Sitting of 13 October 1969

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 25th July, 1969—met at half-past Two o'clock.
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  DEATHS OF MEMBERS
  Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the deaths of Harry Howarth, esquire, Member for Wellingborough, and Sir Cyril Osborne, Member for Louth, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Members.
  DEATHS OF MEMBERS

    NEW WRITS
    For Newcastle under Lyme, in the room of the Right Honourable Stephen Thomas Swingler, deceased.
    For Swindon, in the room of Francis Edward Noel-Baker, esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).
    For Glasgow, Gorbals, in the room of Mrs. Alice Cullen, deceased.
    For Paddington, North, in the room of Benjamin Theaker Parkin, esquire, deceased.
    For Islington, North, in the room of the Right Honourable Gerald William Reynolds, deceased.—[Mr. Mellish.]
    Mr. Sandys: On a point of order. I wish to give notice that I will take an early opportunity to introduce a Bill to prevent in future this disgraceful delay in the filling of parliamentary vacancies.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

    PRIVATE BUSINESS
      BLACKPOOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday at Seven o' clock.
  PETITION

    Rural Development Board, Montgomeryshire
    Mr. Hooson: This humble Petition which I seek to present to the House comes from 1,117 farmers and landowners in my constituency in the County of Montgomery. Its Prayer is that this honourable House should not approve the proposal to establish a rural development board in the designated part of Montgomeryshire. The signatories of the Petition represent over 90 per cent. of the farmers and landowners affected by the proposal. The Petitioners object to the Board and say it is in no way justified; nor was there any evidence at the public inquiry that justified the imposition of such a board.
    To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the United Kingdom's negotiations to join the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present position over Great Britain's application to join the Common Market.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects to open negotiations with the European Economic Community; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear at Brighton, our application remains and, if the Six are ready for negotiations to begin, so are we. We are encouraged by the conclusion reached in the Commission's new Opinion that negotiations should be opened as soon as possible, and we hope that the Six will now reach agreement on an early date.
    Mr. Wall: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's reply, but may I ask whether, before the negotiations start, he will publish a White Paper giving the long- and short-term advantages and disadvantages to Britain of joining the E.E.C.?
    Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that all information will be given to the House as soon as it is available.
    Mr. Marten: In view of the statement by the Dutch Foreign Minister, Dr. Luns, that the Dutch Government would not support Britain's application without a firm commitment to the federal structure, and in view of the statement by the Prime
    4
    Minister that he would not countenance such a federal structure, how do the Government propose to resolve this dilemma?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is correctly representing the Dutch Foreign Minister; indeed, I am sure that he is not. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered this matter very clearly on 8th July.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Do the Government now accept that Franco-British understanding is fundamental to the question of any satisfactory European arrangement? Will they take every opportunity of discussing with M. Schumann and other French leaders differences on matters of defence, foreign policy, non-proliferation, and so on?
    Mr. Stewart: I had the opportunity of discussions with M. Schumann when I was in New York recently. The question of our entry is not a question for one member of the Six alone. It is a question for all Six, and for us.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it intended to furnish information giving us all the facts before the negotiations, or after the negotiations? Is it not important to ascertain what the Government have in mind?
    Mr. Stewart: I am sure that I can reassure my right hon. Friend about that. The information will be given as soon as it is available.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: As the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's answer to Question No. 1 appears to be that no progress has been made, does not he think that it would be a very good thing to leave this satisfactory situation where it is? In view of the present state of the Community, does not he think that he is in considerable danger of swimming to the sinking ship, and will he be careful not to meet percipient Europeans head on swimming in the opposite direction?
    Mr. Stewart: I am not going to follow all the metaphors there. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to the Community as a sinking ship, he is only disclosing his own insularity. As to no progress having been made, I think we must notice both the Commission's new Opinion, to which I referred in my Answer, and the statement by M. Schumann that enlargement of the Community was eminently desirable.
    Mr. John Lee: Can we be assured that, in spite of his enthusiasm for getting into this organisation, my right hon. Friend will not be inhibited from telling certain European countries just how inefficient their agriculture is, and that under no circumstances will we accept their system of payment?
    Mr. Stewart: I think we have made plain our view that we have to come to terms with the common agricultural policy, but decisions have still to be made by the Six as to the nature and working of that policy.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of the decisions taken at the meeting of the European Economic Community Governments in September, he will now give a revised estimate of the costs of entry into the Common Market.
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is now able to give some estimate of the total cost involved to Great Britain in entering the Common Market; and whether lie will publish in HANSARD a table of figures giving the information which is now readily available of the costs to our balance of payments, comparative costs in the retail prices of food, clothing, etc., and a comparison of rates, charges, cost of living and wages between Great Britain and the six countries of the European Economic Community.
    Mr. M. Stewart: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in answer to Questions on 8th July, all available information will in due course be given to the House. This is still the case and, as my right hon. Friend has recently made clear, new calculations are being undertaken of the estimates and assessments made two and a half years ago. When they are ready they will be made available to Parliament. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures showing the annual rate of increase over the period 1960 to 1968 in hourly earnings and consumer prices in the United Kingdom and in the E.E.C. countries.
    Mr. Turton: Does that answer mean that the Government have not yet done their sums? If they have not, had not they better do them now and realise
    6
    that the agricultural fund is costing a great deal more now than it did in 1967?
    Mr. Stewart: When the right hon. Gentleman uses a phrase like "doing their sums", that shows that he has failed to grasp the complications of this matter. Any calculations must be based on a series of different assumptions, both as to the future policy of the Community itself, movement of world prices and many other matters. As soon as these calculations are complete, they will be made available to the House.
    Mr. Lewis: Surely the Minister must have some information. He has given a little more this afternoon. Can he not publish all the information which is now readily available and not just a few figures such as those which he mentioned? He has a lot of information. Can he not publish that, even if he has to correct it with his later figures?
    Mr. Stewart: There are two distinct points here. There are estimates as to the costs involved for this country in entry, which are governed by the answer which I have given. There is the kind of information for which my hon. Friend asked, much of which is already publicly available. My hon. Friend will find that what I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT about movements of prices and hourly earnings in this country and the Community is extremely interesting.
    Mr. Doughty: Will the right hon. Gentleman please say what "in due course" means? As one of those who voted in favour of entering the E.E.C., may I ask that the figures which he is to supply should include the additional cost, first, if no alteration is made in the Treaty of Rome, and, second, if alterations are made in accordance with the undertakings given in the House when we debated this matter last Easter? The two figures are quite different.
    Mr. Stewart: I have already said that any estimates must be a statement of what would happen on a series of different assumptions.
    Mr. Roebuck: Can we get this right? Is the Secretary of State saying that, since we were told that we should enter the Common Market "with pace and momentum", the Foreign Office has not kept week by week a record of the

    7
    changes in these vital matters? If that is not so, and they have not been as incompetent as that, is it not disgraceful that these facts and figures should be kept from the House?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not think that my hon. Friend has begun to understand the matter. There are, first of all, the figures about wages, earnings and the other matters to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) referred. Those are partly to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and much of that information is already available to everyone anyhow. As to the other matter, that depends on a very complicated process of calculation, on which we are engaged, and the results will be laid before the House as soon as possible.
    Following are the figures:

    ANNUAL RATE OF INCREASE IN HOURLY EARNINGS AND CONSUMER PRICES PERIOD 1960 TO 1968

    Hourly Earnings

    Consumer Prices

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    United Kingdom

    6·2

    3·6

    West Germany

    7·8

    2·6

    France

    7·6

    3·6

    Italy

    8·2

    3·8

    Netherlands

    9·5

    3·6

    Belgium*

    7·2

    2·5

    Luxembourg†

    6·3

    2·1

    * Based on 1959 to 1967.

    † Based on 1959 to 1966.

    Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total expenditure incurred by the Foreign Office since 1960 in seeking entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. M. Stewart: It is not feasible to make such a calculation.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is not this deception? Surely the general public, who are expected to pay taxation, are entitled to information about Government expenditure? What possible reason have the Government for refusing to furnish details of this expenditure? Why should the Foreign Office get away with this deception, and why should my right hon. Friend be a party to it?
    Mr. Stewart: It would be quite impossible to distinguish the cost of seeking entry into the European Economic
    8
    Community from the cost of maintaining normal relations with all the countries of that Community. My right hon. Friend has had widespread Ministerial experience. He must be perfectly well aware that one could not sort out and docket the exact expense of the performance of each particular function in that manner.
    Mr. Lane: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the fresh assessment on which the Foreign Office is now working will make clear the probable cost of staying out as well as going in? Is he aware that many of us are hopeful that this expenditure will soon prove justified by successful negotiation for British membership on acceptable terms?
    Mr. Stewart: I am certain that anyone attempting to judge the matter must examine the results of staying out as well as of going in.
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is aware that fines totalling £208,000 have been imposed by the Common Market Commission on chemical companies, including one with British connections, for increasing prices by joint decisions in contravention of Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome; and how enforcement of this regulation will affect British firms in general on Great Britain's acceptance of this Treaty and entry into the Common Market.
    Mr. M. Stewart: I am aware of the fines imposed on chemical companies by the Commission of the European Communities. I have also been informed that the British company to which my hon. Friend refers has lodged an appeal. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to make a statement at this time.
    Mr. Lewis: When the Foreign Secretary publishes all the information that has been promised, will he explain to British manufacturers that while we in this Parliament have no power to fine them, we will be giving authority to an external body sitting in Brussels to take such action? Will he see that this fact is made fully known to British manufacturers and that they are made aware that they are liable to fines under the Treaty which we accept?
    Mr. Stewart: The provisions of Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome are founded

    9
    on principles similar to those to be found in our own legislation on restrictive practices. When we become a member of the Communities—[HON. MEMBERS: "If."]—we should accept these provisions as they apply to Member States.
    Mr. Ridley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman find it rather surprising that his hon. Friend should take exception to the admirable work of the Communities in preventing price rings in this respect, which could have useful repercussions on our economy?
    Mr. Stewart: Having been in this House for a long time, I am never surprised by what hon. Members say.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Gibraltar.
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the effect since August of the Spanish measures against Gibraltar.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is now the policy in respect of Spanish action against Gibraltar; and what action he now proposes to take to curtail it.
    Mr. M. Stewart: All steps immediately necessary to counter the Spanish restrictions in June were successfully taken. Longer term measures are under urgent consideration and the authorities in Gibraltar are revising the development plan for Gibraltar. Following the visit of my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State last month, further talks are to be held here later this year.
    Our policy is based on our resolve to safeguard the freedoms and human rights of the Gibraltarians. As long as Spanish policy is one of intimidation and harassment, we shall take all necessary steps to frustrate that policy and to see the Gibraltarians through the difficulties they face.
    Mr. Wall: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that we will not tolerate the continued harassment of our fellow citizens in Gibraltar? In particular, will
    10
    the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if Spain introduces an air and sea blockade of Gibraltar there will be an immediate retaliation against Spanish ships and aircraft?
    Mr. Stewart: I know the hon. Gentleman will realise that that is, and I trust always will be, a hypothetical question. If action of that kind were taken it would very seriously alter our relations with Spain.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate how widespread is the support for the very firm tone of his answer to the original Question. Have the Government been able to make any practical arrangements for alternate methods of communication following the cutting of telephone links since last the House met?
    Mr. Stewart: I cannot at present give the hon. Gentleman an affirmative reply to that question. This action of cutting off the telephone links with Spain was a mean and malicious act operating mainly on people's personal and family connections. It does not at all affect the firm capacity of Gibraltar, with our help, to maintain itself.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not clear that the Government's policy of simply turning the other cheek to each successive act of Spanish aggression is not working? If Spain insists on reviving ancient historical claims, might it not be a good idea to remind the Spanish Government that British sovereignty over the Balearics is 70 years more recent than Spain's over Gibraltar?
    Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman has an interesting point, but whether it would help in dealing with the matter I am far from sure. I do not accept the view that we have been engaged in turning the other cheek. I have avoided proposals for retaliation that would do no good and would not help the Gibraltarians. Our view is that we shall take whatever steps are necesary to make it possible for Gilbraltar to sustain herself.
    Mr. George Jeger: I welcome my right hon. Friend's forthright statement about Spain and Gibraltar, but will he bear in mind that the maintenance of

    11
    freedom and human rights, however welcome they are, must be accompanied by steps in the economic direction? What does my right hon. Friend propose to do to sustain the economy of Gibraltar?
    Mr. Stewart: I accept that. My hon. Friend may have noticed that in my reply I said that the authorities in Gibraltar were actively revising their development plan. When, which will not be very long, we hear their proposals on that, we shall be as helpful as we possibly can.
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further exchanges have taken place with the Spanish Government regarding Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. M. Stewart: We are in normal diplomatic contact with the Spanish Government both in London and Madrid.
    Mr. Molloy: The information which my right hon. Friend has just given is not very helpful. But I take it, from earlier answers, that some efforts are being made to arrive at a conclusion. Does he agree that it falls ill for hon. Members opposite to criticise the Government for not taking enough elective action against a Fascist Government to which they helped to supply arms? Does he also agree, in the context of Gibraltar, that this Government must not, like the Tory Opposition, have two faces: one for the Gibraltar situation and another for Rhodesia?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the political, economic and territorial integration of Gibraltar with Great Britain in view of the result of the recent election there.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Her Majesty's Government's position on the integration of Gibraltar with Great Britain remains as stated in the communiqué issued in Gibraltar at the conclusion of the constitutional talks in July 1968, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Jeger: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that in the recent elections both main parties were able to quote in support of their policies statements which had been made by Ministers of Her Majesty's Government? Would not it be better if a clear statement were made now about the Government's attitude towards integration in the near or immediate future?
    Mr. Stewart: In the statement to which I referred in my Answer Her Majesty's Government made it clear that they could not contemplate this in the foreseeable future.
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the cost to Great Britain and Gibraltar, respectively, of the measures taken by Spain against Gibraltar.
    Mr. Michael Stewart: It will be some time before the full effects of the latest Spanish restrictions can be assessed, and for this reason it is still too early to attempt an estimate of the cost to the Governmens of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar.
    Mr. Tilney: Would Her Majesty's Government tell the Government of Spain that our patience is not inexhaustible? Have Her Majesty's Government considered some counter-measures, such as the temporary freezing of remittances to Spain from this country?
    Mr. Stewart: I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said about retaliation; that one must be satisfied that it would serve some useful purpose and help the people of Gibraltar.

    Nigeria
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest efforts by Her Majesty's Government to secure a ceasefire in the Nigerian civil war.
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest steps taken by Her Majesty's Government to promote a ceasefire in the war between Nigeria and Biafra.
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken during the last 10 weeks to end the Nigerian civil war.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Maurice Foley): The Organisation of African Unity passed a resolution on 10th September by an overwhelming majority with no opposing votes appealing to both parties to agree to preserve the unity of Nigeria, to accept the immediate suspension of hostilities and the opening of negotiations to restore peace and ensure security and equal rights. The Consultative Committee on Nigeria was invited to offer its good offices to facilitate these negotiations. The Federal Government accepted this resolution but Colonel Ojukwu rejected it, though negotiations under the auspices of the resolution, or talks without preconditions offered by the Federal Government remain open to him.
    We will continue to do our utmost to help bring the two sides together and will welcome any settlement freely arrived at between the two parties.
    Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of us who are not out of sympathy with the Biafran case are sad and distressed that the latest offer of mercy flights was rejected by the Biafran leadership? Is it not essential that every effort be made to stop the appalling hunger and starvation which is taking place in the distressed areas? What rôle is Britain playing in this question of mercy flights, in view of the fact that we continue to supply arms to one side?
    Mr. Foley: There is another Question on the Order Paper on relief.
    Mr. Barnes: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed the resolution passed by the Labour Party conference for the second year about stopping the supply of arms? Does he agree that there was a time when the Labour Party leadership felt obliged to fight against conference decisions with which it disagreed? If the hon. Gentleman is to persist in this policy, which has achieved so little in two years, does he not at least feel that he should try to drum up more support for it within the party?
    Mr. Foley: I have noted the conference resolution on this subject. I am
    14
    aware of the fears and anxieties and I give full weight to the sincerity of those who spoke and participated. However, I cannot accept the conclusion that to prohibit the purchase of arms by Nigeria would enable us to bring about a peaceful settlement. It might conceivably aggravate the situation and confirm Colonel Ojukwu in his continued resistance.
    Mr. Tilney: Cannot Her Majesty's Government collaborate with other Powers to bring maximum pressure on both sides: the Ibos to accept some form of unity and the Federal Government to accept an international force?
    Mr. Foley: Yes. While recalling the O.A.U. resolution, I should point out that there has been, and still is, intense diplomatic activity in Africa on this question with a view to getting some kind of talks started.
    Her Majesty's Government remain in continual close relationship with the Federal Government, and we see leading figures from the secessionists when they pass through London.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Did the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend have a chance to talk about an arms embargo to the representatives of the Soviet Union and France at the United Nations lately?
    Mr. Foley: I should require notice of that Question.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Government support the appeal by Lord Brockway's most distinguished Committee to both sides for immediate negotiations, particularly as the Biafrans no longer insist on a ceasefire before negotiations begin?
    Mr. Foley: Let me be absolutely clear. When Colonel Ojukwu wrote to Lord Brockway making his proposals we were instrumental in forwarding them immediately to the O.A.U., which took them into consideration in its discussions. The Federal Government are willing to talk today or tomorrow unconditionally on this subject, but I believe that Colonel Ojukwu has not yet replied formally to the O.A.U. resolution at Addis Ababa.
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Nigerian Federal Government

    15
    about the resumption of International Red Cross relief supplies to Biafra.
    Mr. Foley: We were in close touch with the Federal Government during the negotiations which led to a signed agreement between the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Federal Nigerian Government for daylight relief flights. Unfortunately Colonel Ojukwu has so far rejected the agreement, thus preventing adequate relief from reaching the people in the area he controls. I hope that all who have influence with him will urge him to put the needs of the sick and starving first and therefore to agree to the International Red Cross plan.
    Mr. Barnes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is still the case that almost all the reports involving both sides are "phoney" in the sense that the object is to manoeuvre the other party into the intransigent position? Since the humanitarian need is so great, could not Her Majesty's Government seek to break the deadlock by putting forward a proposal such as that put forward by Mr. Hubert Humphrey in the United States?
    Mr. Foley: I sincerely hope that the deadlock may be broken in the next few days. I understand that a high-level mission of the International Committee of the Red Cross will be flying in to talk to Colonel Ojukwu and to seek agreement on its daylight flights. There are clearly military objections on both sides, and the real question is to try to reach a compromise which guarantees that relief will be able to fly in by day to those in need, and that those who want to pursue their military objectives can do so without harming such relief flights.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: Without going into the detail of the two procedures proposed, one for Biafra and one for Nigeria, should there be a breakdown, would Her Majesty's Government consider, should there be a further failure on the part of the Red Cross to find agreement—nothing has gone in from the Red Cross for four months—giving more assistance to Joint Church Aid, which is flying in help every night to the starving people of Biafra?
    Mr. Foley: In the four months since the I.C.R.C. stopped flying, 'planes have been at Dahomey in Cotanou. Relief in considerable quantities has been there and it has only needed the word of Colonel
    16
    Ojukwu for it all to be flown in. In so far as relief is there and is not being used, a great deal has already been transferred to Joint Church Aid, and this is being flown in by night. Thus, our contributions to the I.C.R.C. and the contributions of other countries which have gone to buy these stocks are being used in that they are being flown in by Joint Church Aid at night.

    Anguilla
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments in Anguilla.
    Mr. Foley: Her Majesty's Commissioner has made good progress in restoring and maintaining peace and good order on the island, and in promoting development.
    Mr. Marten: Can the Minister say how many British policemen are still there, why they are still there and when they will leave?
    Secondly, can he reiterate the assurance given by his right hon. Friend that the Anguillans will not be administered under a régime which they do not like?
    Mr. Foley: On the first matter, the company of the Parachute Regiment has left. A small contingent of the Metropolitan Police remains to maintain law and order.
    The future of Anguilla is a matter for the Commission when it is appointed. What is indicative of a good spirit is that all are anxious to collaborate in seeing that it does work, and I am quite sure, without anticipating its results, we will arrive at a satisfactory settlement.
    Mr. Braine: This matter has hung fire for a very long time. The Commission has not even started work.
    Can the hon. Gentleman give us any indication about what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to end the formal association of Anguilla with St. Kitts? That is the issue.
    Mr. Foley: If that is the issue in the hon. Gentleman's mind, it is not the issue in mine. We are discussing with the State Government the composition of the Commission. When we have finished our discussions with the State Government, we will consult other Governments in the

    17
    Caribbean. It is at this stage that the Commission will get under way, will be able to take advice from anyone in Anguilla and elsewhere, and will formulate its conclusions, which will then be open for discussion.

    European Peace and Security Council
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to take the initiative in promoting an international conference of interested nations with a view to the formation of a European Peace and Security Council.
    Mr. M. Stewart: We want to see a just settlement of the problems between East and West in Europe; and our policies are directed to this end. But I do not think an initiative of the kind proposed would assist at this stage.
    Mr. Molloy: How does my right hon. Friend know if it has not been tried? The fact is—and I think that he will agree—that many members of both the N.A.T.O. and Warsaw Pacts have expressed their interest in the formation of such a Council. I suggest that the stabilisation of peace in Europe which could follow from this would make a far greater contribution to mankind than anything the Common Market could produce.
    Mr. Stewart: I should point out the initiatives that we have taken. The N.A.T.O. Powers at Reykjavik have stated their readiness to enter into discussions on mutual force reductions. Following the Budapest declaration by the countries of the Warsaw Pact, N.A.T.O. is now engaged in examining what issues might be fruitfully discussed with the East, and Britain is taking an active part in these studies which will be considered by N.A.T.O. Ministers collectively in December. I ask my hon. Friend to realise that this is more realistic at this time than what he proposes.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Would it not be a good thing if the right hon. Gentleman pressed the issue through the Inter-Parliamentary Union, where it has been discussed now for ten years, as a start?
    Mr. Stewart: I should be glad to look into that suggestion. I believe that we want an increasing normalisation of relations between all the countries of East
    18
    and West Europe, which I hope would be a prelude to some more general settlement.

    Prince of Spain (Swearing-in Ceremony)
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government was formally represented at the swearing-in of the Prince of Spain.
    Mr. M. Stewart: There was no formal representation since there were no formal invitations to this ceremony. Our Ambassador was present in the Diplomatic Gallery.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to reflect that, despite the delicate nature of present relations—about which no one could feel more strongly than I—there may be advantage in a moderating influence by a possible future Head of State in Spain who, after all, has the advantage of having an English grandmother?
    Mr. Stewart: I think that goes a little further than the Question. I am sure that what our Ambassador did on this occasion was right.

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a statement on the latest position reached in the talks with Argentina on the Falkland Islands.
    Mr. Foley: The further informal talks which have been held with representatives of the Argentine Government have not altered our basic position on the question of sovereignty as explained to the House on 11th and 12th December, 1968.—[Vol. 775, c. 424–34, 608–14.]
    Mr. Smith: Is the Minister aware that these talks have been dragging on far too long, and can he indicate when they are likely to be concluded? Is he satisfied that the position of the Falkland Islands is being protected by having them at all?
    Mr. Foley: On the latter point, I am certain. We have made repeated assurances in this House that there can be no transfer of sovereignty against the wishes of the islanders.

    19
    On the first point, the purpose of the talks has been to continue to explore possible means of narrowing the differences which exist between the two Governments on this problem. I hope, for that reason, that it may be possible to go on with the discussions.
    Mr. Braine: Have we not now reached the position where Parliament, Press and the public are all agreed that the Falkland islanders are British, that there can be no question of transfer of sovereignty, and that the issue of sovereignty is dead? If that be the case, would it not be fairer to the loyal people of the Falkland Islands and to our good friends in the Argentine for the Government to say so?
    Mr. Foley: We have said so on all three occasions that this matter has been debated in the House.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have taken place during the last 12 months in the constitutional status of the Falkland Islands; and if he will define their present constitutional status.
    Mr. Foley: None, Sir. The Falkland Islands are a British possession acquired by settlement.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the attempts being made by other nations to exercise sovereignty over these islands, will my hon. and learned Friend say what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to ensure that the citizens of the Falkland Islands maintain and retain the ordinary rights that they have hitherto enjoyed?
    Mr. Foley: I have already this afternoon in the House given an assurance that we maintain and support the people of the Falkland Islands and will not transfer sovereignty from them against their wishes.

    Rudolf Hess
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has recently received on the health of Rudolf Hess; and what further efforts Her Majesty's Government have made to obtain Soviet agreement to his release from Spandau.
    Mr. Foley: For a man of 75 years of age Hess's general state of health remains good. I regret to say that a further approach which we made to the Soviet Government in the early summer with a view to securing the release of Hess has met with an unfavourable reply.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are not the arrangements over Spandau such that it is within the power of the Western Powers to bring this imprisonment to an end? How long will they accept the Soviet veto?
    Mr. Foley: There is a four-Power agreement. We must abide by this and bring whatever pressure we can to bear on them to be humanitarian to the man in question.
    Mr. Peyton: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that to continue to prolong such pointless cruelty only reflects on those who are a party to it? I was subjected to German hospitality during the war and I did not enjoy it. Is it not fair, therefore, to ask the hon. Gentleman to do his best here to end this simply disgraceful state of affairs?
    Mr. Foley: I sympathise with the sentiments expressed. This man, I believe, should be released. There is cruel and inhuman treatment going on at this very moment. We are doing what we can, but we need to take the other three Powers with us.

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the estimated annual rate of growth of the Rhodesian gross domestic product in real terms since the policy of sanctions; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Foley: On the basis of the illegal régime's own figures, and taking into account their estimates of the increases in the cost of living and population, it can be calculated that the level of real income per head in Rhodesia was about 92½ per cent. of the 1965 level in 1966; and about 94½ per cent. of the 1965 level in both 1967 and 1968.
    Mr. Biffen: Is it not now quite clear that, even on those calculations, which purport to demonstrate a deteriorating economic situation, no consequential

    21
    change of heart has taken place politically? Should not the Government now urgently reconsider a policy which is so manifestly failing?
    Mr. Foley: No, I do not agree. In essence, the figures which I quoted were in relation to the Question. If one wanted to look at other figures, one would see that the exports from Rhodesia are 40 per cent. down on what they were in the pre-I.D.I. period—and this at a time of a boom, an expansion, in Rhodesia. The fact that sanctions have not achieved the end which we wanted is no reason to abandon them. It is just over a year since the United Nations imposed mandatory sanctions. What we are looking for from the Opposition is support to make sanctions effective.
    Mr. Mikardo: Is it not a fact that this only marginal effect of sanctions on the economy of Rhodesia is due to a large-scale evasion of them by some businessmen in some countries, with the connivance of some Governments, some of whom are our allies and some of whom are seeking that we should join them in the Common Market? Surely the Government have some influence with them—or have they not?
    Mr. Foley: There are three areas of evasion of sanctions. The first is South Africa and Portugal, who have refused to apply the sanctions policy. The second is the countries neighbouring Rhodesia like Zambia and Botswana, who, for historical reasons, will take time to diversify their economic dependence on Rhodesia. Third, there are nations which have subscribed to the sanctions policy at the United Nations and yet do some £44 million a year trade with Rhodesia: although they subscribe in principle they do not carry out that principle in practice.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to extend sanctions against Rhodesia to include postal, telephone and telecommunication services in the light of the situation now prevailing in that country.
    Mr. Foley: As my right hon. Friend informed the House on 24th June, a study is being undertaken of what would be involved in such an extension. That
    22
    study is not yet complete.—[Vol. 785, c. 1220.]
    Mr. Biffen: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that in answer to an earlier Question today the cutting of telephone links was referred to as a mean and malicious act? Would he therefore give the House an undertaking that the Government will desist from such spiteful and pathetic gestures as communications sanctions against Rhodesia?
    Mr. Foley: As I said, the study is not complete.
    Mr. Hooley: Does not my hon. Friend consider that it is high time we passed the stage of studying this matter and took some effective action on it?
    Mr. Braine: Are the Government contemplating extending sanctions in this way or are they not? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that measures taken against an erring Government are one thing, but measures against completely innocent persons in this dispute, to hurt them and cut them off from communication with their families, are utterly abhorrent not merely to us on this side but to the people of the country as a whole?
    Mr. Foley: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would save some of his crocodile tears and address himself to the 4 million Africans in Rhodesia who are condemned to an awful existence.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a Motion on the Paper, signed by many hon. Members on this side, urging the extension of precisely the kind of sanctions mentioned in this Question? Would he consider the views of this side of the House and, indeed, the view of the Opposition Front Bench, when they say that they will make a settlement with Rhodesia based on the five principles?
    Mr. Foley: What I find rather difficult is the suggestion by the Opposition of seeking a settlement on the basis of the five principles, which I therefore assume are non-negotiable, but which Mr. Smith has refused to contemplate.

    Nuclear Weapons (Non-Proliferation Treaty)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which European countries

    23
    have not signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Albania, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland. We want to see the Treaty enter into force soon and on the widest possible basis, and we shall continue to do everything we can to persuade those States which have not yet signed to do so.
    Mr. Jenkins: Does my right hon. Friend expect that now that there has been a change of Government in Germany the Federal Republic may take a different attitude towards this matter? If this occurred, does he think that it would be a lead to all other European countries?
    Mr. Stewart: Whatever Government there was in Germany, we have always made it clear that we hoped that Germany and others would sign the treaty. I believe that signature by Germany would be a most important step.

    Libya (Supply of Arms)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the defence treaty with the deposed Government of Libya will be revised; and whether the proposed sale of Chieftain tanks to that country is now to take place.
    Mr. M. Stewart: I have seen Press reports of statements by the Libyan Prime Minister that the new Libyan Government do not intend to renew the Anglo-Libyan Treaty of Friendship and Alliance. The Libyan Government have however declared their intention of honouring their international obligations. As regards the sale of Chieftain tanks, the position remains as I stated in the House on 17th June.—[Vol. 785, c. 305–14.]
    Mr. Shinwell: Can my right hon. Friend recall his statement in that debate that they were a friendly Government? They are no longer a friendly Government. Does he recall that the intention of Her Majesty's Government was to provide this so-called friendly Government with Chieftain tanks? Can he answer this very simple question? Are the Libyan Government to receive
    24
    these Chieftain tanks, and for what purpose? What treaty provides for this? If they are not to have the Chieftain tanks, why not provide them for the Israeli Government, who are friendly?
    Mr. Stewart: What I made clear in that debate was that this sale at Chieftain tanks was in accordance with the treaty which we had with the then Libyan Government, which is still in force. Quite apart from the question of its possible renewal in the future, the present Libyan Government have made clear their intention of honouring their international obligations, and we would propose to do the same.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when we debated this matter he said that there were strings attached to the sale of Chieftain tanks? Is it not clear now that there will not be a defence agreement and that the strings he referred to are about as valid as bits of macaroni? Can he explain this?
    Mr. Stewart: That is not so. The tanks are provided in accordance with the terms of the treaty as I then explained it to the House, and that still prevails.
    Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory reply by my right hon. Friend, I will raise this matter at a suitable opportunity.

    Middle East
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on developments in the Middle East.
    Mr. M. Stewart: We are concerned about the continuing serious situation in the Middle East. We have always believed that a settlement is urgently needed and that there can be no prospect of a just and lasting peace in the absence of a general political settlement. I discussed the Middle East situation with other Foreign Ministers in New York last month; we expect the Four Powers to re-convene soon and shortly thereafter to provide guidance for Dr. Jarring.
    Mr. Judd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the principles set out in the November 1967 Resolution at the United

    25
    Nations remain the only basis for a sound and lasting peace in the area? Will he assure the House that, whatever the pressures, the British Government will not become involved in escalation of arms supplies to the area?
    Mr. Stewart: We have no doubt that that Resolution provides the essential foundation of a settlement. With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, he will remember that immediately after the war it was the policy of this Government not to supply arms at all in the Middle East. We should have persisted in that policy if other Powers had taken the same view. I described to the House the principles on which our policy is now based in the debate to which earlier reference has been made.
    Sir B. Janner: What progress has been made with regard to a settlement being arrived at by the two parties meeting together? Is not my right hon. Friend aware that unless they do meet together and thus negotiate with each other, which Israel is quite prepared to do, as he knows, there is very little hope of a settlement?
    Mr. Stewart: I said recently at the United Nations that if the parties could meet so much the better. I have also said in this House that it was difficult for people to understand the reluctance of some of the parties to engage in direct negotiations. But I must add that if direct negotiations for any reason are not possible at present we should not assume that no other way of making progress can yield any hope in the present situation. Therefore, we must endeavour through the four Powers to strengthen the hands of Dr. Jarring and enable him to resume his work.

    United Nations (China)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on British policy at the current session of the General Assembly towards the admission of China to the United Nations.
    Mr. Foley: Our policy remains unchanged. For many years we have voted for the seating of representatives of the Chinese People's Republic and shall again do so this year.
    Mr. Judd: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that this year we shall not
    26
    be involved in a procedural wrangle designed to defeat our objective in seeing the Peking Government seated at the United Nations?
    Mr. Foley: We subscribe to the doctrine that this is an "important question". There is no doubt that there are strong feelings within the United Nations and deep divisions of opinion on the matter, and we feel that it should be treated under Article 18, sub-paragraph (2).

    United Nations (Namibia and Zambia)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Her Majesty's Government abstained from supporting Security Council Resolution No. 269 of 1969 on 12th August, calling upon South Africa to withdraw its illegal administration from Namibia.
    Mr. Foley: Our reasons for abstaining on Security Council Resolution No. 269 were explained by our representative in his statement to the Council on 11th August, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Hooley: Are not Her Majesty's Government adopting an extraordinary attitude in giving diplomatic, economic and moral support to a Government who are deliberately undermining Britain's sanctions against Rhodesia, whose policies and practices Her Majesty's Government pretend to condemn?
    Mr. Foley: I question very strongly indeed the statement that we give diplomatic and moral support to the Government of South Africa. We abstained principally because the Resolution was clearly designed to pave the way for comprehensive mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII. We considered such sanctions to be neither practicable nor likely to lead to a solution of the problem.
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Her Majesty's Government abstained from supporting Security Council Resolution No. 268 of 1969 on 28th July 1969, which strongly censored Portugal for unprovoked attacks on Zambia.
    Mr. Foley: The Resolution in question referred to a specific incident which was alleged by the Zambian Government but denied by the Portuguese Government. We abstained because, in the absence of a joint or impartial investigation, we considered that the facts of the allegation were neither proven nor disproven.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that I and other hon. Members of this House have seen tangible and distinct evidence of unprovoked attacks against Zambian villages and that even the Portugese régime admits that such attacks have taken place? Is it not odd that we should fail to support a friendly Commonwealth Government against a disreputable Fascist Government?
    Mr. Foley: Of course we deplore such incidents and we are aware that they have happened. We have said so on many occasions. In regard to this particular incident, we were not convinced that the facts either proved or disproved the case.

    Aircraft (Hi-jacking)
    Sir R. Russellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he proposes to take in conjunction with other Governments to prevent the hi-jacking of aircraft.
    Mr. Foley: We are very seriously concerned at the continued growth of this problem and are urgently considering whether efforts to find a remedy can be hastened or intensified. The International Civil Aviation Organisation is drafting a convention designed to strengthen international measures to deal with hi-jackers and is considering practical ways to prevent hi-jacking. We fully support its work. We shall also support any other appropriate action in the United Nations.
    Sir R. Russell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that statement. Would not he agree that the time has arrived when some sort of retaliatory action should be considered against countries receiving hi-jackers and possibly keeping the passengers of hi-jacked aeroplanes in prison for some time?
    Mr. Foley: This is an issue which the International Civil Aviation Organisation is considering. When it has produced a draft convention this matter will be for
    28
    public debate. There will be conferences at which all these views will be discussed, and I hope that some conclusions will be reached and that we shall be able to support them.
    Sir B. Janner: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is intended to propose for membership of the Security Council a country which is at present detaining two victims of a hi-jacked aeroplane? Will he see that no country which keeps the victims of hi-jacked aeroplanes on its soil shall be allowed to become a member of the Security Council?
    Mr. Foley: My hon. Friend has a later Question down on this subject. In the meantime, my brief answer is that we have made our representations known to the country concerned. We deplore the continued detention of the two people in Syria, but we do not feel that it would be a practicable step at this time to introduce amendments to the Charter of the United Nations, which is what would be required if we wanted to make allowance for the contingency proposed by my hon. Friend, or to allow for criteria to apply to whom should be eligible to be a member of the Security Council in this respect.
    Mr. Hastings: Did Her Majesty's Government do anything about the hi-jacking of President Tshombe in a British aircraft? If not, why not?
    Mr. Foley: First, that is another question; secondly, there was no convention in this connection; and, thirdly, we are trying with others to get an effective convention on this subject.

    Canada (Foreign Secretary's Visit)
    Sir R. Russellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Canada.
    Mr. M. Stewart: During my visit to Canada in September, as guest of the Canadian Government, I had useful and stimulating discussions with the Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Sharp. I also met a number of other Ministers and called on the Governor-General in Ottawa. I was also able to pay brief visits to Montreal and Toronto.
    Sir R. Russell: Did the Canadians express any strong feelings towards the Commonwealth, as they have done in the past? Did they express any anxiety about the possibility of our joining the Common Market?
    Mr. Stewart: They naturally expressed interest in our application. They have shown sympathetic understanding in the matter and they are also naturally concerned about the effects of this application on their interests.
    Mr. Braine: Was the subject of Canadian help with relief operations in Nigeria discussed? The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Canadian Government expressed a readiness to help in this connection. Was the subject discussed?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. The subject did come up. It was not able to take any great length of time, but if on any future occasion we and they are able to do anything useful together we shall certainly do it.

YORKSHIRE COALFIELD (DISPUTE)
Sir J. Edenasked the Minister of Technology and Power what consultations he has had concerning the unofficial strike in the whole of the Yorkshire coalfield, what action he proposes to take, and whether he will make a statement.
The Minister of Technology and Power (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): This is a matter for the National Coal Board which is already engaged in national negotiations with the National Union of Mineworkers on the points at issue in this dispute.
Sir J. Eden: Can the right hon. Gentleman say for how long the board has been in negotiation with the union? Since this is an unofficial strike, the possibility of which has been known for some time, can he also say to what extent the new T.U.C. procedures have already been invoked?
Mr. Benn: The negotiations have been going on for some time. In fact, it was only last Thursday that the union gave its answer to the board's latest proposal and negotiations are still in progress. I think that it would be unwise of me to say anything more than that.
Mr. Emery: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question? Was it not the idea that the T.U.C. would intervene to stop unofficial strikes? Ought that not to have happened since last Thursday and be happening at this moment?
Mr. Benn: Questions about that would normally be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, but my reply on the question of the T.U.C.'s rôle now is—not at this stage in respect of negotiations currently going on between the board and the union.
Sir J. Eden: Since everyone must hope that this strike will end as quickly as possible, and certainly that it will not spread to other areas, will the right hon. Gentleman use whatever influence he has with the T.U.C. to ensure that these new procedures operate?
Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that my responsibilities do not involve duplicating the responsibilities either of Lord Robens or of the Minister responsible for industrial relations, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. But the point made, addressed generally to the Government, will be borne in mind.
Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister. Statement.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Maxwell: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's point of order does not arise at this moment. The Prime Minister.

MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT AND DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
As the House knows, I announced a few days ago certain changes in the machinery of government and departmental responsibilities, and I am taking this first opportunity of informing the House about them.
There are two main areas where the responsibilities affecting a number of Departments are concentrated under a senior Minister, following the principle which has already been applied in the fields of defence, overseas affairs and social security.
In the industrial field a great deal more responsibility will now be concentrated under the Minister of Technology. He will take over the duties of the Minister of Power, and, subject to the approval by Parliament of an Order which is being laid today, the two Ministries will become a single Department. The Ministry will also take over from the Board of Trade responsibility for the remaining principal manufacturing industries of which the Board of Trade has been the sponsoring Department. The expanded Ministry will also take over the responsibilities of the Department of Economic Affairs in the field of industrial policy, including the statutory responsibility for the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation.
The responsibility for the distribution of industry, including industrial development certificates, advance factories, industrial estates in development areas, building grants and loans will also pass from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Technology, as will the responsibility for paying investment grants to industry.
This change means that the same Department, a sponsoring Department, dealing with the greater part of private and public industry, will also be responsible for executive decisions concerning the location of industry.
As a result of these changes, the same Ministry will now be responsible for electricity generation as well as nuclear power and the electrical plant industries, for gas and oil as well as chemicals, for
32
the steel using industries as well as for the production of steel, for the whole range of mineral development, for textiles as well as textile machinery.
With the transfer of many industrial functions from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Technology, the Board will concentrate the greater part of its energies on overseas trade and export promotion including a considerable proportion of the sectors responsible for invisible earnings. In addition to its responsibilities for external commercial policy—including tariff policy—and export policy and services the Board of Trade will remain responsible for civil aviation, shipping, tourism, hotels and insurance.
On the home side, its work will be primarily related to commerce, including the administration of the insurance and Companies Acts, patents and copyright. It will continue to be responsible for consumer protection, for the distributive and service trades, including retail distribution, for newspapers, printing, publishing and films, these being more in the field of communications than in industries as normally conceived. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my noble Friend the Minister of State will be able to spend more of their time in direct contact on exports with industry throughout the regions, in addition to promoting the sales of British exports overseas. The regional export organisation will be strengthened.
I shall continue to take the chair at meetings of N.E.D.C. and, following the disappearance of the D.E.A., the responsibility for N.E.D.C. in connection with the agenda and consultations thereon with industry, and also the vote and establishment of the National Economic Development Office, will be in the Cabinet Office.
Certain other aspects of the change in responsibilities will be set out in the statement, which, with permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. This deals with the question of extractive industries, certain aspects of the work of N.E.D.C., and with the transfer of a number of productivity services from the Board of Trade to the Department of Employment and Productivity.
The other area of government where a concentration of responsibilities is taking place lies in the field of housing, local government, regional planning, land use,

33
transport and the environment generally. This will be particularly important in connection with the consultations on the Redcliffe-Maud Report, and the work which will follow those consultations. The House will, I think, have drawn from the Maud Report the clear conclusion that in the modern world the work of local government and the range of decisions concerned with planning, land use and transport, social and environmental development cannot, in practice, be separated. A Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning has, therefore, been appointed. He will have working under his general direction the existing Ministers of Housing and Local Government, and Transport. My right hon. Friend will take personal charge of the local government negotiations, following the Redcliffe-Maud. Report.
My right hon. Friend, assisted by my hon. Friend the former Minister of State for the Department of Economic Affairs, will be responsible for the Government's regional policy as a whole, taking over the work in this field previously carried out by the Department of Economic Affairs, including responsibility for the Regional Economic Planning Boards and Economic Planning Councils, as well as the follow-up to the Maud recommendations for greated devolution to the regions. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will act, in particular, as Minister concerned with Northern Region affairs with direct responsibility to the Secretary of State.
To an increasing extent, as the House knows, the work, reports and plans of the Regional Economic Planning Councils are not confined to purely economic development, but are concerned with transport planning and social development, urban renewal, the removal of pit heaps and other amenity questions covering the wide range of environmental problems.
I have asked the new Secretary of State to go urgently into the question of environmental pollution in all its forms and to make proposals to me on how this should be dealt with, including any changes he may feel it right to recommend in the machinery of government or the law. His responsibilities, of course, extend only to England, but in this matter of pollution he will, of course, make his recommendations in consultation with the
34
Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, who will retain all their present responsibilities and statutory functions.
The House will be aware that for the time being the existing Ministries of Housing and Local Government and Transport will continue, with the same statutory functions, but working under the general direction of the Secretary of State. I have, however, asked him to report to me on the changes which, in his view, should be made at a later date with a view to creating a more integrated Department.
The House will be further aware that with the appointment of my hon. Friend the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science, as Minister of State in Housing and Local Government, the very valuable work he has been doing on sport, local and national, will now pass, with him, to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which, I feel, is now the right place for these duties to be exercised.
The other change in Ministerial responsibilities which I should report to the House is that my right hon. Friend the former Minister without Portfolio, now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, moves to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, where he will be the deputy to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary over the whole range of duties of that Office. In addition, he will take personal charge under the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on all questions affecting relations with Europe, including the conduct of negotiations with the European Communities.
The draft Order in Council providing for the formal merger of the Ministries of Technology and Power and certain other transfers of functions in the industrial and economic field is being laid today, and will require prior parliamentary approval. A separate Transfer of Functions Order relating to statutory responsibilities for sport will be laid before the House shortly. As the House knows, this will be subject to the negative Resolution procedure.
These changes in Ministerial responsibilities will involve some alterations in the arrangements for answering Questions in this House.

35
Where the changes in responsibility have not required parliamentary approval interim arrangements for the remainder of this Session have already been made after discussions through the usual channels. Discussions will be held about the roster for the new Session.
Mr. Heath: The changes which the Prime Minister has announced are, of course, complicated and far-reaching. We should like to consider the statement which will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT and also to take time to debate them in the House. I therefore confine myself to three questions now.
First, on the question of the changes for the Board of Trade and the Department of Technology. Is not this the first occasion on which the home and overseas aspects of British industry have been separated? Is this not an important change to make, because one of the advantages we have always had in the governmental organisation is that trading activities of industry which may demand overseas tariff negotiations of great importance, and home aspects of industry which may result in heavy protectionist pressures, have been handled together by the Board of Trade? Now they are to be separated, with the possibility of conflict such as we have seen in other governmental administrations becoming very evident.
Secondly, on the arrangement for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Transport—I do not comment on the fact that there are two separate Departments with an overlord arrangement for the time being—is not this the first occasion on which responsibility for economic policy in the regions is to be transferred to local government, with heavy emphasis on land use and local government facilities instead of on the economic aspects of regional development? Again, this is a major decision which certainly wants very careful consideration by the House as it has been given careful consideration by previous Administrations.
The third question is on the abolition of the Department of Economic Affairs. Naturally, the Prime Minister will recognise that we welcome this. He himself will recall that less than a year ago in this House, on 21st November last, he said that the creation of this Department was
36
right, continued to be right, and was a permanent, continuing and essential part of the machinery of modern government. Perhaps the Prime Minister could now explain what has happened since last November to make it an inessential, nonpermanent part of government, to be abolished?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that this announcement raises a very wide subject and he is right, of course, in saying that the House will have an opportunity to debate some of these issues on the draft Order which is being laid today.
Taking the right hon. Gentleman's three points, first, on the transfer of certain functions from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Technology, progressively over a period of time more and more industries in the sponsorship responsibility have been transferred away from the Board of Trade despite the Board of Trade's responsibility for the creation of conditions in which exports can be achieved. Most of the engineering industries, for example, shipbuilding and others, have been under the Ministry of Technology now for several years. It is true that it is separate from the Board of Trade's responsibility for exports, but the right hon. Gentleman will not, I think, feel that in the light of the figures for exports, published recently, that exports have suffered as a result of that Ministry helping to modernise some of these industries.
On the regional development point, I felt that it was right—it is a debatable point—that the Department responsible for sponsorship of industries and dealing every day with the motor car industry and engineering industry should be the one with executive functions of managing distribution of industry policy. These decisions by ex-Presidents of the Board of Trade—and we both have held that office—are not taken lightly. The right hon. Gentleman seems a little concerned about the fact that the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning will now be concerned more directly with location of industry and will not also be administering I.D.C.'s or doing the executive function, but I think it right. It surely follows from the Maud Report and all our studies on regional development that all these questions—land use, transport, housing, environment and amenities—should be

37
in the area which determines the precise location of new industries.
In regard to the D.E.A., there has always been some little disagreement between the right hon. Gentleman and me, but I think that he has always failed to show the customary generosity that he usually displays on other questions to a Department which has tackled a lot of problems which he left undone five years ago. For example, he himself fought hard in two Parliaments and one election against the establishment of the I.R.C. which was one of the creations of the D.E.A.
Of course, without the I.R.C. we would not be getting the kind of export deals we are getting today. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ask industry."] Industry knows it perfectly well. Hon. Members opposite should talk to some of the top industrialists on the I.R.C. who regard it as doing a useful job. They know what has been achieved in our principal export industries—industrialists whom the right hon. Gentleman never bothered to consult on these matters at all.
One of the great achievements of the D.E.A. has also been its regional work, including the establishment [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—perhaps I might be allowed to finish this by saying—including the establishment of regional economic boards and planning councils which the right hon. Gentleman's Administration never bothered to set up. After their 13 years in office we did not have these vitally important bodies. In the new situation, post-Maud, this work is more appropriate to the Secretary of State and once the regional work of D.E.A. has gone to the Secretary of State, there is the strongest case for concentrating the industrial work in technology. Everything I said on 21st November about D.E.A. functions will now continue in a strengthened form.
Mr. Thorpe: Since the newly-announced Ministry of Technology will have an enormous number of new responsibilities and perhaps as many as 30,000 non-industrial civil servants, and since it is the experience of this House that the larger the Ministry the greater the need for parliamentary control, will the Prime Minister confirm that the terms of reference of the Select Committee on Science and Technology are sufficient to
38
cover every aspect within the remit of the new Ministry? Secondly, in view of the necessity for a real debate on Redcliffe-Maud and Wheatley, will the Prime Minister consider setting up a similar Select Committee to cover responsibilities of the new Ministries of Housing and Local Government and Regional Planning?
The Prime Minister: I will look at the question of Select Committees. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman but he knows that the Select Committee on Science and Technology is not related to a particular Department. It has responsibility in addition to technology for scientific functions in the Department of Education and Science.
With regard to the question of the Ministry of Power, which now, subject to approval by Parliament, is to be amalgamated with Technology, there is another Select Committee operating in that field, the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. Again, its functions could go beyond the Ministry of Power field. This could well be discussed through the usual channels when we consider not only the question of Parliamentary Questions, but also other parliamentary aspects.
Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the structural adjustments have led to changes in Government personnel? In view of the changes, are we to understand that in any future Labour Government anybody over the age of 60 need not apply? Does not he realise this causes me great distress?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend will understand that these positions are not filled on the basis of applications. There are always distinguished exceptions. One thing which worries me about my increasingly youthful right hon. Friend is that he seems to have given notice somewhere that he will not he a Member of the House in the next Parliament, and that rather cramps my style for the 1970s.
Mr. Dickens: In view of the well-founded suspicions which some of us unrepentant expansionists have about the effect of the dead hand of the Treasury on British economic policy, would my right hon. Friend make clear the responsibilities of the Ministry of Technology

39
on such crucial questions as the rate of economic expansion, the rate of investment in the public and private sectors and in generally encouraging economic policies designed to restore full employment in this country?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend, who has expressed anxieties about this matter in the past, will be happy to see the figures which show that not only exports and the balance of payments surplus are increasing, but that industrial production and industrial investment are increasing, despite some of his forebodings to the contrary.
As the House knows, the rate of industrial expansion which we can achieve in this country depends on our success in exports and in productivity. The enlarged Ministry of Technology will have still more responsibilities to achieve that increased export-led growth because it will be covering a wider field of industry and will be able to take decisions more directly with less need for consultation with other Departments.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the Prime Minister say which responsibilities of the Department of Economic Affairs will revert to the Treasury and how many of the staff will go back to the Treasury? Does he now accept that it was always a mistake to seek to divide departmental responsibility from economic policy?
The Prime Minister: There is a very clear and heavy responsibility on the Treasury and on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who must be the Minister responsible for the general conduct of financial and economic policy. He has vast responsibilities in monetary control, public expenditure, taxation, the foreign balance and the rest, but his job, and the job of any Chancellor, is made a great deal easier if there is a really vigorous Department for industry which helps to create the conditions in which our balance of payments can improve. I therefore do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's general conclusion.
With regard to the reversion of functions from the Department of Economic Affairs to the Treasury, the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt have seen the statement issued from 10 Downing Street eight days ago, which will be repeated
40
in the more detailed statement I am, with permission, circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT, which relates mainly to medium- and long-term forecasting and certain functions for the co-ordination of departmental work in relation to N.E.D.C.
Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend agree that one way of testing the efficiency of a renovated machine is to see how it works? Can he guarantee that we shall have sufficient time to see how this machine works?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Any change in the machinery of government, any attempt to restructure industry, in many cases takes two or three years. Certainly industrial reorganisation does. My hon. Friend will have plenty of opportunity to see how this works under successive Labour Governments.
Dame Irene Ward: In view of this remuddle, may I ask what advantage the Tyne will have since at present it is being battered to death by this dotty Government?
The Prime Minister: I am very sorry if the hon. Lady is still remuddled. I do not think that she has ever very clearly understood what has been done for shipbuilding on the Tyne. Perhaps she will call on her memory to discover how many years she has to go back in history to find the Tyne shipbuilding industry thriving as it is today.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is vitally necessary, especially in the development areas, to have the closest possible link between land use planning and economic industrial planning? Now that the Department of Economic Affairs has gone out of existence, who will be responsible for the link between the two?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I agree with my hon. Friend about the close link which is necessary, and that is one of the reasons for these changes.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Referring to the responsibilities for pollution which have been given to the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning, would the Prime Minister say what is to happen to the Natural Environment Research Council, which is at present

41
under the Department of Education and Science and about which the Select Committee on Science and Technology published a Report last week?
The Prime Minister: Yes. The work of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Select Committee is much appreciated by the House. In addition to the N.E.R.C., the supreme council on scientific policy, the Central Advisory Council, has been working in this field. At present, no change is proposed or contemplated in the departmental and interdepartmental arrangements, but, as the hon. Gentleman heard me say, I have asked the Secretary of State to look urgently into the matter of pollution to see whether he feels, when he has completed the survey, that any changes are needed in the machinery of government or even in the law on this matter.
Mr. Pavitt: With regard to the changes in foreign and Commonwealth affairs, is there still a Minister responsible for disarmament? If so, who is he, and does he still have a Department within that office?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The House has paid tribute, and I have heard other people pay tribute, to my right hon. Friend who is now Minister of Transport for what he has achieved in his initiatives concerning chemical and biological warfare and the Non-Proliferation Treaty. There is still a Minister of Disarmament. The work will be taken over, once again, by my noble Friend, Lord Chalfont—[Laughter.]—who is always capable of arousing ignorant titters among hon. Members opposite who would, in their more sober moments, wish to pay tribute to him for what he did in making possible the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is it not rather extraordinary that such an important Ministry as the Ministry of Transport should become a subsidiary department of regional planning, particularly as it has many other functions in movement and communications besides building roads, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Transport has been a member of the Cabinet ever since Mr. HoreBelisha was made a member of the Cabinet in 1936?
The Prime Minister: I think that there have been periods when he was outside the Cabinet. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will represent all the interests and concerns of transport, including the much wider interests which go beyond road building and regional problems. But the House will agree that it is impossible adequately to deal with physical and economic planning without bringing regional policy, local government policy and transport policy under one hat.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.
Following is the statement:

MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT AND DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES

  MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT CHANGES
  1. The main changes in the Machinery of Government, announced by the Prime Minister today, are as follows:—

  (i) The Ministry of Technology will take over the responsibilities of the Ministry of Power, and will become a single Department under the Minister of Technology.

  (ii) The exanded Ministry of Technology will assume responsibility for certain additional functions in relation to industry which were previously in the Board of Trade and the Department of Economic Affairs.

  (iii) The work of the Board of Trade will be concentrated upon exports and overseas trade, and trade and commerce in the United Kingdom.

  (iv) A Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning is appointed.

  (v) The allocation of the functions of the Department of Economic Affairs is as set out in detail below.

  TECHNOLOGY, INDUSTRY AND TRADE
  2. The Ministry of Technology becomes the Government Department with the main responsibility for industry both in the public and private sectors.
  3. The merger with the Ministry of Power will bring together in one Department responsibility for all primary fuels and plant industries for electricity generation, together with other power and energy supply and plant industries.
  4. The expanded Department will also be concerned with the structure of industry and with industrial productivity. It will therefore assume responsibility for the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation.
  5. The industries concerned with mineral development in both the public and the private sectors (except those which are closely linked with the construction industry) will also be brought together under the Ministry of Technology. The Ministry will thus have

  43
  the main responsibility for all general questions relating to mineral development.
  6. The Ministry of Technology will assume the Department of Economic Affairs' responsibilities in the field of regional economic development and also the related distribution of industry functions of the Board of Trade. The regional organisations of the Ministry of Technology and of the Board of Trade will be adjusted so as to reflect the new division of responsibilities between the two Departments.
  7. The Ministry of Technology will assume responsibility for investment grants.
  8. In addition, the Department of Employment and Productivity will assume responsibility for a number of bodies concerned with the provision of certain of the productivity services to industry hitherto handled by the Board of Trade.
  9. The Board of Trade will concentrate on overseas trade and export promotion, including the many activities which contribute invisible earnings to the balance of payments. Thus, in addition to its responsibilities for external commercial policy (including tariff policy) and export policy and services, the Board of Trade will retain responsibility for civil aviation, shipping, tourism, hotels and insurance.
  10. The Board of Trade's other field of responsibility will relate to trade and commerce in the United Kingdom. It will continue to be responsible for the distributive and service trades, including retail distribution, newspapers, printing, publishing and films. It will also retain a number of general responsibilities in relation to commerce including the administration of the Insurance and Companies Acts, Patents and Copyrights.
  11. As has been announced, the Government is urgently reviewing the question of the public accountability of firms in industry, including the role of the Monopolies Commission and the National Board for Prices and Incomes. The future departmental responsibility for monopolies, mergers and restrictive practices will be decided in the light of the Government's decision which will be announced shortly.
  N.E.D.C. AND THE NATIONAL ECONOMY
  12. The Prime Minister will remain Chairman of the N.E.D.C. Responsibility for co-ordinating advice on the content and priorities of the Council's business and for supervising the Vote and staffing of the N.E.D.O. will pass to the Cabinet Office. The Government's consultations with the "little NEDDYs" will now pass to the relevant sponsoring Departments.
  13. Responsibility for medium and long term economic assessment will pass to the Treasury as part of the reorganisation; and that Department will assume co-ordinating responsibility for those aspects of the work of the N.E.D.C. which relate to the continuing process of preparing, producing and following up planning documents and for co-ordinating the consultations between Departments and industry on these.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL PLANNING, AFTER THE MAUD REPORT
  14. The new Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning will co-ordinate the work of the Ministries of Housing and Local Government and Transport. He will be particularly concerned with following up the recommendations in the Maud Report. He will take personal charge of the negotiations for carrying through the reform of Local Government in England. Responsibility for the Regional Planning Councils and Boards will pass, with their staffs in the regions, from the Department of Economic Affairs to the new Secretary of State.
  15. The Secretary of State will also have special responsibility in relation to all aspects of environmental pollution. He will co-ordinate the activities of the executive Departments in this field. The Prime Minister has asked him as a matter of urgency to submit recommendations for improving the machinery for dealing with pollution problems. The Secretary of State's responsibilities in this field cover England. but he will have the task of securing co-ordination with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, whose responsibilities and statutory functions remain unchanged in this and in all other matters.
  TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS ORDER
  16. The creation of the new post of Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning and the re-distribution of the functions of the Department of Economic Affairs take effect at once; and the Minister of Technology will for the time being become Minister of Power. But the actual merger of the Ministries of Technology and Power, and the transfer of functions from the Board of Trade, as well as the transfer of responsibility from the Department of Economic Affairs for the I.R.C., have to be effected by an Order in Council. which requires Parliamentary authority. For this purpose it is intended to lay a draft Transfer of Functions Order as soon as possible after the two Houses resume.
  10, Downing Street,
  Whitehall. S.W.I.
  5th October, 1969

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Robert Maxwell: On a point of order. I wish to obtain your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a matter affecting the privileges of the House.
I draw attention to the Sunday Times Weekly Review, published yesterday, 12th October, and an article in it headed "Robert Maxwell" illustrated by a photograph of myself with Mr. and Mrs. Gaitskell and others, with the caption including the words "Maxwell the politician". In the most recent of many articles, for the first time my conduct as Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee has been called into question.

45
In the sixth column of this two-page article, the Sunday Times suggests that I applied to the affairs of the Catering Sub-Committee the same malpractices which they allege I apply in business. I quote:
"Maxwell's success is achieved by applying a certain technique to one situation after another. The pattern can be observed in microcosm through one recent episode: the ballet of Robert Maxwell, caterer extraordinary to the House of Commons."
You, Mr. Speaker, will find the language as colourful as I do.
"It displays all the classical movements in Maxwell's repertoire—the Amazing Leap from the Wings, with Loud Promises of Modern Efficiency; the Masterly Treatment of Accounts and the Rapid Disappearance, just before the audience starts to throw things."
The sixth column on page 49 and the third column on page 50 bear the following meanings: that for reasons of self-aggrandisement I obtained from the Treasury a loan of £50,000,—I quote—
"But such marginal economies were not going to produce the profit Maxwell wanted. Help from the public purse was necessary for that, as Select Committee Reports show. The £61,000 overdraft was an embarrassment, and was costing £3,000 a year in bank charges. Maxwell persuaded the Treasury to lend the Refreshment Department £50,000 with the interest being met from money from the grant-in-aid, itself Treasury money."
The article goes on to make allegations that I made unrealistic and inflated forecasts of profit, that I produced a false picture in the books of the Catering Sub-Committee by reducing stock, hurrying the collection of debts and delaying the payment of bills, that I included a false figure of £2,850 in the accounts of the Catering Sub-Committee, did not make sufficient provision for depreciation, made a major policy directive without the knowledge of the Committee and was forced to resign. I quote:
"There remained only the exit. Early this year, the other members of the Refreshment Committee found that a major policy directive had been issued entirely without their knowledge. The committee, it seems, were not amused. In April, 1969, Maxwell resigned."
Although I have taken legal action necessary to protect my reputation in respect of the other articles about me which have appeared in the Sunday Times, the present article is in a different
46
category in that it attacks me in my capacity as a Member of this House, as Chairman of one of its Sub-Committees and as a member of its Select Committee on House of Commons Services. I have not yet sought to exercise my legal remedies with regard to this particular article, as I am advised that no redress could be obtained at law for many months due to the normal legal process and also in order that the matter should not become sub judice, which could possibly prevent me from asking this House to decide at the earliest moment on a matter which affects its privileges.
That part of the article which relates to the conduct of the affairs of the Catering Sub-Committee, in my view, constitutes a grave intrusion into the activities of its members and, in particular, of its Chairman in such a way that it might discourage other Members from accepting this or similar onerous duties in this House.
This is a matter to which I draw attention, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to say whether there is disclosed in this article a prima facie case of breach of privilege and to rule on the allegations in this article against myself as Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee and as a member of the Select Committee on House of Commons Services.
Mr. Speaker: Will the lion. Gentleman hand in at the Table the newspaper of which he complains?
Copy of newspaper handed in.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has complained to the House of certain paragraphs in an article in a Sunday newspaper yesterday and is asking the Chair to rule on whether such comments constitute a prima facie breach of privilege.
I will rule on that in the usual way in 24 hours' time.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dobson.]

NORTHERN IRELAND
Mr. Speaker: May I make one observation. I may not be in the Chair when the general debate begins.
I have a very long list of those who wish to speak in this grave debate, all of whom have good reasons for doing so, and they include every hon. Member from Northern Ireland. It will be unfair to others who are anxious to speak if any speeches are too long. The length of a speech bears no mathematical relation to its depth.
I hope that hon. Members will co-operate so that I can get as balanced a debate as possible.
4.6 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): Lord Cameron, in the Report that he made a short while ago, warned us against simplification of issues that underlie the violence, arson and murder that have taken place in Northern Ireland, but he and his colleagues gave their version in paragraph 6 of the Report—and I do not think I can do better than quote from it—as to the underlying causes. He said:
'… on the one hand, a widespread sense of political and social grievance for long unadmitted and, therefore, unredressed by successive Governments of Northern Ireland, and, on the other, sentiments of fear and apprehension sincerely and tenaciously felt and believed, of risks to the integrity and indeed continued existence of the state."
I do not think that it is possible to better that as a short description in one sentence of the causes which have underlain much of the disturbances and violence that we have seen in Northern Ireland during the summer months. I would add only one point, that if his own version means that among the minority there was a feeling of injustice and among the majority a feeling of fear, that sense of fear has subsequently spread to both communities, and both, alas, now share it fully.
But in the circumstances which he has outlined, and which I would accