawyer, as I think it is important that one should emphasise this point?
We have a legal system of great costliness. We have a legal system which renders it very difficult for many people to avail themselves of it, if it involves inquisitions and inquiries of great length and great expense. There is a very real danger that we may apply to this matter criteria too academic, to the detriment of a great number of people. I wholly sympathise with the objections 10 our having rigged divorces, divorces by consent and so forth, where there is a pretence that they are something else. But I think any practising lawyer, and any judge with experience in the Divorce Division, will know that, on the whole, this is unavoidable. In many ways we shall have a much more honest position

1231
instituted by this Bill than we have at the moment.
The Bill requires that there should be established to the court the fact that an act of adultery has been committed. I venture to suggest to the Lord Chief Justice, and others, that it is either an act of adultery or it is not. The fact that it is pre-arranged; the fact that a lady may not have been known before, and the fact that it is a hotel bedroom for one night, does not alter the fact that it is an act of adultery. If no act of adultery is committed, then it is blatant perjury, and there is available to the court a very drastic remedy for dealing with that situation. This is not a licence for a court to be deceived. This is a situation where the court, if it is in any doubt whether adultery has been committed, can take unto itself the powers which it already possesses to investigate the matter. A decree can be granted only if a court is satisfied that adultery has been committed; and adultery is committed where there is an act of adultery of which the court is satisfied.
The suggestion is made that it would be better to leave it to paragraph (b). Here I venture to suggest that we have precisely the objection of which we were speaking previously: that we leave the matter to areas of grave uncertainty. In many ways we should be very unfair to the Judiciary, because one thing that should not be left in doubt is whether acts of adultery are or are not regarded by particular judges as justifying the termination of a marriage. It would be a quite intolerable situation if we found that one judge, adopting a particular code, took the view that a single act of adultery justified the termination of a marriage, while another judge, adopting another perfectly proper code, took a completely contrary view.
I venture to think that the institution of marriage in this country—and with the learned ecclesiastics facing me it calls for immense courage to utter a word on the subject—is based so strongly on the notion of marital fidelity that the divorce law should state in the clearest and most certain terms what view it takes towards the infraction of that particular obligation. It seems to me anomalous in the extreme, even in this day and age, that we should leave out precise guidance on
1232
this matter because of a fear that there may be rigged divorces. I think this would be a grievous error. It would open up areas of great uncertainty: it would make the dissolution of divorce more costly, more difficult, more uncertain; and it would, in the end, leave us in a worse situation than we are in at the moment. I know that I shall find myself in disagreement with a number of learned Law Lords and with the Lord Chief Justice, who have spoken on the subject of paragraph (e), but it seems to me that here we have a clear-cut question. We have the question of whether we want to prescribe certain rules for the dissolution of marriage. And, whatever else we do, do not let us leave areas of total uncertainty. I believe that that would be wholly wrong.
May I venture to come to my own Amendment. I have had various representations made to me, even this morning. that it might have the effect of somewhat damaging the Bill. At the moment, I am very unrepentant about it, but I shall listen with great interest to the views which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and others will utter on the subject to see whether my view is changed. I find these words,
"and the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent",
wholly objectionable for a number of reasons. One reason is that it seems to me that it will create two categories of petitioners. We shall have a classification of human beings by the court, one of men who go to get a divorce and are found to be men who tolerate adultery, and another classification of men who go to get a divorce and are found to be men who do not tolerate adultery. I do not think that is at all an appropriate job for the courts. It seems to be a most invidious classification of human beings when they are seeking to resolve their matrimonial situations.
But, further and perhaps more important, how can any court honestly seek to assess this immensely subjective inquiry? How can a court find out whether one human being can or cannot tolerate the adultery of his spouse? If I may venture to say so, it is imposing on the court an obligation that no one outside the Kingdom of Heaven can discharge. I do not think we ought to ask judges to undertake tasks of this

1233
kind. And it is open to precisely the objection that the noble Lord sponsoring this Bill was making in relation to paragraph (b), that there would have to be a wide-ranging inquiry into matters of general intimacy, matters of fastidiousness, matters of personal code, matters of moral approach and matters of religious belief. It seems to me quite absurd that all these matters should be introduced in relation to a question of this sort.
There is a further point. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised the question of the man or woman who had himself or herself committed adultery—what to-day is called the discretion case. I should find it very difficult, sitting as a judge, to accept it if a person came to me and said, "I have committed adultery but I find it quite intolerable to accept my spouse's adultery". That would require some "logic chopping" of which I personally should find myself incapable. I should have to say to such a person, "If you find adultery such a tolerable pastime, you must find it tolerable on the part of your spouse as well". I would therefore go so far as to say that many judges would he completely justified in refusing to give a divorce in a case where the petitioner had himself or herself committed adultery.
Now what is the vice of losing these words? The vice is, if I may say so with the greatest of respect, a deficiency of draftsmanship: not that for one moment I should wish to criticise the excellent drafting of this Bill, which is in many respects a model, but I think the draftsman here has come up against an almost impossible problem. What he has been trying to do is to find a way of saying. "You may have adultery as a ground for the total breakdown of a marriage, but you must not make a meal of it". There is no way of putting that into a Statute. There is no form of legislative drafting which is going to achieve that result. The sensible thing to do is to leave these words out, avoid all the difficulties and dangers inherent in them, and make the clause a more sensible clause.
BARONESS BIRK: I should like to speak against the two Amendments. If we were living in a Utopian society, in a state of sophisticated grace, I should be one of the first people to say that we should dispense with paragraph (a)
1234
altogether, but that is not so. We still need the guidelines which have been mentioned. If we are to have those guidelines, it seems to me to be an improvement on the present situation to have the words which would be deleted by the Amendment to be moved by the noble Lord., Lord Goodman. In answer to the noble and learned Viscount. Lord Dilhorne, who pointed out that subsection (1)(b) covers the point, I would. with great respect, point out that there is a difference, because subsection (1)(b) says
"that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent"
and, as the noble and learned Viscount himself said, that is an objective test. But is that the only thing we should cover? Surely we should be covering a subjective test as well; and that appears to me to be the value of the words in subsection (1)(a),
"and the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent".
As I have said, I do not think that we have reached a situation where we can dispense with the idea of physical fidelity being part of the basis for many people of monogamous society, and it would be unfair to the judges to leave them to sort it out. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, when he says that he interprets it as, "It is all right to have an act of adultery, but one must not make a meal of it." If some couples manage to make their marriage exist even if they do make a meal of it, then it seems to me that that is nobody's business. If one person tolerates adultery in a marriage, then it is a matter for the couple themselves. The reason why I prefer to keep in these words is that it helps us to move towards what I think is the more civilised climate of moving away from the one act of adultery. That was also in the evidence which I, on behalf of the Fabian Society, gave 10 the Royal Commission, and which many other organisations and people gave.
I think the inclusion of these word:; may cause a number of people to think. It brings a sort of hesitation, if you like, which could be valuable. I personally know of several women who have, out of hurt pride and so on, slapped in a divorce petition against their husbands when they have discovered adultery; and then have been very sorry later on that

1235
they had done so. I am not saying that the inclusion of these words is going to prevent everybody from quickly taking action, but it helps, I think, to create, as I have said, the climate that marriages should not almost automatically be broken down because of one act of adultery. For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will reject these Amendments, and also the following one, which I gather—I think I am in order—we are discussing as well, although it has not yet been moved; that is, the one which adds the words "by reason of such adultery". Again I think that this narrows Clause 2(1)(a), because the words "and the petitioner finds it intolerable" mean that it could be an act of adultery and other things; that in fact the act of adultery could be the final straw on top of a great deal of unhappiness in the marriage. If we then tie it up by adding the words "by reason of adultery", we are narrowing it and rather getting back to the present position. This is why I hope that these three Amendments will he rejected.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I may not have understood, but I am considerably worried by something which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said at the beginning of his speech. He seemed to be suggesting that in the interests of legal efficiency and economy our courts, our legal system, might accept, or at least wink at, a certain degree of collusion between parties petitioning for divorce. What worried me in his speech was that I understood that he might be advocating a system by which our courts would set up a great temptation to commit perjury vis-à-vis adultery in an hotel bedroom because that was the way the parties could most easily obtain a divorce by mutual consent. That would seem to me to be an intolerable system for the individual rather than for the legal system itself.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Your Lordships are long-suffering, and can be excused if you grow impatient. I shall therefore utter only about three sentences. I am in favour of leaving paragraph (a) as it stands at the moment. I do not want to argue about the ethics or the supposed respectability of adultery, about which we have heard a certain amount this afternoon: I merely want to talk
1236
about the machinery by which divorces will be granted. In the old days, when the administration of the divorce law was in the hands of a very small group of highly skilled, specialist judges, I should have been prepared to leave them to decide whether adultery was a factor that should enter into the question of whether or not a marriage had broken down. But to-day we have—shall have to a greater extent in the future probably—a very large number of county court judges administering this law, and there is a possibility that one of them might be—shall we say?—pro-adultery and another might be anti-adultery; that is, of course, in the administration of the law and not in their personal habits. I feel, therefore, that because of this very wide-dispersed group of judges with different attitudes towards life and different attitudes towards the administration of the law, the word "adultery" should appear in this Act of Parliament so that they have a clear guideline as to how the law should be administered.
LORD HODSON: I support the Amendment moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne for the reasons which he gave and the reasons given by the right reverend Prelate. I also support the Amendment linked with this one which was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. There is a third Amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and myself, which must be considered because, as has been pointed out already, I do not think the language of subsection 1(a) will do. On the face of it, it covers the man who sends his wife out to earn his living on the streets and then comes along and asks for a divorce because it is intolerable to live with her, because she has outlived her usefulness, her physical strength has gone. That is covered by this sort of language. That is the only reason why we have put in the words, "by reason of such adultery" so that a man will not be able to rely on adultery that he has connived at and then say that for other reasons it is intolerable for him to go on living with his wife. I might also mention that this aspect of the matter has been a matter of deep concern to the President who presides over the Division of the High Court which deals with these cases. I thought it my duty to bring that to the notice of the Committee in case the

1237
Committee decides to adhere to subsection (1)(a) as it stands. If it is adhered to at all, it ought to be amended in the way which I have suggested.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I hope that the Committee will accept the third Amendment and insert, "by reason of such adultery". It seems to me to meet the objections of everybody. In the first place, my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne said that these two parts of the Amendment were not linked; that adultery was not linked with the petitioner finding it intolerable to live with the respondent. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and others, have said that we must keep the guidelines; while from the Bishops' Bench, to my amazement, it is suggested that we should dispense with the guidelines for adultery. I believe, first, that we should keep the guidelines. We must not be too sophisticated. Perhaps on another planet we may find the union of men and women conducted in certain ways without rules—
A NOBLE LORD: On Venus?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Marriage is a simple process of a man living with a woman. She and he understand the rules of the game. The most important rule of the game in marriage is that one should try as far as possible to be faithful to one's spouse. If a spouse fails to be faithful, if there is an act of adultery, we have to face up to the fact that both the man and the woman are deeply distressed unless they are abnormal people, unless they are perverts. They are deeply distressed; and one cannot pretend that one can avoid this distress and expect them to set out on their marriage again in the way in which it was before this act of adultery. It may be that a thousand years from now people will laugh at these guidelines; but I feel certain that at the moment we must have them; and that for the sake of the judges we must leave "adultery" in. I agree that these two things are not linked. Therefore, the simple Amendment in the names of my noble and learned friend Lord Hodson and myself seems to meet the case: the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent by reason of such adultery.
1238
That again points to the fact that this is dealing with adultery. If we leave it simply to read that the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent, we will find that many people have different ideas of what is intolerable. I seem to have heard a learned judge (perhaps in another life or somewhere) saying, "What is intolerable in your spouse?" The answer was: "I think the thing that is most intolerable is to be married to somebody who snores". At night harsh words will be used; then there will be prodding; then there will be violence and the next day, having had little sleep, they will be irritable with each other. As they anticipate another night of such horror, it must come into their minds: "Can we go on for years like this?"
Therefore, I agree that this cannot be left open and merely say that the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent. It is absolutely cruel to the judges to leave it to their discretion You must point at least to some fault, whatever that fault may be, in the other spouse which can be quoted by the petitioner. Therefore, I say that if we add at the end, "by reason of such adultery" we should meet all cases.
LORD REID: Strange as it may appear, I find myself in greater agreement with Lord Stow Hill and Lord Goodman on this matter than I do with the other speakers. The trouble is that such an immense variety of cases can arise; the merits and demerits are so various on the two sides that the result will depend on what kind of case you have to start with. I venture to start from this, I do not think a very uncommon, case. There has been bickering in the family for a long time. The wife finds it very near to being the last straw. Then the husband rather blatantly commits adultery with someone. She says, "This is the last straw. It is not so much the adultery I object to; but the whole thing added together." That is why I do not agree with my noble and learned friend and with the noble Baroness, because you would not be allowed to say that their Amendment were passed. You have to concentrate your attention on the adultery and nothing else. I do not believe that that is what, in most cases, wives in that position would feel. They would not feel that this was solely on the matter of

1239
adultery. They would say that the adultery is the last straw. A wife would say: "I cannot say that I find the adultery by itself intolerable; but I find the whole situation intolerable." For that reason, I would not agree with the Amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Hodson and the noble Baroness.
Let us consider now the Amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne. What is to happen in a case of that sort? The wife goes to the court. Paragraph (a) has been deleted. She has to say: "It is unreasonable in all the circumstances to expect me to live with the respondent". As has been pointed out, with this enormous number of judges there will inevitably be very great differences of approach. It is a very difficult thing. There are constructive desertion and desertion cases every day, probably the most difficult cases to come before a court. It is very difficult to say who is reasonable and who is unreasonable. If you substitute paragraph (b) for (a), I think you will introduce enormous uncertainties.
What is going to happen? The woman comes forward. She is probably pretty unreasonable by that time. A lot of people start off by being unreasonable; but still more reach that position after a period of long nervous strain. And it is not at all unlikely that she is unreasonable at that stage. But she has made up her mind, "I will not live with this man any more". What are you going to do? Is she in desertion? The man has committed adultery. She says, "I find it intolerable". But my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne would relegate her to the position of a deserting wife—that is what his Amendment means—and therefore she would get no maintenance. Is it reasonable, in those circumstances, to balance the thing on a very difficult decision in fact? Is she unreasonable or not? If the court finds that she is unreasonable she is branded as a deserting wife; she gets no redress. She is told, "You have either got to live with your husband or go on public assistance". I do not think that is the right way to deal with that kind of situation, and it is for that reason that I shall vote against my noble and learned friend's Amendment.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I speak on the subject as someone who
1240
for nearly 40 years had from time to time to handle divorce cases, and I am looking at it from the practical point of view of a lawyer who has to deal with these problems. There is one thing that is most essential in law, and that is to try to have as much certainty as possible and not to leave things vague. If this paragraph is left out, we shall be abandoning something which the general opinion of people in this country considers to be a very grave breach of the obligation of a husband to wife. Whatever we may think about it, most people regard it in that way; and in my view quite rightly.
If paragraph (a) is left out and the structure of the Bill remains as it is at present, we shall still be singling out certain things as prima facie evidence that the marriage has broken down; but we shall be, obviously and clearly, leaving out the fact of adultery as one of those signals. I believe that that is completely wrong. It would be a very grave mistake to leave out paragraph (a). It would mean increasing the uncertainty and difficulties of litigation in this sphere, and it would lead to all kinds of contradictory decisions. If this is to be relegated to be a sub-item of paragraph (b), one can see all kinds of inquiries and divorce cases lasting for days and days when they might quite reasonably be settled in the course of hours.
Now let me turn to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, to omit the second part of paragraph (a). I sympathise with the Amendment. I regard it as quite unnecessary, where the fact of adultery is proved, to compel the petitioner to prove that he or she
"finds it intolerable to live with the respondent".
If adultery has been committed, there is prima facie a case that it is intolerable. It may not in fact be intolerable, however, and we have to look at this Bill as a whole. We have to consider subsection (2) of Clause 2, which says:
"… it shall be the duty of the court to inquire, so far as it reasonably can, into the facts alleged by the petitioner and into any facts alleged by the respondent".
This involves the court in an inquiry as to whether the fact alleged by the petitioner, that he or she finds it intolerable, is or is not true. It means that in every case of adultery there will be an inquiry,

1241
and what are the guide-lines of that inquiry? What criteria are the court going to evolve to determine whether it has been intolerable or not?
Let us remember, also, that it is open to the respondent to allege any facts which he wishes, and under subsection (2) those have to be inquired into. If the respondent alleges that it has not been intolerable for the petitioner, what kind of a legal tangle shall we then be in? And how long is this kind of litigation going to last? I hope that paragraph (a) will not be deleted, and I hope that the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Goodman will be carried.
5.55 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: I think that it will probably be in accordance with the practice of your Lordships, as we are discussing three Amendments together, if I wind up the debate before the movers of those Amendments make their closing speeches. I shall do so quite briefly. Regarding the first of the three Amendments, I always breathe a sigh of relief when I hear that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, is on my side. If I may say so with respect, I thought that to-day he put the case admirably, and I wish that I could put it with such perfection. I do not think that I can add to what he said, but I hope that, for the reasons which he gave, we shall not accept the first Amendment. I should like to add one thing. When talking about a single act of adultery, the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Exeter, said, in effect, that surely all one should bother about was the scandalous and notorious type of adultery. I think that those were the words he used, or some words like them.
May I go back to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, who said that that sort of situation should be treated under paragraph (b). Is it going to be easy for a judge, when he is told about adultery, to ask himself, and to decide, whether it is scandalous and notorious adultery; or whether it is something which should be overlooked as of no importance? As was pointed out, county court judges up and down the country will have these cases to decide. Nine out of ten of the cases will be undefended, and I should have thought it highly desirable that as much
1242
certainty as is practicable in the circumstances should be achieved. If county court judges are to be asked to decide problems of that sort, we shall find an extraordinary divergence of views. There may be very considerable public outcry about particular decisions, at any rate from those who are concerned.
I am quite certain that the learned county court judges will do their level best to arrive at a fair conclusion in each case; but there may well be cases in which they will differ from the petitioner, who will feel most acutely that they are hopelessly and absolutely wrong. Surely it is an obvious truism that it is the petitioner himself or herself who really knows most about his or her feelings and knows most about the question whether the adultery in a particular case is something which should spell the termination of the marriage. It is an almost impossible question to submit to the decision of a judge. I would therefore ask the House to reject Amendment No. 3, to leave out paragraph (a).
Regarding the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, to leave out the second part of paragraph (a), to be perfectly frank, I have considerable sympathy with what he said as a matter of reasoning; but I hope that he will not press the Amendment, for this reason. This Bill has been forged as a result of a great deal of cross-opinion on these very difficult issues. The whole basis of the Bill is to cleave to the idea of real breakdown. When adultery intrudes itself on the scene it is surely, after all, the major factor. The actual inclusion of the words which the noble Lord would wish to leave out would go some slight way towards keeping the idea that basically what we are asking is: has the marriage broken down? It may be said that one act of adultery and no more ought not be regarded as the end of a marriage but one act of adultery, coupled with the fact that the petitioner appears in the witness box and swears that he or she cannot go hack to the respondent after that one act, is some guarantee that we are cleaving to the idea of a real breakdown. We are moving some distance away from a single act of adultery which a sensible, kindly person need not necessarily treat as a rupture of all relations between him or her and his or her spouse.

1243
My noble friend Lady Birk gave the sort of case which may arise: the case of a wife whose pride is hurt but who thinks it is much more hurt than it really is, and having consulted a solicitor about it and having launched a petition, is rather sorry about it. If she were asked if she would go back to the respondent she might change her mind. We have to consider that case together with the requirement under Clause 2(3). Even if there is a prima facie indication of a breakdown in the form of adultery, the court still has to look at all the evidence and ask itself, against that background, whether it is really the case that the marriage has come to an end. I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that if we add these two things together, there is something a good deal more than a mere nothingness. There is the requirement that the petitioner must really mean what he says. The judge must be satisfied that he does, and there is the further requirement that the judge has to look at his assertion that he cannot go back to the respondent against the whole background, and ask himself whether the marriage is really at an end. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will reject the second Amendment also.
I come to the third Amendment. I wish that I could better, but I could never hope to better, the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid. I should have thought that what he called "the last straw" was the conclusive answer. We get the case of a husband who is a drunk and is persistently tiresome and intolerable in his behaviour. Then, as a last straw, he goes out and commits an act of adultery. In that case, if you analyse the feelings of the unfortunate wife, it is the whole context of the situation which makes her feel that it is all at an end between him and her. It is the adultery added to the rest of his behaviour, which in itself perhaps does not come up to the level required for the application of paragraph (b) but which nevertheless has been thoroughly objectionable, which has continued for years and has driven the unfortunate wife to a state of semi-desperation. Then comes the act of adultery on top. That was the burden of the noble and learned Lord's argument, and for that reason I hope that the Committee will reject the third Amendment.
1244
I omitted to answer the noble and learned Viscount about the husband who sends his wife out on to the streets. If ever there was a classic case which fell under paragraph (b) it is that case. If she came to court and said her husband wanted her to go out on the streets and prostitute herself, it is the clearest case for a petition by her under paragraph (d), on the ground that he has been guilty of conduct towards her which she could not reasonably be expected to put up with.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: It is no answer for the noble Lord to say that. Of course, in that latter case the wife could petition, if she wished, under paragraph (b). The point I raised was whether the husband who treated her in that way could not succeed on a petition based on the ground in paragraph (a\).
LORD HENLEY: Would the noble and learned Viscount not agree that that case would be dealt with under Clause 4?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am coming to that in a moment. I am pointing out, to start off with, that the reply of the noble Lord that a wife could petition under paragraph (b) is no answer to the question put to him, There may be other answers, but the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has not dealt with the question. It is all very well to talk about these cases where adultery may be the last straw, and so on. There may be such cases, but we ought to look a little to see how these provisions could be abused and whether safeguards against abuse are there and are adequate. I put a number of questions to the noble Lord about this point. The discretionary bars have gone. So far he has omitted to answer them.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice referred to the danger of collusion and connivance, the divorce by arrangement, the hotel divorce by arrangement, which is a form, and a very unpleasant form, of divorce by consent. What is the answer to that? That can easily be done under paragraph (a) as it stands. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, sought to answer it. He said that either a person commits adultery or he does not, and if he does not it is blatant perjury. Maybe it is, but to me that is not

1245
a very satisfactory answer, because I think that he would frequently advise that there was not evidence available to secure a conviction, even if the offence was committed. I am worried about the possible abuse of this.
BARONESS BIRK: Would the noble and learned Viscount not agree, in regard to what he has been calling the abuse of Clause 2(1)(a), that if a couple were absolutely determined, then the case could be brought under Clause 2(1)(b)? In other words, even if we take out paragraph (a), we are certainly not going to do away with collusion and connivance, if two people are determined to obtain a divorce.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: We cannot discuss all the provisions of this Bill at the same time, as on Second Reading. Unfortunately, as the noble Lady herself has pointed out, paragraph (b) imports an objective and not a subjective test That is different, come back to the case I was putting, which deserves serious consideration, of the possible abuse of paragraph (a). There is the case where now a discretion statement would have to be filed. We have had no answer here. No discretion statement will have to be filed in future, because the granting of a decree will not depend on the exercise of discretion. A person who has committed adultery, fifty times it may be, will, on proof that his wife or her husband has committed a single act, satisfy the requirement of paragraph (a) provided that he or she goes on to say, "I find it intolerable to live with my spouse." I am worried about the safeguards to prevent this abuse.
Would this be right or fair? It is all very well to talk about removing these areas of uncertainty. That has been the great argument for the retention of this present form. But look at the uncertainties that remain and the unfairness that can remain. The more I have heard of this debate, the more I have thought that only lip service is being paid to the idea that in future divorce shall be granted on establishment of the breakdown of marriage. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, wants proof of breakdown to depend upon proof of adultery. He wants to carry an Amendment to provide for
1246
that and that alone—an adultery without any of the safeguards that now exist in relation to adultery.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred to Clause 4. We shall have to consider that clause with great care. Under Clause 4, if hardship will be caused to the adulterous respondent and if the county court judge thinks it wrong in all the circumstances to grant a decree, that decree can be refused. All these arguments about certainty, and about how great a certainty there is under this Bill, seem to me to be absolutely fallacious if a provision of that sort is included in the Bill. Even if paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) are satisfied—even if proof of a matrimonial sin is given—it would still enable a decree to be refused on the ground that there is some hardship involved to the respondent and it would be wrong in all the circumstances.
I am grateful to those who have spoken in support of this Amendment. I doubt very much whether leaving the Bill as it is with this provision in it leaves it in a much more honest situation. I sympathise with the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, in wanting to keep something as to guide-lines; I have no objection to that. But I do not feel that these words will do.
I should have liked the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, to say, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that he was certainly prepared to consider it again.
If he had said that, I should have withdrawn my Amendment as soon as I had the opportunity to do so. But he has held out no hope of any reconsideration of the wording as it stands. If that is the position. I must say that I think the only hope of getting improved wording is to take out these words and leave it to the noble Lord, should he be so disposed, to put other words in their place. I do not think that these words will do as they stand. I hope they can be improved. I should like to vote for this Bill on its Third Reading, but if it contains its present blemishes—and this I regard as a serious blemish—I shall find it difficult to do so.
6.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 106.

CONTENTS

Atholl, D.

Croft, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Auckland, L.

Daventry, V.

Margadale, L.

Audley, Bs.

Denham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Barrington, V.

Dilhorne, V. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Beswick, L.

Eccles, V.

Milverton, L.

Blackburn, L. Bp.

Effingham, E.

Molson, L.

Blackford, L.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Goschen, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gowrie, E.

Parker of Waddington, L.

Carnock, L.

Grantchester, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Carrington, L.

Gray, L.

Poltimore, L.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hodson, L. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ilford, L.

St. Helens, L.

Colyton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Sandford, L.

Coventry, L. Bp.

Kinloss, Ly.

Sempill, Ly.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Simonds, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Wells-Pestell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gage, V.

Raglan, L.

Addison, V.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Rea, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Reay, L.

Amulree, L.

Garner, L.

Redesdale, L.

Annan, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Reid, L.

Archibald, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Balogh, L.

Gifford, L.

Royle, L.

Birk, Bs.

Goodman, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly. [Teller.]

Blackett, L.

Grenfell, L.

Blyton, L.

Hankey, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bourne, L.

Hawke, L.

Segal, L.

Bowles, L.

Headfort, M.

Selkirk, E.

Brockway, L.

Henley, L.

Scrota, Bs.

Burden, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Byers, L.

Hughes, L.

Snow, L.

Chalfont, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Somers, L.

Champion, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Sorensen, L.

Chorley, L.

Jacques, L.

Stamp, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Cohen. L.

Leatherland, L.

Stonham, L.

Cole, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stow Hill, L. [Teller.]

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Strabolgi, L.

Conesford, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strang, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Longford, E.

Strange, L.

Crook, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mitchison, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Morrison, L.

Swanborough, Bs.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Swaythling, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Moyle, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Moyne, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Nunburnholme, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Vivian, L.

Faringdon, L.

Platt, L.

Walston, L.

Foot, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Francis-Williams, L.

Popplewell, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD GOODMAN LORD GOODMAN moved Amendment No. 3A:
Page 1, line 14, leave out from ("adultery") to end of line 15.
The noble Lord said: I have listened with great attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said on the matter,
1248
and I was certainly greatly impressed by the persuasiveness of his advocacy, but not, I am afraid, by his arguments. In a way, he made the situation worse from my point of view; he made it clear that in the case which ordinarily would involve an investigation of a single act of adultery, there would have to be an added element which amounted to turning it into a trial of a cruelty case as

1249
well. That seems to me to be wholly wrong. This is a matter we have discussed fully, and the impact of our discussions ought to have some time to settle. It would be wrong to bring the matter to an issue without an opportunity for considering the observations that have been made. Accordingly, what I propose to do is very earnestly to invite the noble Lord to consider what has been said in the course of the debate, and I propose to withdraw my Amendment. Unless I think some satisfactory change has been made, I will put it down again on the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert ("by reason of such adultery").
The noble Baroness said: It is quite clear, after listening to the debate, that there is no consensus of opinion, and in view of the differing opinions expressed on this matter it is my view that these words should be considered more carefully. I am only too happy to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and to ask the noble Lord to take the matter back, examine it and perhaps then present fresh words on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("since the celebration of the marriage").
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a probing Amendment to find out from the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, what is the point of the inclusion of these words. We are considering a Bill to deal with the law of divorce, and divorce usually relates to conduct which takes place after the marriage, not before it. Why specifically do we have these words in this clause? We had them in an earlier clause, but I did not put down an Amendment then. There may be a reason for it here. When you are considering whether the conduct of the respondent is such that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with him, what useful purpose is there in including the words:
"since the celebration of the marriage."?
It may be that the use of the word "since" suggests that the misbehaviour has to start from the day after the marriage and continue until the petition is heard; and if, by the use of the word "since", is meant the word "after", then why not use the word "after"? "Since" connotes a running-on of time, and I must say I was puzzled to think why it was that this formula had been inserted in this subsection. I am still more puzzled to see that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has an Amendment down to put it in later on, in line 22. There may be a reason for that, because you are dealing with parties living apart. Bearing in mind that none of this will arise until there has been a marriage, I should have thought it was unnecessary to have in the words: "since the celebration of the marriage". We need not take up too much time on this point. If the noble Lord will look at it I shall be quite content. I beg to move.
LORD STOW HILL: I shall of course be very glad to look at it again. The noble and learned Viscount said that this was a probing Amendment. The object of the inclusion of those words was simply to make sure that the conduct you were considering was after the marriage was celebrated. If the word "since" introduces an uncertainly then I will look at it and I shall be glad to discuss it with him. I hope he will not feel that because I have recognised the uncertainty in the word "since" I ought not to move the Amendment that I have on the Marshalled List. I hope the Committee will agree to that, but I will look at that too, if I may.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I think if you look at the words:
"since the celebration of the marriage the respondent has behaved in such a way"
they make it look as if the misbehaviour has to start immediately after the marriage. That cannot be the intention. The noble Lord said in the course of his speech that. "after" is a better word. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 22, after ("that") insert ("since the celebration of the marriage").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to ensure that the period of separation that is referred to in paragraph (b) must be a period of separation that begins after the marriage has been celebrated. If the Committee would allow me for the time being to seek to insert the words "since the celebration of the marriage", I shall be most grateful, but I will, if I may, look at these words further. If it appears that the word "after" is better than the word "since" in both cases, I will ask leave at a later stage to put it in my Amendments as well.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 23, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, and the noble Lord, Lord Ilford. I hope that the Committee will give very careful consideration to this Amendment, which is to subsection (1)(d) of Clause 2. I believe it is a very important one. Desertion has been a ground for divorce for thirty years, but it has been necessary to show that it has lasted continuously for three years. Now we are making, in my opinion, a great change in this Bill by reducing the period of three years to two years. I believe that two years is a very short time in which to prove irretrievable breakdown. In fact, there are many couples living together to-day who may have been separated for two years or three years and they have gone back. I think that if we sincerely believe in reconciliation we should recognise that this is a way of ensuring that couples have plenty of time to think about their situation.
Marriage is a habit, and it is sometimes very pleasant to break habits. People change their way of life and perhaps for a year or two say, "Oh, how refreshing this is! I am away from the old background and away from somebody who did not treat me as I think I should have been treated". Nevertheless, after a time it is possible for people to think, and say, "Well, life is not so easy in other fields, with other women, or with other houses". They think about it and they go back. Do
1252
not let us say that after two years' separation a marriage has finally broken down. Let us keep it at three.
I would also remind your Lordships of this point which I think is very important. We have reduced the age of majority from 21 to 18—I have said this before and I apologise for repeating it—and we have in fact (and here I am protecting the male) told the boys of 18 of this country that they may now assume all the responsibilities of a husband; they may take hire-purchase on to their shoulders. They can no longer say to the girl friend who wants to get married—and, as I have said before, the girl is so much more mature than the boy—"Well, I can't get married because mother and father won't give their consent". The boy has been protected in that way. Now we have taken that protection from him.
A couple will go into marriage, and we know that they will do so at a very early age because the boy will be earning a high salary, the girl will be earning, and in their youthful enthusiasm and first love and affection for each other they cannot see that it can ever end. As I said recently, the home they generally get is a bed-sitting room. Then they quarrel, inevitably. They part for a short time, and part again.
We now propose to reduce the period of separation to two years to entitle them to a divorce. Give them a chance. This I think is a short-sighted policy. I think we should give these two people longer than that. Keep the period at three years. We have introduced this tremendous change in the lives of our young people, putting responsibilities of all kinds on their shoulders at 18. Let us see how it works. Therefore, I ask your Lordships not to reduce the period of three years to two years. I beg to move.
LORD SORENSEN: I wonder whether, for the convenience of the Committee, my Amendment No. 7A might be taken at the same time as this Amendment is taken. I should like to know whether the noble Baroness agrees.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: It deals with a different point really, and I am going to oppose the noble Lord's Amendment.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I am opposed to this Amendment because it seems to me to go against a fundamental aim of the Bill. The Bill is trying to make divorce proceedings more rational, more honest, less squalid in so far as it tries to discourage gossip fodder in the Press, something which is so painful to children, and altogether it is trying to make the approach of divorce more dignified. I have listened to what my noble friend Lady Summerskill has said about young people. We know that it is a rather heavy strain for two young people to be separated for two years before they bring a petition. Until now, if they have gone back, as my noble friend has intimated, they have gone back to unhappiness because they cannot get a divorce. But if divorce becomes possible after two years they need not go on being unhappy for another year, and it seems to me that two years' separation for young people is quite enough to decide on irretrievable breakdown.
My noble friend Lady Summerskill has pleaded for these people and I believe she has talked about their teething troubles, but I believe that if we have an extra year, and make the period three years, we shall have only troubles, not just teething troubles, and soon there will be the temptation for them to manufacture and to think up adultery and other grounds for divorce on which to base their petition. This again, I think, goes against the whole spirit of the Bill.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I support the Amendment for a number of reasons, not least among them that we have no reliable information at the moment as to what really happens between the second and the third years. Perhaps I may draw on my own experience and the experience of a large number of marriage counsellors who have been working in this field for some considerable time. As things stand at the moment, your Lordships know that it is impossible to institute proceedings for a divorce in this country until the parties have been married for three years. I am hoping that this will remain so. I am not sure what the Bill we are considering to-day does in that respect, but apparently if two people have been married for three years and they have separated before the end of the three-year period, after two years' separation—namely, five years of
1254
marriage—they will be able to get a divorce by consent. That is precisely what it means.
May I say that the one thing we do know is that the first five years of marriage is a very crucial time. I would say to your Lordships that there is perhaps no other period in a marriage which is more crucial than the first five years. It is during the first five years that the couple have to make adjustments of all kinds which many of them may find extremely difficult, and in point of fact a very large number of them do. That is why I think it would be harmful, psychologically bad, to say, "If you don't hit it off and you have been apart for two years, then you can get a divorce by consent". This Amendment seeks to increase the period from two years to three years, and I feel that the extra year will give the couple an opportunity of making the necessary adjustments.
I realise that there is nothing magic about either two or three years; I am merely saying, as my noble friend Lady Summerskill said, "Give them the extra year." It will not impose a very severe strain on them, one way or the other. I can only say that there is a fair amount of evidence that, notwithstanding the fact that they have been married three years, couples who have separated do, after the two-year period, seek skilled and expert help to overcome their difficulties. In my opinion, my noble friend Lady Summerskill is right when she appeals to your Lordships and says "Do let us give them every possible opportunity of finding out what has threatened the security of their marriage, what has undermined it and what contribution they have each made to its failure, so that they can get skilled and expert help to overcome their difficulties". I attach considerable importance to this Amendment because I feel that the period ought to be three years rather than two years.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: May I just say one thing in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell? He asserted that the first five years of marriage are the crucial ones. This is a statement that no one can prove. I have found that the first five years are crucial, and I have also found that the next five years are crucial; and the following five, and the following five years—they all have been crucial. Therefore it is no case to say

1255
that the first five years are necessarily the crucial ones.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I am sure my noble friend Lady Gaitskell is speaking from experience of her own marriage, and I am quite prepared to accept it. All I am saying is that people who have worked in the field of marital conciliation over a period of years say that the first five years are crucial.
LORD PLATT: I must speak against this Amendment. There is nothing to be said for prolonging the two-year period to three years. I agree that we are lacking figures, but if we take what may be the more normal situation of people seeking a divorce when they have been married four, five or more years—often for ten years—then for a long time they have known that their marriage was failing. People do not just suddenly say, "Now let us live apart for two years and we can get rid of this marriage". They will have stuck together for years—because the children were growing up, or for all kinds of reasons. My noble friend Lady Summerskill spoke of the young people, but I would point out that for young people two years is a very long time.
LORD HENLEY: Is there not also a grave danger that if we make this period three years, so that it is not in line with desertion, under paragraph (c), we shall be encouraging people not to use this paragraph at all? It is to be hoped that if this Bill is enacted the great majority of divorces—probably 70 per cent. of them—will come under Clause 2(1)(d), about which we are now speaking, but if we make the period three years we shall have people going back to the old idea of collusive divorce. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that I hope he will not regard this provision as being divorce by consent: it is part of the whole philosophy of this Bill about the breakdown of marriage.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I am in the ambivalent position of being able to say that I support what my noble friend Lady Gaitskell has said and I also support my noble friend Lady Summerskill, so I am in the position of being a thorn between two roses. This is really the very essence of the Bill: it really is divorce by con-
1256
sent, and I am not opposed to divorce by consent in many sets of circumstances, although I voted against the Second Reading of the Bill. I feel that there are two different kinds of cases which might be cited here. There is the case of young people who have been married for two years or so, and who have no children. If they came to the mutual conclusion that their marriage is "on the rocks" I should not object; but if they had children I should say to them, "For goodness' sake! go on for another year." At this moment I am unable to vote in favour of either of those choices, so I shall support my noble friend Lady Summerskill. But if between now and the next stage of the Bill an Amendment can be tabled to the effect that the period shall be two years if there are no children and three years if there are children, I shall support that.
BARONESS BIRK: I agree so much with what my noble friend Lady Gaitskell and my noble friend Lord Platt said about two years being a very long time. My son has been married for nearly two months and he says that it feels like years; and he and his wife do not seem to be able to be apart, even sitting round the dinner table. When we are considering this matter, and speaking of our own experiences, we might do better to remember that in New Zealand, where there is a similar provision, in December, 1968, the period of separation was reduced from three years to two years and they have found that this works quite satisfactorily: and there has been no pressure to increase it again to three years. If we increase the period to three years it seems to me that not only, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, shall we be going back to the old matrimonial offence, but we shall also be encouraging people to live together without marriage for a long period because they will find it impossible to marry for another year.
I think that my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell raised the question of whether people could get a divorce before three years, In fact they cannot get it before three years, but for separation the period is two years. Finally, I would say that I think this is another case where, if we accept the clause as it was originally drafted, with the period of two years' separation, this will be an impetus to do something else about which so many

1257
of us in your Lordships' House feel strongly; namely, doing something positive about educating young people for marriage, which seems to me to be a better approach than increasing the period from two years to three years. I am against the Amendment.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: I had not intended to speak on this Amendment, but having listened to the discussion I feel moved to do so now. The aspect of this matter that worries me, about which I am fundamentally in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, is this. If, with the implication of Latey we are now going to allow young people to marry at 18, what is to prevent them from saying "Two years? Let us 'have a bash'. We have not got to wait very long". I should like an answer to that question.
6.48 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN: I rise to support the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. One's approach to the whole of this Bill lies in the opening clause: that there shall be evidence that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. For those of us who think that divorce by consent after two years does not afford an adequate time, I would say that it was this point of the acceptance of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage that led the right reverend Prelates here to vote just now in favour of the Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, relating to adultery. It is not that the right reverend Prelates approve of adultery, but we disapprove of its being dragged in at this point, because we feel that everything for which this Bill stands in regard to the irretrievable breakdown of marriage is the foundation on which it should be built.
If the period is only two years, it does not give the couple sufficient time. Admittedly there is a temptation for them to bring forward the old matrimonial offence; that is why some of us voted for that Amendment, and we are sorry that it has been lost. I very much hope that your Lordships will support this Amendment, because two years seems to be a quite inadequate test as to whether there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: I do not want your Lordships to think me a "square", but I strongly support Lady Summerskill's Amendment. I would go even further and say that "five years" would be a good period to put in. My reasons are these. A young couple, about 18 years of age, get married. They love each other very much to start off with but they have a row. They go off and one finds somebody else, and most likely will have a row with the other person he or she has found. If the period runs for three years instead of two years there is hope of reconciliation. That is why I support the Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: I would support the Amendment for one other reason. So often the Church is regarded as a body which condemns this and condemns that. In all this matter of marriage, it cannot be made too plain that our objective is to help people to have really happy married lives; that is what we are after and that is why we take the stand we do. If young people are to he helped in this way, I believe they must have a determination to make a "go" of it. from the start; and if they are given an impression that it may be easy to slide out if things begin to go wrong, that sense of determination may be weakened. On that ground I support this Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: Lest it be thought that all the Bishops are of one mind, may I say that I myself do not agree with this Amendment, and for two reasons. The first is that, as I understand it, the law as it will be if and when this Bill goes through will be that a petition for divorce will be barred, except in exceptional circumstances, during the first three years of the marriage. This paragraph says that there must be continuous separation for two years immediately before the presentation of the petition; so it would in fact give the marriage three years. That, I think, is long enough even for a young couple to come to the conclusion that their marriage is quite hopeless or is not.
My other reason for objecting to the Amendment is that mentioned by the noble Lord., Lord Henley: that most of us hope that as a result of this Bill divorces will come about, if they must come about, under paragraph (d), where the

1259
two people agree together that they cannot go on with the marriage any longer, they have come to what they consider to be a reasonable arrangement for its ending, the court has decided that this is so, there is no evidence whatever that there is anything "phoney" in the background, and the marriage ends with dignity. We hope that that will be the normal method. But if we put the period up from two years to three years, for one to pretend that he or she has deserted the other would be an obvious advantage, and there would be an added temptation to have some kind of "phoney" divorce and do it even more quickly. For those reasons I oppose the Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: I hope that the Committee will reject this Amendment for precisely the reasons that have just been given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. May I try to list the arguments as I see them? First, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. It would be quite impossible to contemplate a situation in which a separation under paragraph (d) has to last three years whereas if divorce is asked for on the ground of desertion it is sufficient to say that there was desertion for two years. That would be the effect of carrying this Amendment. It would be an obvious invitation to parties who wish to get divorce to pretend there was desertion; it would mean that they would have to wait one year less. That is the point that was made at the outset by the noble Lord, Lord Henley.
As the right reverend Prelate said, the position as it will be if this Bill becomes law is that still under Section 2 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 no petition for divorce, except in special cases of hardship and depravity, may be presented until three years have elapsed after the marriage takes place. The two years' separation which is referred to in paragraph (d) can take place within that three years. In other words, supposing the young couple get married, very soon tire of each other and then live apart for two years, at the end of that two years they cannot present a petition for divorce; they must wait until three years have elapsed since the marriage. So in any event you cannot marry for less than three years.
1260
I would put the question simply in this general form. To begin with, one is not always talking of young couples; it may be people of 25, 35, 45 or 55 years of age. Supposing two sensible people have lived apart for two long years—that is a long time—and supposing at the end of it one asks for a decree of divorce and the other does not object. can one have stronger evidence than that that the marriage has broken down? Again I venture to repeat an observation I made earlier. These people are really far in the best position to know. They are not always scatter-brained young people; they are sensible and grown-up. They know whether there is a marriage between them or whether, for all practical purposes, it has come to an end.
My noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell said that the third year, the extra year, may be the magic year which will bring them together again. On what evidence that is based I do not know. It may be the case; it may not. Cases differ. Suppose there are a man of 40 and a woman of 38; they have lived together, and then they live apart for two years. Is it to be said that making them live apart one year extra means that there is a good chance of reconciliation? It is not what ordinary experience points to.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: Would the noble Lord allow me? I do not think I said that the third year is a magic year. If my memory serves me correctly, I said that in my view there is nothing magic about two or three years.
LORD STOW HILL: I am sorry if I misquoted the noble Lord's argument. If there is nothing magic about either period, I would strongly go back to two. On the question of reconciliation, if one looks at the whole context of the Bill it is simply crammed full with provisions designed to achieve reconciliation. The relevant one for this purpose is Clause 3(5). Under that subsection it is provided that where the parties ask for a divorce on the ground of separation—that is to say, under either paragraph (d) or paragraph (e)—if they nevertheless have tried to come together, have tried to live together, either for one period not exceeding six months or for several periods not exceeding in aggregate six months, that shall not be any bar to asking for divorce on the ground of

1261
separation. That period of six months is not to count in the two years: in other words, they are given every conceivable inducement to try once again.
One thinks of the solicitor who is advising a petitioner who has been separated from his spouse for two years, and whose spouse does not object to a divorce. The petitioner, one assumes, is talking to his solicitor and his solicitor is bound to say to him—it is perhaps rather an empty exercise sometimes—"Have you thought of reconciliation?". The solicitor can then go on and say: "If you look at Clause 3(5) you can perfectly safely try to live with your spouse again. Why do you not go and try to live with her? So long as you do not live with her for more than six months you can still go to the court if you find that it is no good, that you cannot make a go of it, and ask for a decree of divorce on the ground that you have been apart for five years."
The Bill could not be more crammed full of provisions to try to get parties together and to prevent marriages from being broken up. I should not have thought that with those provisions in the Bill much advantage is likely to be achieved by lengthening a long period of two years to a long period of three years. Not only is it not an advantage, but it is a serious disadvantage. This has been touched upon by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter in his speech.
A major purpose of this Bill is that one should put an end to the unseemly recitals of adulterous behaviour. It is hoped that well-behaved people who find that their marriage has come to an end, that they cannot get on together, instead of staging an act or committing an act of adultery, when they have discovered after a two years' separation that things are at an end between them, will come to the divorce court, in dignity, and say, "We have been apart for two years; we ask to be divorced". In that way, we will not have the, as I think, extremely unseemly and undignified statement by one spouse that the other has committed an act or acts of adultery.
One of the major objectives of this Bill, of this change, is to bring that about; and it is to be hoped, as has been the experience in some Commonwealth countries, that gradually well-
1262
behaved people who have self-respect and who do not wish to lose the respect of their children, if they must be divorced will rely on this sort of provision instead of the more expeditious method of going to the court and obtaining a decree because of an act of adultery, real or simulated.
If the period is lengthened from two to three years, I should have thought that if you have a case of two people who ardently wish to be divorced you are really asking them to go and commit adultery. If you refuse them divorce after they have been apart for two years, you are in effect saying to them, "Go and commit adultery and you can get the whole thing over in a few weeks or months." That is a situation one is trying to cut adrift from, and I should have thought that one makes it more likely that people will be impatient and refuse to wait for the period of separation to elapse, if they have to wait not two years, but three years. In all human reckoning, surely two years apart for a man and wife are just as significant as three years, four years, five years, or ten years. If they can be apart from each other voluntarily for two years, surely in all human understanding and experience that means that they neither love each other nor respect each other, or have the slightest desire to be with each other. If you add to that that one party does not object to a divorce, what more can you have and what public or private incentive could there be to keep these two people together? If one elongated this period for an extra year, I would respectfully submit that one is achieving no useful purpose, but is going some considerable distance to undercut the basis of this Bill and to take away the good that it can do.
I would say a final word about the children. If people wish to preserve their self respect and the respect of their children, the children of a divided marriage are unhappy creatures anyhow. They lose the security of a unified home and that is a scar which probably will remain in their minds as long as they live. One hopes that they will get over it. But it is so much worse if not only do they know that their parents do net live together and have lost affection for each other, but that one has gone off with another man or woman. It is so unseemly and so degrading in the eyes of

1263
a young child of 6, 7 or 8 who will soon understand what is happening if that indignity has to be added to the unhappiness of a disunited home. So I earnestly appeal to the Committee to say that the provisions of the Bill should be left as they are, for the reasons that I have suggested.
LORD SORENSEN: I apologise to my noble friend Lord Stow Hill for speaking after he has apparently given a winding-up speech on this matter.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I shall do the winding-up.
LORD SORENSEN: Then I can speak more freely at this moment. I realise that a good deal of what I would have said on my Amendment is just as relevant to what has been said already and to the general tenor of this debate. That being so, I promise that when my Amendment is called either I shall move it formally or I shall withdraw it. Meanwhile, may I say that, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has said, this particular clause of the Bill I think embodies the principle of divorce by mutual consent. I cannot see any great difference between not objecting, on the one hand, and consenting, on the other.
Be that as it may, I would say in passing—and I shall speak for only a moment or two—that certainly we have come a long way from those days in 1937 when I took an active part in the passing of the Matrimonial Causes Act of that year. I am not necessarily opposed to divorce by consent, but I would point out that paragraph (d) seems to insist that there shall be two years in which the partners live apart. Surely, to some extent that discourages the prospect of reconciliation. I fully appreciate that in other parts the Bill contains a great deal that will go some way towards reconciliation. I am not ignoring that at all, but it seems to me that this particular proposal discourages the possibility of parties coming together again or even making the attempt.
May I just add one thing that has not been mentioned in this debate; namely, the possible effect on those anticipating marriage. I have not had so much experience as my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell and others, but I have had
1264
some little experience, particularly in supervising marriages, and I know full well that from time to time young people have come to me having no idea at all as to what marriage fully involves. They may appreciate the purely physical and emotional side, but they do not appreciate that inevitably after a while the tides go down and the rocks come up. That being so, it seems to me that if it comes to be known in the days ahead that it is quite possible to enter into marriage and, within a week, to part, that will be conducive to a more frivolous attitude to marriage.
LORD HENLEY: I do not understand how they are going to part in a week. Will the noble Lord explain that?
LORD SORENSEN: Many have done so after a week of marriage. I have known of cases where people have parted within a week or so.
LORD HENLEY: The actual physical fact of parting, yes; but is the noble Lord implying that they are going into marriage feeling that they can break it up in a week because of this Bill?
LORD SORENSEN: Not only feeling that they can break it up, but feeling that it is not so serious as all that, that after a week or so they can slip out of it just as easily as they slipped into it. I am afraid that a good deal of the influence from modern musicians rather encourages that assumption, that marriage is after all a casual event into which people can easily dive and get out again as early as possible.
BARONESS BIRK: The noble Lord is talking of parting after a week. Surely this couple to whom he has referred would know that they would still have to stay married for three years. Surely that is the point. While he is on that point, I wonder whether he has any evidence of people who go into marriage in that way? I should have thought that most young people go in still thinking that it is for life.
LORD SORENSEN: All I can say is that it has been within my experience. Perhaps I can convey more factual information to my noble friend after the debate. The records of newspapers indicate that a large number of young people imagine that marriage is an almost casual affair. Surely the records are

1265
there in the Press, of large numbers who have entered into marriage without any deep understanding of what it is all about and without any sense of responsibility. All I am saying is that I am afraid there is the possibility that this will be encouraged if this particular provision is enacted.
The other point I would stress is that sometimes a marriage is a matter of pure convenience. Again from my own experience, I know of a couple (who I think had cohabited together very often) who married in order that the woman might secure English citizenship and be known as a married woman, with the understanding that they should part; and they did so within two or three weeks after their marriage. All I am saying is that I am sure all of us here agree that although we welcome the destruction of much hypocrisy, make-believe and pretence, we nevertheless want to do all we can to try to get young people, in particular, to feel a deep sense of responsibility when they enter into this very sacred and significant relationship. It is for that reason I say these few words, which have some bearing on what has been said before. But when it comes to my Amendment. I do not propose to go through with it.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I say a last few words on this Amendment? I have listened to the Committee and to several noble Lords who have said that two years is long enough—that in fact two years is a very long time—and that it is almost cruel to submit these poor young things to three years. I find this very difficult to understand. I appreciate the point when my noble friend Lord Platt talks about it being a long time when you are old: two years is a long time when one is talking about old people. For an elderly couple to have to wait it might be a long time.
LORD PLATT: I particularly said that to the young ones it was a long time.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: thought my noble friend was talking about
older people. I agree that the older you get the longer two years will seem. But we are not talking about old people; we are talking about young people. They are the people who marry, it has almost been suggested here to-day that our permissive society is such that these young things should not be disciplined in any way. I am sorry if this sounds harsh, but we are talking about two people who did. after all, enter into a serious contract, that of marriage, and who have already, perhaps, brought children into the world. To hear noble Lords on either side saying, "We must not let them wait two years because something might happen" almost implies that there is the perfect wife round the corner who will marry, let us say, the man if he gets free after two years, and that after that everyone will be happy. That is not how life works.
If you allow people to regard marriage in an irresponsible way they do not, after they have been released from the first marriage in the shortest possible time, become different beings and adopt a responsible attitude to marriage. All they do is they say, "This seemed pretty easy; I can do it again if I want to". We must surely recognise that these Acts of Parliament should have embodied in them provisions aimed, to some extent, at disciplining people who enter lightly into a marriage contract.
I was very impressed by the speech of the right reverend Prelate just now, and I entirely agree with him; I can think of nothing that would more undermine the institution of marriage than to allow young people to think that after two years it is all over and they can try again. I hope very much that your Lordshtips will support this Amendment, because I think that to a young person three years is not a very long time.
7.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 34, Not-Contents 89.

CONTENTS

Audley, Bs.

Coventry, L. Bp.

Fetters, E.

Blackburn, L. Bp.

Craigavon, V.

Gage, V.

Bourne, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Gray, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Croft, L.

Hodson, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Effingham, E.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Carnock, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Ilford, L.

Jacques, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Simonds, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Phillips, Bs.

Sorensen, L. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Poltimore, L.

Summerskill, Bs. [Teller.]

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Rankeillour, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Longford, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Milverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Garner, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Albemarle, E.

Garnsworthy, L.

Popplewell, L.

Amulree, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Raglan, L.

Archibald, L.

Gifford, L.

Reay, L.

Auckland, L.

Goodman, L.

Redesdale, L.

Beswick, L.

Goschen, V.

Ripon, L. Bp.

Birk, Bs.

Gowrie, E.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bowles, L.

Grantchester, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly. [Teller.]

Brockway, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Burden, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Hawke, L.

St. Davids, V.

Byers, L.

Headfort, M.

Sandford, L.

Champion, L.

Henley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Chorley, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Serota, Bs.

Clwyd, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Cohen, L.

Hughes, L.

Shannon, E.

Cole, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Silkin, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kennet, L.

Stamp, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Crook, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Stow Hill, L. [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Denning, L.

Lindgren, L.

Strang, L.

Donovan, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Strange, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Falkland, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swaythling, L.

Faringdon, L.

Marks of Broughton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Foot, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Francis-Williams, L.

Mitchison, L.

Vivian, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Morrison, L.

Wigg, L.

Gardiner. L. (L. Chancellor.)

Platt. L.

Willis, L.

On Question Amendment agreed to.

LORD STOW HILL: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, which is purely consequential on the preceding Amendment which I moved.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 23, after ("years") insert ("being a period").
7.28 p.m.
LORD REID LORD REID moved Amendment No. 9.
Page 1, line 25, leave out ("does not object") and insert ("consents").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a comparatively short point, but it is a point of some considerable importance. It has just been decided that the proper period of separation where there is consent to the divorce is two years, and we are shortly going to discuss a provision under which, as the Bill stands, the proper period where there is no consent is five years. We have a sort of hybrid position. The Bill says, "does
1268
not object to a decree". I can understand the case where there is consent, and I can understand the case where there is no consent, but why does the Bill say. "does not object"? I cannot see the point of that. I have great difficulty in seeing how that distinguishes the two-year condition from the five-year condition.
The argument for giving a shorter period for consent is quite clear. If you have consent to a divorce, then there is a clear breakdown. There is no need for any more evidence about a breakdown. Both parties have said that they think the marriage should be brought to an end, and you cannot have clearer proof than that—assuming, of course, that they stick to their guns. But there are two safeguards there. There is the two years' delay, which means that they have ample time for second thoughts; and there is the fact that there has to be this reconciliation procedure so far as the petitioner is concerned, although not, apparently, so far as the respondent is concerned. I shall say a word about that later. Therefore, where there is consent you

1269
can assume that there is a clear breakdown. Moreover, you can assume that there is no injustice, because otherwise they would not have consented. Presumably, people consent with their eyes open after having taken adequate advice, and one assumes that they know their own business best. That is all right. Of course, it is easy to prove consent. All one needs is a signed statement, if the respondent does not turn up herself. But when the words are "does not object", that covers a whole variety of situations, and it is no proof of breakdown at all. Failure to object may be due to sheer inertia; it may be due to ignorance of the whole position; or it may be due, of course, to consent. If the Bill is left in its present state, it will not be known whether the case is going through on the basis of consent or on the basis of the inertia of the respondent.
I venture to think that if you are going to maintain the words "does not object" you ought to have the strongest proof that no objection really means no objection; in other words, that the respondent who is said not to object fully understands the consequences of not objecting and has had a full opportunity of consulting a solicitor and of understanding how to apply if she wants to make any kind of arrangement, financial or otherwise. But all we have in the Bill is Clause 2(6), and that, I venture to think, is wholly unsatisfactory. If it is alleged that the respondent does not object, provision is to be made for
"… such information as will enable him to understand the consequences to him of his not objecting … and the steps which he must take if he wishes to object".
In other words, the only safeguard is that a legal document will he sent to the respondent.
Now we all know that there are a great many people in this country who are terrified of legal documents. They have never been to a lawyer in their lives and they do not understand legal phraseology. Is it the slightest safeguard to say that a legal document must be sent to an ignorant woman to tell her, "You can object if you like, and here is what will happen if you do not"? She will not understand a word of it. It therefore seems to me that this is no safeguard at all. This really is one law for the rich and one for the poor, because if the respondent is a well-paid, well-
1270
educated person who knows the ropes, then one can assume that non-objection is equivalent to consent; whereas in the case of the poor person who has very little education and who does not know the ropes you are saying, "Unless you go to a lawyer, which you are afraid to do, unless you undertake that burden, then you will be divorced".
It is really like the condition on the back of a ticket. I am sure many of your Lordships are familiar with the controversy which is going on just now, and which we hope will result in reform. Almost every common-form contract has a great many conditions written on its back. Sometimes they are intelligible, sometimes they are not; but whether they are intelligible or not, very few people read them. Then there is an outcry when they find later on that if they had read them they would have seen that they were getting into a situation they never dreamt they were getting into. That is precisely what will happen if the Bill remains in its present form and if all that is to happen for the protection of the ignorant woman is that she will get a lawyer's letter containing information about what the consequences will be and how she may object.
I venture to think that there is no issue of principle here. I am accepting that consent, if it is consent, is a good ground. If you are sure that there has been no objection by somebody who is well-informed and who fully understands the consequences, I think there is no great objection to saying that that is equivalent to consent. What I am saying is that there will be the most frightful outcry later on when these ignorant women find that they have neglected the lawyer's letter and that they have got themselves into a mess which they never dreamt they would get into.
Remember, they may never have thought that there was going to be a divorce at all. It may be that the first thing they know is that a petition is served on them, together with this letter, which an intelligent person might understand but which an unintelligent person will not. That is the first thing they know; then they have immediately to read the document (which they will probably not understand) or go to a lawyer—and they will not know how to do that or whom to go to. Or they will simply wait to find out what happens later on,

1271
when they will say, "If only I had known, of course I would have objected". I really think that this is an Amendment which I can ask the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, to accept, unless he wants all kinds of undesirable consequences to follow the passing of this Bill. I beg to move.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I support what my noble and learned friend Lord Reid has said? He certainly has an understanding of women. May I also say to him—and I expect this is his experience, too; certainly it is my experience as a doctor, although he would not meet them in this way—that I find that when women are in emotional difficulty, whether it is a married woman or an unmarried woman who is pregnant, they almost instinctively, during the early days of their trouble, shrink from any fuss or publicity. For instance, while they may have the letter to which the noble and learned Lord referred, subconsciously they do not want to have anything to do with it. They want, somehow, to retire into themselves. They find it difficult to believe that this thing has happened to them. This, incidentally, is the reason, I believe, why there is such a small number of affiliation orders in the case of unmarried mothers. Later on, of course, they realise that they should have taken some action, but by then it is often too late.
I have the feeling that a woman would welcome a provision for a divorce which did not involve any positive action on her part. We must therefore see to it that she is helped; that by the insertion of the word "consents" she will be protected against what might happen in the future—because I think she will realise later that she should not have allowed silence to be taken for consent.
It seems to me that this Amendment has the support of the Law Commission. On July 22, 1968, there was published the Third Annual Report of the Law Commission. That was after the debate in another place on the previous Bill. The Report had an Appendix III headed:
"Reform of Grounds of Divorce—Result of Discussions Between Archbishop's Group on Divorce and Law Commission".
One of the proposals, No. 6, reads:
"There should be a procedure to ensure that a respondent's decision not to object to
1272
the grant of a divorce had been taken freely and with a full appreciation of the consequences …"
It goes on to say that the court must satisfy itself that the respondent's consent is genuine and informed. The Bill before us does not suggest that the court must satisfy itself in this way. It simply provides that there is an absence of objection. How can a court satisfy itself unless it is made clear that the respondent has consented? That is the whole purpose of this Amendment, and I hope that the Committee will accept it.
LORD HODSON: I also support this Amendment. The Law Commission's recommendation, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, was that care should be taken that, whatever clause was arrived at in the end, the person who did not object was genuinely consenting. Surely it is the honest thing, if we are to have divorce by consent, to say so in clear terms and to see that there is a real consent. For that reason I support this Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: I should like to add my own support for the Amendment. It seems quite unnecessary for this ground to be made to depend on negative evidence when it is so easy to obtain positive evidence.
LORD DENNING: I would oppose this Amendment. According to the ordinary practice to-day, the papers are served, often by post, on the other side. There is a form attached, to be filled in, whether or not the respondent is going to put in an answer, and the rest of it; and all the details. I have never known of any difficulty, whether the woman be said to be ignorant or poor or the like. When a person is served with divorce papers, they are immediately read. It is a serious matter. The respondent is going to get advice, and perhaps legal aid. Especially with the later provision in subsection (6), I should have thought there would be no difficulty or misunderstanding whatever. If that is the crucial point in the case, I suggest that it is perfectly satisfactory to have it in the form already in the Bill: with the papers having to be properly served, and the proper information given to the wife. If she does not object, that should be sufficient; as it is to-day.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am sorry to find myself in disagreement with my noble and learned friend Lord Denning on this point. I think that where what is being introduced is really a form of divorce by consent it would be much better to have that consent recorded in a form which cannot he denied by the respondent. I think there is a difference here between the mere service of a petition to which the respondent does not object and this, which is antecedent to the service of the petition. I think it might lead to considerable trouble if you do not get here clear and positive evidence of the respondent's consent to the petition being presented on this ground.
LORD GOODMAN: May I briefly make a point that will perhaps commend itself to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill? It is this. I am wondering whether accepting this Amendment might not ease his task considerably in relation to the suggestions that have been made that this Bill should be postponed until the financial provisions have been worked out in detail. This is probably a matter that we shall be discussing at some length later. If this Amendment is accepted, will he perhaps consider that we shall then have narrowed down the area in respect of which new financial provisions need to arise solely to those arising under paragraph (e)—if it survives, as I hope it will. Here positive agreement is called for, and the fact that there is positive agreement is almost invariably an indication that the parties have agreed also on financial matters. So one could remove from the area of this Bill any arguments about finance. This would seem a very attractive reason, apart from the greater honesty of having the word "consents" instead of the words "does not object". It seems a very attractive reason for accepting this Amendment and knowing exactly where one stands in relation to the financial provisions which are then entirely limited to the provisions of paragraph (e).
7.45 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: First, may I quote what the Law Commission actually said? They did not quite say what my noble friend Lady Summerskill said. I read from page 55. What they actually said was:
"After the expiration of the shorter period, two years is suggested, either party, subject to
1274
safeguards, could obtain a divorce if the other consented or perhaps did not object."
They did not come down—
LORD HODSON: There is a reference to "genuine consent" somewhere in the Report.
LORD STOW HILL: That is what they actually said. I hope that the Committee will not accept this Amendment. I find myself entirely in agreement with the observations of the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls. To assume that the respondents in these cases of two years' separation will always be poor, will always be women, will always be so ignorant that they cannot read a simple letter, seems utterly unjustifiable. To begin with, they will not always be women (I suppose half of them will be men), and if they are poor they will not always be so ignorant that they cannot read a letter. They may be unable to read a letter if they are millionairesses. The letter will not be so complicated as all that. Divorce does not happen every other day in one's life; it happens once in a lifetime. When someone who has been separated from their spouse for two years, and has completely lost interest in that spouse, receives a communication saying in simple language, "If you do not object" this or that will be the consequences, to assume that they will he left in a state of wonderment and amazement seems miles from reality.
One must try to think of the actual, factual human problem that one is dealing with. Of course, there are some people, men or women, rich or poor, old or young, who are so abysmally stupid that they can neither read nor understand anything if you say it to them. But the majority of people in this community are not like that. If they find a letter which tells them what will happen if they do not object they are not so puzzled that it leaves them in a state of wonderment, they nearly always have somebody they can show it to who could explain it to them.
I would say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, if I may say so with the greatest respect, that he has over-painted the picture. I do not think chat that is the situation that one is dealing with at all. One is dealing with a wide range of people. Some of them may be geniuses; of either sex, of all ages, of

1275
all stations in life, of all degrees of wealth and poverty. Some are extremely intelligent. The whole assumption on which the Amendment is based in my view is not well-founded.
There are other safeguards, as the Law Commission recommended. First, the noble and learned Lord has referred to Clause 2(6). Rules of court must be made for the purpose of "ensuring"—that is the word—that
"… where in pursuance of section 2(1)(d) … the petitioner alleges that the respondent does not object to a decree being granted the respondent has been given such information as enable him to understand the consequences …".
It is not "may enable him". It has got to be clear, so that anybody can read it. One should read that together with the provision in Clause 5 which enables a decree to be rescinded if the court is satisfied that the petitioner misled the respondent about anything that the respondent took into account in deciding not to object. That is the second provision.
The third provision is in Clause 7. It is said that they may not understand the financial implications. Clause 7 contains machinery which enables any agreement between the parties that has been arrived at with reference to financial provision to be submitted to the court for the court's consideration of whether it is reasonable and for the court to express an opinion on it. That is a new provision. There is a similar provision in the 1965 Act; but this is an expanding provision. In most cases I should have thought—I do not know but it will be perhaps in eight out of ten cases; and this is pure conjecture—the parties would have been in contact; there will have been exchanges between them as to what the financial situation is to be after the divorce is pronounced in the event of there being a divorce.
That, in my submission, is the situation. Then the noble and learned Lord may say: "Even so, why object to the word 'consent'?" May I put some considerations as to why I object. May I borrow a phrase (which I think I am correctly quoting) of my noble friend Lady Summerskill. She said that there are a number of women, I think. who are very glad of a divorce so long as they have not to take any active part in it. That is one of the reasons why we want the
1276
words "do not object" instead of "consent". Quite a lot of women and men—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I said that, if there was a provision for enabling them to keep outside they would not mind a bit.
LORD STOW HILL: May I slightly adapt those words? If they do not have to take any active part in it; if it is done for them—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Yes.
LORD STOW HILL:—they are only too delighted to be rid of their consort.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: No, not of their consort; to be rid of the trouble. I think that I made it quite clear. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, really must not say things like that—I made it clear to the House what I meant. I described the women in detail: they are innocent and do not know how to go about these things. The words I used were, "They don't want fuss or publicity". Therefore their first reaction—just like the girl with the illegitimate baby—is not to take any part in whatever it is suggested to them that they have got to do. That is what I said. I did not say that they welcomed a divorce.
LORD STOW HILL: If I misunderstood or misrepresented my noble friend's argument, I apologise profoundly to her. I thought that probably I was on dangerous ground when I thought for a moment that she was my ally. Obviously, I was very wrong—and I am very disappointed, too. But, whatever my noble friend said, my argument is that constantly there will he cases in which the wife or the husband who is the respondent cannot be bothered. Sometimes it may be because of cussedness; sometimes they may not be in a mood to help the partner; it may be lack of interest or possibly dislike of the partner—at any rate they are not going to put themselves out. to help in any way. There will be cases where it is impossible to obtain any precise statement of consent. Their attitude will be, in effect, "Go ahead do what you like. I couldn't care less".
It is not as if that has just got to be guessed about; it has to be proved in

1277
court. A petitioner who comes to ask for a decree under paragraph (d) has to show, first, two years' separation, and secondly, that the respondent does not object. That is a matter of proof. The onus lies on the petitioner to prove it; so the court has to be satisfied in fact, affirmatively, that the respondent does not object. There is a further reason which I should like to urge. There may be, I suppose that there will be, respondents in that sort of situation perhaps for moral hesitations; perhaps for religious reasons. While they feel that there is no issue but to sever the marriage bond, because everything is over between them and their spouse, nevertheless they may feel that they cannot be active participants. That may well happen in the case of a number of people who have strong religious feelings about the matter. Their religious feelings may tell them that they ought not to be active partners in formally bringing the marriage bond to an end; although looking at the actual situation they recognise that to terminate the marriage for all purposes and free each other of the bond is the sensible thing to do in the circumstances.
There may be a number of cases like that. As I say, the reasons may be religious; there may be an inability to accommodate themselves to the new situation and an unreadiness positively to take steps to bring it about. There may be moral hesitations. This is a deep emotional issue with which people are confronted. There may be all sorts of reasons which may preclude them from actually putting their signature to a document and saying, "I hereby consent." People may be very reluctant to do so—ignorant people, such as the noble and learned Lord was talking about. They may be the very people who long to be divorced, but the last thing that they would do would be to put their signature to a document. So I very much hope that the Committee will say that the position under the Bill is better as it is. The petitioner has to prove affirmatively, with proof that the court is prepared to accept as proof, that the respondent does not object to the pronouncing of a divorce. I hope, for the reasons that I have ventured to urge, that the Committee may think it is better to leave the Bill as it is and not to introduce this Amendment.
7.56 p.m.
LORD REID: It sounds very important to say that the petitioner must prove affirmatively that the respondent does not object; but all that that mean, when you come down to realities, is that he must prove affirmatively that a letter was sent to the respondent and no reply has been received.
LORD ST. OSWALD. Hear, hear! That is right.
LORD REID: You cannot prove affirmatively non-objection. All that you can prove is that they have done nothing, and you do not know why. But I am very disturbed when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, says that it would be possible to send a letter which complies with subsection (6) which one could read as one runs. Observe what is to be done. The person has to get details so that she can understand the consequences to her of her not objecting. We know from Clause 4 that the provisions in the Bill will sometimes create grave financial and other hardships. That is admitted in the Bill; it was admitted on Second Reading. Is this really going to bring home to the woman that she is liable to suffer grave financial or other hardship? I do not believe it for a moment. Is the letter going to say anything about pension? Is it going to say anything about insurance? Is it going to say anything about the financial position of the husband and what offer he is going to make? Is it going to say anything about the way in which she will be able to recover maintenance after the divorce? Of course it is not. It is not going to give her information sufficient to understand the consequences at all.
I should not think that this clause compels the body which deals with the rules of court to insist that the petitioner shall put down in this letter everything which may influence the mind of the lady; the position with regard to pension; the position with regard to all the other financial matters; what she has to do after the divorce if she wants to get some money out of the man—all that kind of fling. If the noble and learned Lord tells me that that is all implicit here may I say that I should not think so; and I think that if this is to be something you can read as you run, it is just to be a formality. It would tell a highly-skilled

1279
person something, but it will tell the woman nothing; and you will have the most dreadful outcry when you find that these letters produce situations in which the woman feels that she has been tricked.
LORD STOW HILL: In reply to what the noble and learned Lord has just said, may I say that I ventured to take the time of the Committee before by reading actually from subsection (6). Whether the information will be given by letter, or whether it will be given in some other form—with the petition, or in some other way—I am not in a position to say. What I am pointing out is that under subsection (6) there is an obligation that rules shall be made for the purpose of ensuring—I underline the word "ensuring"; the rules must go to that length.
"that where in pursuance of Section 2(1)(d) of this Act the petitioner alleges that the respondent does not object to a decree being granted the respondent has been given such information as will enable him to understand the consequences to him of his not objecting to a decree being granted and the steps which he must take if he wishes to object"—
whether it is a letter, or whatever else is the means selected by the rules for procuring compliance with that very strong requirement. If the method chosen is not one which has that result, the rules do not comply with the requirements of the subsection.
The rule-making authority has to devise rules which shall specify and lay down a method which will ensure that the result achieved is that the respondent has the information; that he understands the information; that he knows the consequences of not objecting and that he knows the steps he has to take if he wishes to object. That is a very stringent requirement, and if the rules do not live up to that requirement, all I am saying is that the Act—if this Bill becomes an Act—has been disobeyed.
LORD REID: Does the noble Lord really assure the House that in his understanding of the Bill—and it is his Bill—it is obligatory on the rules of court authority to see that all information is given to the woman with regard to pensions, insurance and all other relevant matters? If that obligation is really to be put on the Rule Committee, I do not believe that it will be possible for the Rule Committee to follow it out.
LORD STOW HILL: I do not want to prolong this discussion and keep on rising to reply to the noble Lord. I can only refer him to language of the subsection, which is of extreme stringency. I do not think it is possible to devise language which can place a greater obligation on the rule-making authority. If this language is not enough, then I should have thought that no language could be devised to bring about this result. If this subsection is complied with, I should think it will rarely be found that the respondent does not know quite enough for him or her to understand what his or her situation is or will be if a decree is pronounced.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: Before we divide, may I he allowed to put this point to the noble Lord and the other noble Lords who wish to see this Bill intact on the Statute Book? Almost every noble Lord who has taken part in this debate, with two exceptions, has been a lawyer. I am not a lawyer, but for many years I have been doing my utmost to see difficult matters through the eyes of the public. The public, or a very large part of the public, have accepted at this point of time the idea of divorce by consent after two years. What has become clear from the noble Lord's speeches is that what he wants is something different from divorce by consent, something wider. What he wants is divorce if one does not reply. And I am extremely doubtful whether the general public, who would support divorce by consent, would support divorce if one did not reply.
LORD STOW HILL: What I am asking for is divorce in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (d)—that is, after two years' separation, provided that the respondent does not object. The word "consent" has been imported into this debate. It does not appear in the Bill. This is divorce after two years' separation, there being no objection on the part of the respondent to a decree being pronounced. If I may say so, it is dangerous to import into debates descriptive words which in point of fact misrepresent the substance of the situation—I do not mean deliberately, of course. But this is not divorce by consent; it is divorce which is pronounced when husband and wife have been separated for two long years

1281
and one of them does not object to a decree of divorce being pronounced on the petition of the other. That is what I commend to the Committee. What descriptive adjective is applied to it seems to me not to matter very much. I hope that when its effect is being represented,
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.15 p.m.
LORD REID LORD REID moved amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 1, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an extremely important Amendment. The proposal is to leave out the whole of paragraph (e):
it will be borne in mind precisely what the words of the Bill are.
8.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 61.

CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Denham, L.

Leatherland, L.

Albemarle, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Auckland, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Longford, E.

Audley, Bs.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Barrington, V.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Milverton, L.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Beswick, L.

Gage, V.

Phillips, Bs.

Blackburn, L. Bp.

Goodman, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Blyton, L.

Goschen, V.

Reid, L. [Teller.]

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grantchester, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gray, L.

Sandford, L.

Carnock, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Selkirk, E.

Champion, L.

Headfort, M.

Sempill. Ly.

Coleraine, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Serota, Bs.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hodson, L.

Simonds, V.

Conesford, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Stamp, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ilford, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Coventry, L. Bp.

Kennet, L.

Strang, L.

Craigavon, V.

Killearn, L.

Summerskill, Bs. [Teller.]

Craigmyle, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wigg, L.

Croft, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Cromartie, E.

Lauderdale, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Raglan, L.

Archibald, L.

Gifford, L.

Reay, L.

Balogh, L.

Gowrie, E. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Birk, Bs.

Granville of Eye, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bowles, L.

Hawke, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brockway, L.

Henley, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Burden, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

St. Davids, V.

Byers, L.

Hughes, L.

Segal, L.

Chorley, L.

Jacques, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Clwyd, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Shannon, E.

Cole, L.

Lindgren, L.

Silkin, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Sorensen, L.

Crook, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stow Hill, L. [Teller.]

Denning, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Donovan, L.

Mitchison, L.

Strange, L.

Effingham, E.

Morrison, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Falkland, V.

Nunhurnholme, L.

Swaythling, L.

Farinedon, L.

Platt, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Foot, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Vivian, L.

Francis-Williams, L.

Popplewell, L.

Willis, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

"that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition".
It was, I think, admitted during the Second Reading debate—and unless I misheard the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, it was admitted again this afternoon—that this Amendment can be corded without having any effect at all oil the other provisions of the Bill, and therefore no one need be afraid that by making

1283
this Amendment they in any way impair the operation of the first four grounds of divorce provided by the Bill; nor does it impair, so far as I can see, the general principle.
There are at least three reasons why I venture to submit to the Committee that this Amendment should be carried. The first I shall only mention and I shall leave it to others to develop. It has always been a principle, not only in the law of England but in the commonly accepted decencies of society, that a man is not permitted to benefit from his own wrong. This paragraph allows the man who has left his innocent wife in the lurch, and has set up house with another woman, to make his discarded wife into a divorced person at the end of five years.
I am not going over the ground which I attempted to cover in the Second Reading debate, but I entirely agree that there are a number of wives who, to some extent at least, deserve the fate that would be coming to them under this provision if it were allowed to stand. But that does not in the least excuse the fact that, if this provision is enacted, it will have the effect of divorcing a large number of wholly innocent wives who are not in the least to blame for the fact that their household has broken up. It may be that in some cases the husband lets his eyes stray elsewhere by reason of fault on the part of the wife, but it is surely common knowledge that there are a number of unscrupulous young women about who will entice a husband away from his wife without the wife being in the slightest degree to blame. I believe that that happens a good deal more often than one likes to admit. Are the unscrupulous woman and the weak man to be allowed to benefit at the expense of the innocent wife? That is the point of wrongdoing.
The second point is financial hardship. I shall not say much about that, because I said something about it in the Second Reading debate. We shall have further opportunities of discussing financial hardship on the assumption that your Lordships approve the principle of this provision later on; and others no doubt will discuss it this evening. I should like to expand another matter which I do not think has been referred to at all. I deal
1284
solely with the women because, on the whole, the man who is deserted by his wife is better able to fend for himself, and when he is divorced he is not in such a difficult position, generally, as the divorced woman.
In spite of the fact that in progressive circles divorced women are apparently regarded as at least as good as undivorced women, there is no doubt that in certain circles the position of a divorced woman is anything but enviable, and for a very simple reason. Most divorced women—in fact, up to date one might say almost all divorced women—have been to blame; they have offended. If this Bill is passed nobody will believe that Parliament has really said that perfectly innocent women are to be divorced and put away. Nobody will believe any such thing about Parliament. They will think, even if they know the circumstances, "It may be she says she is innocent, and the others say she is innocent, but we know quite well that people are not divorced unless there is something wrong about them". The woman, however innocent she may be, will have to bear that hardship for a very long time, if not for the rest of her life.
I say that people will never believe it for this reason. Those who promote this Bill have made one of their arguments that a great many women bring this on themselves. Therefore that is an excuse, apparently, for ill-treating the women who have not brought it on themselves. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, will not fall so low as that, but I have heard, and I have read, advocates of the Bill take the view that because a great many women who will be divorced under the Bill, if it goes through, have themselves to blame, therefore that is a good excuse for divorcing the others. I doubt whether there are many Members of your Lordships' House who would support that argument.
If there is to be that infliction of a stigma—because that is what it is, in many circles—on innocent women, in addition to financial hardship, one would suppose that there must be some overwhelming reason of public policy which makes it necessary to inflict injustice in order to bring it about. I have come across very few such overwhelming considerations of public policy, although I

1285
have been a Member of one or other House of Parliament for what will very soon he 40 years. I agree that they exist, but I do not think this is one of them. I do not think there is such an overwhelming case of public policy here as to justify the hardships which will inevitably and admittedly follow if this provision is enacted.
There is another matter. This is a democratic country and therefore the main lines of public policy ought to be settled not by one section, however progressive, of the community, but by the community as a whole. I ask, therefore, is there any evidence that the bulk of the people in this country want women to be put aside in this way in order to benefit the erring husband and his wife and their children? Is there any consensus of opinion in the country to that effect? Women are the most affected and, therefore, one looks first to women's associations. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, knows much more about them than I do, but I should be surprised if any supporter of this provision can find any substantial support among women's associations in this country. I should have thought that that in itself is about enough to warrant the rejection of this provision from the Bill.
But there is another matter that was adverted to earlier this afternoon. Can it really be said that there is a great public demand for this reform when we find that no more than one quarter of the representative Members in another place thought it worth their while to vote? Can it really be that their constituents are convinced, and let it be known they are convinced, that this is a good measure? Others know more about feeling in the country than I do, perhaps, but I venture to submit that if a poll were taken tomorrow there would be an overwhelming majority against the enactment of any such provision as paragraph (e) here.
LORD SORENSEN: It does not follow, however, that the 75 per cent. thought it was a had Bill, otherwise they would have turned up and voted against it.
LORD REID: That may very well he. But if public opinion is lukewarm we should not perpetrate this injustice.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: What is public opinion?
LORD BYERS: The noble Lord will remember the experience in another place. This, I gather, was on a Friday, and there is a system of pairing in the other place.
LORD REID: Of course; but if there is a great deal of public interest in a matter a great many Members, even on a Friday, manage to stand up and be counted, in order that their constituents may see that they are doing as their constituents want. The fact that they are away in such enormous numbers seems to indicate that there is no great strength of feeling in the constituency. That is what I say.
The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, a few minutes ago, if I understood him aright, told us that there was no difference between two, three and five years so far as the principle is concerned. So why is five years put in here? If it is right that people who do not object should be divorced in two years, why is it right, when one person does object, that they should wait for five years? I will tell you why: because the promoters of this Bill were afraid to put in two years in the case of a partner who objected; public opinion simply would not stand for it. Therefore they think that by prolonging the period from two to five years, in some way they pacify the opponents of the Bill. They give three years grace to the woman who objects.
LORD HENLEY: The noble Lord really cannot get away with that one. They are two totally different things. It is two years where both parties consent, and that is perfectly reasonable. By the time it has gone on for five years, then it must be absolutely conclusive to almost everybody that the marriage is as dead as a doornail.
LORD REID: I have already accepted the two years where people consent. What I objected to was two years where they did not consent. I think I was right in objecting to that. I cannot understand why five years is taken, if it be the case that irretrievable breakdown can easily be proved earlier; and in the great majority of cases if you are really going by irretrievable breakdown—
LORD BYERS: May I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would settle for 10 years, or 15; or perhaps 20; or for life?
LORD REID: Of course I will not settle. You do not settle when it is a question of principle. You settle only when it is a question of degree; this is a question of principle, although the noble Lord apparently has not yet recognised that.
BARONESS BIRK: Does the noble and learned Lord not see the difference between a situation where two people have agreed that the marriage has broken down and the situation where only one person believes that and the other person, although the marriage possibly has broken down, still clings to the feeling that it has not? Does he not see that difference; and does he not see that it makes the difference between the two years and the five years? Does he not think it extremely unfair that he should use this in order to hit the Bill, when in fact it is an extension of a kind of compassion and understanding of the situation?
LORD REID: Of course there is a difference. But the promoters of the Bill did not seem to think so, because they said that merely not objecting made all the difference between two years and five. Fortunately, that has now been remedied. I do not understand why, if there are numerous cases, as there must he, where irretrievable breakdown is as plain as a pikestaff long before five years, the promoters of the Bill do not have the courage of their convictions and say that you may bring in your action as soon as you can prove irretrievable breakdown but that there is a kind of "long-stop" of five years if you cannot prove it before that.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: May I ask the noble and very learned Lord why he has not the courage to do this if he thinks this?
LORD REID: I thought I had. I am trying to knock the thing out altogether. I cannot see how I can do better than that. However, I do not wish to prolong the argument. Others will take it up. But I do say that, with all these reasons of principle against bringing this brand-new provision into the law, and also the grave hardship it will admittedly create in many cases, we ought not to make this leap in the dark. I invite the Committee to reject out of hand paragraph (e) as a ground for divorce.
LORD PLATT: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down may I ask him specifically what these hardships and the stigma are?—because I thought that the whole point of this Bill was to get rid of the stigma, in the first place, and also to look after the hardships, in the second place, for which all kinds of clauses are written in. So will he kindly tell me specifically what the stigma is and what the hardships are?
LORD REID: Of course I will. The mere fact that a number of noble Lords and others think there is no stigma does not affect the fact that a great many people in this country think, and will continue to think, that there is something wrong about a divorced woman.
LORD PLATT: If we think there is going to be no progress whatever in public opinion, let us go home.
LORD REID: I think it would be a very good thing if some people went home.
LORD PLATT: So do I.
8.34 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: May I be so bold as to take issue with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid? I am going to be so bold simply because he has just made a speech which was not a legal speech but simply the kind of social speech, the kind of ordinary speech, that anyone—any person like myself—can make. I am afraid that my remarks will be a little disjointed because I had to take brief notes while the noble and learned Lord was speaking.
The great point about this Amendment is that it cuts across the whole principle of this Bill. It seems to me that it is absolutely absurd to bring forward the arguments that the noble and learned Lord has done as serious arguments against this Bill. For instance, I do not agree with anything he has said about public opinion, about the stigma, about what happens to a divorced woman—that she is looked down upon. All these are the most old-fashioned, the most dated views that one can possibly have.
LORD REID: There are still old-fashioned people in the world.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: Yes, there are a great many. And more's the pity! It

1289
seems to me that the deductions the noble and learned Lord has made about this Bill are false. He implies that there will be a great number of divorces as a result of this Bill. Maybe there will be some—a backlog—but I do not think there will be an excessive number. They will be the people who have waited for a very long time for their divorce. I have had the most pathetic letters from people who have waited; who have lived in great trouble and distress because they have been unable to obtain a divorce.
Now there is this story—another of the suppositions—that there are hundreds of young women going round trying to entice older men. Does this happen the whole time? Is the whole of Britain full of young women going round snooping, trying to find older men—perhaps like the noble Lord, Lord Reid, himself—to entice them away from their wives? I do not know, but I do not think there are so many as he makes out.
One of the things I resent about people who are against this Bill is that they always say, "I feel solely with the woman, with the innocent wife." I really resent this. I feel for the woman, too, just as they do, and I would not vote for this Bill unless there were safeguards about finance, about distress, about all these difficulties. I feel for a woman left in a household with an unloving husband. Let us take this case. She is 50-plus; she is left in her (if you like) gilded cage with an unloving husband, just sitting there "waiting for Godot", waiting for her pension. Is that what woman to-day wants? Is that what an emancipated woman wants? I am shocked and surprised at my noble friend Lady Summerskill, who is a great feminist and who has done so much for the women of this country. This is what she wants. She wants that woman to sit there, to sit in the house, to sit in her home and to wait for her pension. Surely any woman with spirit would hate to do that.
I have received a letter which I wish I had with me—from a woman of 45. She said: "What is this about the women of 45 who want to wait for their pension like this? My husband has allowed me £6 10s. a week. I go out to work. I earn £15, I earn £20, and I live my life." It seems to me that to-day the proper way is for women to fight for the marital
1290
financial provisions and not to sit in a home where their husband does not love them and wait for their pension.
If what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, said were true about public opinion and about Parliament there would be no piece of progressive social legislation passed in this country. We should not have had the homosexual Bill; we should not have had the theatre censorship Bill. We should not have had a great many pieces of progressive social legislation which are extremely good and which the whole country accepts. We cannot wait on public opinion; we must lead it.
After all, there is one strong, clear instruction in this Bill, and that is the power given to judges to refuse a divorce to any mart after five years' desertion if he does not make the best possible provision for his abandoned wife. The judges have complete power. In fact, I think they may have too much power. I want to challenge the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, and all the other judges. I want to ask them straight: would you grant a divorce to some poor, or rich, Casanova who came to you after five years' separation from his wife and asked you for a divorce if he did not make proper provision for his abandoned wife? I do not believe that you would.
LORD REID: I am afraid that we shall come to this, and if I get the chance I shall have to explain that the judge will have to do that because the Bill will compel him to do it.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: That is just what I was saying. The Bill compels him to do it; therefore he will do it and there is no question but that the abandoned wife will be looked after under Clause 4.
LORD REID: I think the noble Baroness has misunderstood the position. The Bill as it stands will compel the judge to give a divorce which will cause grave financial hardship. That is compulsory.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I do not believe it, my Lords. Indeed, if the Bill says that I would not vote for it, and if by some sort of legal argument—
LORD GOODMAN: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Baroness, but it would be useful if the noble Lord would show us the clause in the Bill which compels the judge to grant a decree without proper financial provision.
LORD REID: It is very simple, and if the Committee would like me to do so, I will do it now. If the noble Lord will turn to Clause 4, he will find that the judge can refuse only if two conditions are both satisfied. There must be grave financial or other hardship, and that in all the circumstances it would be wrong to dissolve the marriage. In other words, grave financial hardship by itself is not enough, nor is it enough that it would be wrong in all the circumstances to dissolve the marriage. There must be both, and therefore I say that the Bill as it stands undoubtedly compels judges to inflict grave financial hardship, unless the other limb can be satisfied.
LORD CHORLEY: May I point out to the noble and learned Lord, as I did in my Second Reading speech, that it would be not only grave financial hardship but other hardship.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I have not quite finished—I am sorry. Actually, so far as grave financial hardship is concerned, it seems to me that no reform in regard to family property or financial relief could give the innocent wife (as you call her) who is divorced against her will, greater protection than under this Bill. In fact, for all its adverse publicity—and my goodness! this Bill has had a lot of adverse publicity—the safeguards in this Bill make divorce harder, not easier. Everyone is going around talking about "divorce by consent". That is not true. I cannot believe that all the judges in this country are now going to grant divorces wholesale. I just do not believe it. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, believes it? If so, I must say that he cannot have very much trust in his colleagues. It is a fact that when two people have been separated for five years, that is what determines the irretrievable breakdown, not the consent to divorce.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: I should like to take the emotional atmosphere down and return to square one. I am a very "square" person and I have
1292
a very simple mind. I shall vote against this part of the Bill, for this reason. As I have always understood it, marriage between two people is a contract. It is a contract made either in the Church, the Church of England, where it is legal, or other churches where the registrar has to attend, or in front of a registrar in his office. That is a contract between two people in front of witnesses in the Church,
"for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part".
That is said in front of witnesses by both sides and that is a contract. What I object to about this particular part of the Bill—never mind about women sitting in gilded houses waiting for pensions—
A NOBLE LORD: Gilded cages!
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: I find it repugnant that, once a contract is made between two parties, one party can repudiate it against the will of the other. This is a very simple point of view, and yet it seems to me that on the whole simple points of view in the end have a good deal of common sense behind them. I shall not detain your Lordships any longer, except to say that I am voting against this part of the Bill because I think it is the only case that I know where a contract between two people is broken on one side with the support (if this Bill is enacted) of the Legislature of this country.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Perhaps following two ladies, I had better take another independent point of view and come between the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. I find myself in a difficulty with regard to this provision. If we start off on the basis that we are still going to have the attribution of blame as the consequence of the grant of a decree. then I entirely agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Reid that the granting of a decree of divorce against an innocent woman, because there has been a separation for five years, sounds very offensive and objectionable indeed. I hoped that we were getting away from that. We have not got as far away from that as I should like. I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, that that time has come. I would hope that we should get away more and more from the attribution of blame and the

1293
stigma attaching to the guilty person in a divorce. So my attitude to this particular provision is rather dependent upon that. I should have thought that if there has in fact been a separation for five years or more there could be little argument about the fact that that marriage had irretrievably broken down. I start with that: not with trying to attach blame, whose fault it is or anything else, but if you find those facts is that not the result and the conclusion you draw? After all, we are only dealing with paragraph (e) in connection with the proof of a fact which establishes what is required to be established in Clause 1; namely, that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.
The reason why I am in a difficulty about voting on this particular Amendment is this. If we are going to include a provision of this sort, I think it is absolutely essential that the respondent to a divorce petition, be it a man or be it a woman, who is being divorced against his or her will, who has not consented to it, should not be worse off in consequence of that decree being granted. I think that is an absolute sine qua non, and unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, I am not satisfied that Clauses 4 and 6 in their present condition—and I shall hope to amend them—provide anything like the protection that I should like to see financially for the woman or man who is being divorced under this particular clause.
If it had been possible I should have liked the Committee to consider in detail the provisions of Clause 4 and Clause 6—and the latter is a very important clause in relation to this particular provision—and to have considered Amendments to those clauses before deciding whether or not to include this particular proposal in the Bill.
I say quite frankly, that I would not be in favour of this proposal unless I was as certain as I could be that it would not bring financial loss and financial suffering on an innocent party who is the respondent to a divorce, on the ground not of blameworthiness but on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. I think myself that it would be much happier if we could postpone a decision on this particular issue until after we have dealt with Clauses 4 and 6—and that would mean at Report
1294
stage—rather than to decide on it tonight, not knowing what will be the ultimate form of those clauses until later on, maybe next week.
8.50 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am very sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, has been subjected to an attack to-night. I can assure him that if he had made the speech he made to-night at a conference of any women's organisation in the country he would have been cheered to the echo. He is a Judge who has had tremendous experience of the kind of things we are talking about now. He is a Judge also who has commanded the respect of everybody in the country. His words of wisdom to-night were based upon experience. He pictured to us what is absolutely true; that is, that we are introducing legislation to-day which if it is implemented, will undoubtedly bear very hardly on a certain section of the community.
It is no good our sitting here pretending to ourselves that all the women of the country are emancipated; that all of them have higher education; that all of them are skilled, and that all of them can earn their own living. The fact is that the great majority of married women in this country have worked well for their families; they have done, day after day throughout their married life, those awful chores—chores which very often, noble Lords will agree with me, their husbands try to escape. They have borne and reared children; they have nursed; they have cooked and cleaned for years. As the years go on no doubt they lose many of their physical charms, and of course, as the noble Lord said just now, it is possible for a man to look elsewhere.
These women can be completely innocent of any matrimonial offence, and now legislation is being introduced which, when it is put into operation, will compulsorily divorce this particular section of society against their will. That has been their world. The noble Lord knew that world of women and I know that world. Their world is their husband, their home and their children, planning all around the home for holidays, for shopping, for buying new clothes. Their minds, as we see it, are very pure minds. They may say, "That is a handsome man down the street", but generally they will say it with a smile in chaff. These people,

1295
under this Bill, are going to be compulsorily divorced against their will.
I am not quite so high-principled as the noble and learned Lord, because I am going to say that if I had been assured that the Matrimonial Property Act was going to be on the Statute Book, if I had been assured that these women, after years of work, would have some financial provision, I should not have objected so very much to paragraph (e). But, of course, that is not so. Incidentally, on the question of finance, one must remember that this is the only section in the community who have not been entitled to save money in their own right, except for that little Bill that I got through, the Married Women's Property Act. They have not been entitled even to keep the whole of the savings of the housekeeping allowance, because in law they are only the agent of their husband. This particular group have no nest-egg. Until two years ago they were not entitled to save money in their own right in the Post Office Savings Bank. If there was a separation the husband could demand whatever they had saved. So this particular group have no money in their own right.
What skills they had when they were first married have left them, whereas the husband, on the other hand, has been able to improve his skills; as the years have gone on he has had better chances of promotion. The woman has not. No wonder the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, brings to the House the picture of this particular woman who is going to be divorced against her will without any financial support of her own, without any nest-egg and with no way of earning her own living—unless of course she does the ordinary manual unskilled work! This is a true picture; it is not an exaggeration. This is going to be the position when this Bill is put on the Statute Book. The noble Lord is absolutely right.
This woman has to plead that she is suffering very grave hardship. How can she prove to a judge that she is suffering very grave hardship? Hardship is not going to be enough; it has to be grave hardship. This is the legislation that we are passing to-night. I have been hoping month after month. I have heard that the Law Commission is going to draft some Bill which will help this woman.
1296
When the Matrimonial Property Bill was introduced I thought that this would be a contribution, but, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor knows, that Matrimonial Property Bill was withdrawn. On the Second Reading of the Bill that we are discussing now I waited, because I felt that the Lord Chancellor would tell us precisely how this particular category of women were to have some financial protection. The Lord Chancellor read a letter which the Chairman of the Law Commission sent to him on the subject, and this is what he said:
"Those who will particularly benefit are those who might be divorced under the present law rather than those who for the first time may be divorced as a result of this Bill."
Surely we cannot in cold blood support paragraph (e). It is opposed by every women's organisation in the country, and they, as we know, are not represented in this House in great numbers. Surely we cannot do this unless we know that there is a Bill drafted which we can all examine and which we can finally approve. Until that time comes, I ask your Lordships to afford relief in some measure to these particular women by rejecting paragraph (e).
8.58 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: I shall be brief because I made a speech on Second Reading in which I said almost everything I wanted to say; but I should like to make a few observations. I think it is very important, particularly having heard the last very impressive and moving speech, that we know what we are dealing with. Lady Summerskill's speech, moving and impressive as it was, had very little relationship to what we are proposing to enact, and therefore it may be useful if we remind ourselves what we are proposing to enact.
We are proposing to enact a provision that where a spouse, male or female, has been already deserted for a period of five years it shall then be possible for either party to dissolve the marriage. There is no question of encouraging desertion. There is no question of creating a situation in which someone is having a divorce made more easy. There is an established situation, and it is a situation in which the financial provisions will almost always already have been regulated. After five years of separation or desertion by her

1297
husband a woman will have made provision to support herself, or will have taken appropriate action for relief in the courts. The financial position will have been determined. It may be that some additional provision will be required, but in the ordinary way no financial problems of a new nature arise. That is why that letter was properly written by the Chairman of the Law Commission. He pointed out that there was nothing that could be done, or required to be done, in this situation.
There are two provisions in this Bill. I venture this comment in a slightly jocular vein. I have noticed a difference between Members of this House who have come from another place and those who are initially Members here. Those who have come from another place have a remarkable skill in disregarding those facts not particularly helpful to the arguments they are putting forward; and I was slightly distressed to discover that that is an infection that has passed to even a distinguished lawyer, in the person of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, because Clause 4 is, as it were, a "long-stop" clause. He drew attention to Clause 4 of the Bill and said that this will enable a judge to grant decrees in circumstances where he knows that no proper financial provision can be made for the wife. But the answer is that Clause 6 of this Bill prohibits this in the most explicit terms. The clause says that no decree is to be made absolute unless fair provision is made for the wife or the best possible provision.
LORD REID: Really, the "best possible provision" may mean absolutely nothing at all, because the man cannot provide anything.
LORD GOODMAN: The answer to that is self-evident. You have a situation where a separation has already been in existence for five years. If the man is a pauper, the woman has been suffering from his pauperdom for five years. No legislation can assist in that situation. There is precisely nothing that can be done about it. The court must make the best possible provision it can according to the situation. To suggest that there is anything that can he enacted in the way of future legislation that will alter the situation is simply an airy hope; it is based on a fanciful notion that we have powers
1298
of magic. We have no such powers. We cannot enrich adulterers. We cannot give them special incomes to enable them to maintain several wives. They wilt commit adultery whether we enable them to marry the wives or not. The women will be deserted, separate households will be established and the same financial problems will arise, irrespective of whether or not this power is given to rectify cases of genuine hardship—because it is the genuine hardship cases which are being relieved by this Bill. A man of no moral content will not mind in the least whether he marries his mistress. It is the man who, for some reason, has some moral content who will be concerned about this matter, who will want to regularise the matter.
I should like to conclude by repeating what I said on Second Reading. It is hypocritical to pretend that there are not many women who will be done grave injury, and have been done grave injury, by the desertion of their husbands when they are at a later stage in life. Of course that is so. But that injury is not done by this Bill. It is not the function of the divorce law to punish people; that is an improper use of the divorce law. We should not be looking for penal provisions to insert into divorce legislation. We should make it possible for people to lead seemly and civilised lives. I believe that this Bill, particularly this clause of this Bill, does in some measure advance that objective and it is for that reason that I strongly support the clause and I hope that your Lordships will not allow this Amendment to succeed.
9.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMONDS: May I say just a few words? I had not intended to speak; indeed, it is a very long time since I addressed your Lordships. I am not only old-fashioned—and therefore, I am afraid, will earn the noble Baroness's disapproval—but I am also very old, and I had little thought of ever addressing your Lordships again. But this is a unique occasion, unique in this: that this Bill not only makes a great change in a most important part of our social law—of that, I think there is no doubt—but it also does what no other measure that I, in the course of a quarter of a century in this House, have ever heard before. It patently, blatantly

1299
and I think avowedly does grave injustice to many individual human beings. It is for that reason that I venture to rise.
I wonder whether I could bring to your Lordships' minds as vividly as possible the simple issue which arises between two human beings who have somehow gone astray and are, both of them probably, certainly one of them, in sore distress. I would ask your Lordships to regard yourselves, each one of you, as a judge before whom a case of this kind comes. These cases are, of course, of infinite variety, but I will take a simple case and will ask your Lordships to imagine that you are sitting as a judge, dedicated as you of course are to the administration of justice according to law; and according to law, if this measure passes unamended—as God forbid!—then this is the sort of case you will meet.
A man (or it may be a woman; the sex does not matter) will come before you claiming a divorce from the other spouse. You ask that man, "What is the ground upon which you claim a dissolution of your marriage?" He says, "My marriage has irretrievably broken down". You say, "Upon what ground?" He says, "For five years my wife and I have been living apart". You say to him, "Well, how did that come about?". He says, "Well, it was in the year 1960 that I married my wife. She was young and rather inexperienced. She bore our child and she nourished it. She looked after me and my house and home. But, poor wretch, she got very dull and tired, and I got bored. So in the year 1963 I left her. Since then, we have been living apart, I sometimes alone, sometimes with another woman. She has asked me to go back. Quite recently she asked me to go back, saying that our son had now reached an age at which he needed the care and guidance of a father. But I have refused, and you will see, therefore, that the marriage has irretrievably broken down; and it cannot be denied that I have done the best I can to break it down irretrievably."
That is the case that a judge will have to hear and, if you can imagine even a hypothetical judge getting hot under the collar, I think you would get hot under the collar and you would say, "You have done grievous wrong to this woman, and
1300
now you seek the benefit of the wrong you have done and ask for the dissolution of your marriage." To which he will answer, "But in the House of Lords this question of getting the benefit of your wrong was raised and discussed, and the noble Lord who introduced the Bill said that the principle that a man should not get the benefit of his own wrong was really senseless." He said that—I think I quote him rightly—"it was as perfect and as unfeeling, as a skyscraper."
What exactly the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, meant by that I do not know, but it seemed to me to be a somewhat frivolous derision of a principle which is as deeply embedded in our system of law and equity as any, and is, moreover, a part of our universal morality. I cannot understand any man whose conscience is not affected by such a consideration and who would not say, "I will not vote for a measure which has that result", unless indeed he has reached a stage of civilisation and passed from that to a stage of decadence.
It is upon the ground of the injustice which this Bill will do to individuals that I oppose it. How well and wisely one of your Lordships—I think it was the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Exeter—said that the issue was a simple enough one; it was one between logic, which might demand that a petitioner in such a case should get his divorce—and I would pause to say that in the words of a great historian and lawyer, "the law is life, not logic", and anyway a logical conclusion drawn from an inadequate premise should not be regarded—or of following the principle of justice and decency. In another place it was thought proper to follow what was assumed to be a logical conclusion. I would beg your Lordships to follow the pattern of justice, decency and honour, and refuse to the man who comes before you the benefit of his own wrong.
9.11 p.m.
LORD DENNING: I am sure that all of your Lordships have listened to the noble and learned Viscount who has spoken just now with all his accustomed clarity, eloquence and skill.
LORD ST. OSWALD: And feeling.
LORD DENNING: And feeling. But, may I say that the principle of this Bill is the irretrievable breakdown of

1301
marriage. We have, I hope, in the practice of the law attained that result already, and if we were to listen or to give weight to the arguments in support of this Amendment we should be reintroducing the notion of the matrimonial offence. In these days divorce has lost the stigma, and rightly so, of the past, because you cannot tell in the long run who has been guilty or who has been at fault; and in these days divorces should be arranged with as little bitterness, humiliation and stigma as possible. The argument put against is based on this legal maxim that no person can take advantage of his own wrong. That is quite inapplicable in this matrimonial sphere. Indeed, every day the divorce courts are faced with cases where one could say that the petitioner has taken advantage of his own wrong. Just look at his discretion statement; just look at the half a dozen women he has been with, and look at her; he is charging her with cruelty.
But the cases go through for the simple reason that the judges realise the factual situation, that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, and it is no good keeping it alive. Indeed, after five years, as was just said, the marriage is as dead as a door-nail. What good does it do to the wife, as she was, to keep it alive? May I ask for a touch of compassion for the woman and children of the new union—a stable union? When the other marriage has completely broken down, should not this new family be able to put itself on a proper and regular footing? Nearly 25 years ago, when I presided over a Committee on divorce, we saw the force of that principle and, as near as we could, we recommended it.
My noble and learned friend Lord Reid said, "This is a leap in the dark". But it is not. We have only to look at those great territories overseas—and I know them; I have been to them all. I do not know whether Australia or New Zealand first adopted this principle, but now Canada, too, has introduced it. They all have clauses similar to this, so that after five years' irretrievable breakdown there should be a divorce for the good of the community at large. So we are not leaping in the dark. We are following the good examples of our brethren overseas.
1302
It is said that the whole argument against this is injustice; that it is doing a grave injustice to the innocent wife. If that aspect were not taken care of, we should all oppose this Bill. But it is, I venture to think, taken care of, as well as anything can be taken care of in a practical world, by the provisions for financial safeguarding so far as that can be done. As my noble friend Lord Goodman said, you have these two families anyway; but protect the wife financially so far as you can. As to the plea that we are doing an injustice, I ask your Lordships to trust our judges. In the case of an injustice such as the noble and learned Viscount cited, any of our judges would say, "Of course this man shall not have a divorce". Such a case can be well taken care of. Whenever it is wrong in all the circumstances that there should be a divorce, then it should be refused. It is a matter on which I hope I can say to your Lordships that you can trust the judges of this country. Therefore, let the principle of this Bill be maintained by keeping the Bill as it is, intact, and I ask your Lordships not to introduce by this Amendment what is, in effect, a halfway destruction of it.
9.17 p.m.
LORD DONOVAN: I should like to do two things: first, to support what my noble and learned friend Lord Denning has just said; and, secondly, to opt out of the sweeping condemnation of the judges uttered by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: May I interrupt for one moment? I did not make an attack on the noble and learned Lord. Lord Reid. I had a strong argument with him, but I made no attack on the judges. I trust them implicitly not to grant a divorce to an erring husband who does not take care of his abandoned wife.
LORD DONOVAN: I apologise if I misunderstood the noble Baroness. What I wanted to add was that I agreed entirely with what she said, apart from that. Except for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, my noble and learned friend Lord Denning and I are the only two judges who have spoken on this Amendment and who have had practical experience of trying divorce cases. I do not claim that that confers any special qualification upon anybody to speak on this subject, because sometimes the

1303
nearer you are to the trees the more difficult it is to see the wood. But if two parties, in spite of having taken a solemn vow to live together for ever, until death do them part, continue to live apart for five continuous years, there is at least an impetus towards the view that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. This is really all that Clause 2(1)(e) provides.
There is still the safeguard that the court must nevertheless be satisfied that in fact the marriage has not broken down irretrievably, and that safeguard is contained in Clause 2(3). In my view, it simply is not realistic to oppose this provision. Such opposition simply plays into the hands of those spouses who, on grounds of sheer malice or prejudice, want to prevent the other spouse from obtaining his liberty—and all of us know of cases of that kind. Therefore I shall certainly go into the Lobby against this Amendment.
9.21 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: This Bill really contains two absolutely fundamental provisions. One is for divorce (now by consent, in view of the Amendment which has been carried) after two years' separation and the second is for divorce after five years' separation whether or not there is consent. It is perfectly true that if the second of those two provisions is struck out the first still survives, but I am profoundly convinced that if one does strike out that second provision one is taking away an enormous amount of the good that this Bill will do. The provision about the five-year separation will bring relief from distress in countless cases, and I think it will be, if I may say so, a first-class tragedy if this particular paragraph is omitted.
What is the problem with which one is confronted? It really is not the case that the only persons who may be divorced against their will are ladies in their fifties who cannot make their own living, who have nothing to be said against them and who have brought up children and have devoted themselves to their families. That there are some persons of that sort I do not, of course, dispute. But if you look at the table in Appendix C to the Law Commission's Report you will see that the vast majority of women who are
1304
divorced are divorced when they are under 40. Those who are divorced when they are over 50 comprise only a tiny proportion, as will be seen from that Appendix. Therefore what we are considering here is the human problem, which consists in the fact that marriages have come completely apart in many cases when women and men are quite young enough still to make their own lives, to build a new career and probably to meet somebody else with whom they can form a really happy, stable union. The question before your Lordships is: ought they to have a legal bar preventing them from doing so?
Several noble Lords who have spoken have said, "What is a judge to do? Are you really asking a judge to allow a wrongdoer to take advantage of his own wrong?" When I ventured to address your Lordships' House on Second Reading I quoted from a letter. I do not think I shall be trespassing unduly on your Lordships' patience if I remind your Lordships of a few sentences in that letter. This is not a hypothetical case but a genuine case. It is a letter that I received from a lady; who wrote:
"We have waited twenty years for this Bill, we are now old-age pensioners and we wept for joy when we saw it had been proceeded with … We started life together twenty years ago, after much consideration, having seen each other every day for seven years, we went into it with our eyes open in the hope that one day his wife would realise how futile and hopeless it was and give him his divorce. He is a very sick man and it upsets him dreadfully that he could die without, as he puts it, having put things right for me and his son".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, said that he thought that if a poll were taken there would be a vast majority against paragraph (e). I ask him this. If a poll were taken of the first thousand people that one met in the street as to whether those two people, that old lady and that old gentleman, both old-age pensioners with an illegitimate son, should be enabled before he died, he being now old and ill, to become lawfully married and to legitimise their son, would not all that thousand say unanimously, "Of course, and at once. Any law which prevents them from doing so is utterly inhuman and evil."?
That is one case. There are heaps of cases like that. It is said by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, that

1305
you must not allow a wrongdoer to take advantage of his or her wrong. In that situation, who is the wrongdoer? Is the old gentleman the wrongdoer? Is the old lady the wrongdoer? Suppose the situation is that a husband, having lived apart from his wife for five years, vicious and spiteful, determined to do her every possible harm, refuses to agree to a divorce simply and solely to prevent her from making a new life with a new partner with whom she is obviously in love, where is the wrong and where is the right there? When one talks about the innocent wife and the wrongdoing husband, to test the question, "Which is innocent and which is not innocent?" simply by asking the question, "Which has committed adultery (or some other matrimonial offence) and which has not?" is really utterly unrealistic.
When marriages split apart, when people leave one another, the wrong is probably on both sides—the real wrong. It may not consist in adultery; it may consist in selfish behaviour. They may be heartless, they may be insensitive, they may be intolerable in every respect; but their conduct may not be such as to amount to cruelty. Where is the right and where is the wrong there? By what criterion is one to test it? One has a human situation in which both parties, with their frailties and weaknesses and the virtues which most of us have, cannot live together. Simply to say of one: "Have you committed adultery? Answer, 'No'; therefore you must be as virtuous as the driven snow"; and to say to the other, "Have you committed adultery? Answer, 'Yes'; then you must be as black as night", is remote from anything which human experience throws up. To apply the maxim that the wrongdoer must not be allowed to take advantage of his wrong is so inhuman, so utterly feelingless, as to be completely inapplicable as any test where right and wrong lies in these situations.
We know that there are at least 180,000 children—that is the estimate of the Law Commission's Report—who are now illegitimate. About 20,000 a year are born. The noble and learned Lord, Lord, Reid, said that a divorced wife suffers under a stigma. What about those illegitimate children? Do they not suffer under a stigma? A man and wife when they marry go into it with
1306
their eyes open; they know the risks. These unfortunate, wretched children who are horn into the world of a second union, are not asked. They come into the world and they suffer under a stigma—undeserved, goodness knows! If there is a stigma anywhere, there are plenty of people in this world who are ready to call people "Bastards", to throw against them their illegitimacy, to whisper behind them that their fathers and mothers were not married. That is the worst sort of atmosphere in which a child could be brought up. If one is measuring this in terms of stigma, surely they should come first. They are not profiting by their own wrong. They were not asked before they were brought into this world and into this situation.
Speaking for myself, if I were trying to weigh up where right and wrong lay or to measure hardship in individual cases. I would put their claims far and away above the claims of anybody else; far and away above the claims of a wife, who may perhaps be an intolerable woman, but who simply possesses the virtue of not having committed adultery—or not having been found out committing adultery. That is the way I feel about it; and I feel that these legal maxims—so perfectly expressed, no doubt, by distinguished lawyers—are so utterly inept to afford any guidance in human difficulties and human situations that one really ought to discard them, and that is what the Bill tries to do.
The whole objective of the Bill is to jettison all this old fabric of the matrimonial offence and substitute for it something more civilised. Those who wish to remove paragraph (e) from the Bill are really cutting away half the stuffing from the Bill. I do not say that it would not be a useful Bill without it, but it would be far more useful, and would bring far more relief from distress with the inclusion of paragraph (e), and I greatly hope that the Committee will not remove it from the Bill.
May I go back to something said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds? Both of them sought to look at this paragraph through the eyes of the judge. May I take the text of the Bill and, I hope without wearying your Lordships unduly, ask you to give thought to the charge which the Bill imposes on

1307
the judge? He first has before him a situation in which it is demonstrated that a husband and wife, of any age, have been separated for five years. One may have lived in the North of England and one in the South; one may have lived abroad and one in this country; they may not have communicated with each other for years and years; they may dislike each other and have not the least remnant of feeling for each other. That is the first situation which the judge has to consider. That is prima facie an indication of breakdown. I should have thought that if anything could be, that is.
Then the judge has to take another step, as the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls pointed out. He has to look at Clause 2(3). Even if he finds that the husband and wife have been separated for no fewer than five years, he still cannot proceed towards the granting of a decree until he has considered also whether or not he is
"satisfied on all the evidence that the marriage has not broken down irretrievably …"
That is the second limb of the exercise. In other words, he has to be satisfied that he has a situation before him in which there is no marriage at all; that all that is left is a legal paper bond with no meaning; that the marriage is completely sterile. Those are the first two steps which the judge has to take.
But the judge has to go much further than that before a decree is pronounced. He has to turn to Clause 6 of the Bill and ask himself, in the first place: should the petitioner who asks for the divorce—whether husband or wife—make provision for the respondent? He may, of course, conclude that the petitioner should not be called upon to do so. The husband may be the respondent, and he may be earning a high income. The wife may be the respondent, and she may be a rich woman, and perhaps herself earning a high income. So the judge may conclude in the first place that there is no need for the petitioner to make any financial provision for the respondent. On the contrary, he may think that there is need. Then he is not to make the decree absolute. supposing he is of that opinion, unless, first, financial provision is made by the petitioner for the respondent which, in the opinion of the judge, is
1308
reasonable and fair; or secondly, if the petitioner is not in a position to make financial provision for the wife which is reasonable and fair, that at least he has done the best he can in the circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, pointed that out, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, intervened and said, "Yes, but if he is a poor man, he will not be able to make any provision." Of course that is so, but during the five years that have elapsed he will not have made any provision. If one looks at what happens to deserted wives of men who have very modest incomes, quite irrespective of any question of divorce, owing to the fact that their marriage has broken down they unfortunately have to ask for assistance from supplementary benefit.
I thought it might be of assistance to try to get some figures, from what I believe to be a reliable source, to see how far that statement is made good. These are the figures as calculated in November, 1968. The total number of wives concerned is 150,000. They are kept by public funds as to £49 million, and their husbands contribute £11½ million. The fact is that if we are talking of married couples who have slender means, as a result of the breakdown of marriage, not of any divorce, the unfortunate wives have to ask for supplementary benefit.
Having decided what he has to do under Clause 6 and refused to make the decree absolute until any provision he thinks necessary has been arranged, the learned judge has then to turn to Clause 4. And this says that the court
"shall consider all the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties to the marriage and the interests of those parties and of any children or other persons concerned, and if the court is of opinion that the dissolution of the marriage will result in grave financial or other hardship to the respondent and that it would be wrong in all the circumstances to dissolve the marriage it shall dismiss the petition."
I really do not see how in language one could devise more extensive safeguards to prevent hardship. If hardship would he caused, then it would he wrong to pronounce the decree. I think that the provisions of this Bill safeguarding the position of the wife against hardship are ample in the extreme.
I would ask your Lordships to say that in the sort of case I have given, where

1309
one cannot say who is right or wrong, but the fact that stares one in the face is that the marriage between these two people is at an end, there can he no point, in public interest or in humanity, in keeping it alive and that the provisions of this Bill which provide for dissolution, subject to safeguards, are eminently and obviously right. I ask your Lordships to vote against this Amendment.
9.37 p.m.
LORD REID: I hope that I, at least, shall be brief. I am really surprised at the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. I thought he had got past this, but his argument appeared to be that because a number of women are malicious, and cause undeserved suffering to husbands who have run away with other women, therefore those women who are not malicious and not in the least to blame must suffer along with the others. I had hoped that this argument had disappeared, but apparently the noble Lord thought it his best argument, because he put it at the end of his speech.
I am astonished at another line of argument. The noble Lord seemed to say that people are at the same time so old-fashioned that they look down upon illegitimate children and make them suffer, although they know perfectly well that illegitimate children are not to blame, yet so modern in their outlook that,
when it comes to divorced wives, they do not look down on them, although they know perfectly well that they are to blame. I think that people are not quite so silly as that. And the noble Lord cannot have the argument both ways.
It is said that we can trust the Judges. My noble and learned friend said that. I am not going to delay your Lordships tonight, but I have adumbrated the argument under Clause 4 which makes it perfectly obvious that the Judges ate tied hand and foot and they are bound to commit injustice, except in one case in a thousand. I shall hope to demonstrate that tomorrow. I have given the best attention I can to Clauses 4 and 6, and it seems to me that the judges. in the vast majority of cases, have no option but to commit injustice. That is what the Bill says. I do not wish to add any more, because I made my points before. I am not in the least convinced, and I trust that your Lordships are not, by the line of argument that we heard recently. I think it is time that I did not stand any longer between your Lordships and the Division.
9.40 p.m.
On Question: Whether the said Amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35 Not-Contents, 85.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Craigavon, V.

Longford, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Albemarle, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Rankeillour, L.

Audley, Bs.

Ferrers, E.

Reid, L. [Teller.]

Barrington, V.

Gage, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Blackburn, L. Bp.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Blyton, L.

Hodson, L.

Simonds, V.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Ilford, L.

Somers, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Kinloss, Ly.

Summerskill, Bs. [Teller.]

Carnock, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Coleraine, L.

Leatherland, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Coventry, L. Bp.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Younger of Leckie, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Clwyd, L.

Foot, L.

Annan, L.

Cole, L.

Francis-Williams, L.

Archibald, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Auckland, L.

Crook, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Balogh, L.

Denham, L.

Gifford, L

Beswick, L.

Denning, L.

Goodman, L.

Birk, Bs.

Dilhorne, V.

Gowrie, E.

Bowles, L.

Donovan, L.

Gray, L.

Brockway, L.

Effingham, E.

Hawke, L.

Byers, L.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Headfort, M.

Champion, L.

Falkland, V.

Henley, L.

Chorley. L.

Fatingdon, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Morrison, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Jacques, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Shannon, E.

Kennet, L.

Pearson, L.

Silkin, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Platt, L.

Sorensen, L.

Killearn, L

Plummer, Bs.

Stamp, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Raglan, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Kirkwood, L.

Reay, L.

Stow Hill, L. [Teller.]

Lindgren, L.

Redesdale, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Listowel, E.

Ripon, L. Bp.

Strange, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly. [Teller.]

Swanborough, Bs.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Marks of Broughton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Vivian, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Segal, L.

Wigg, L.

Mitchison, L.

Serota, Bs.

Willis, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

House resumed.

FAMILY LAW REFORM BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
  CEREALS, MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTION
  CEREALS, MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTION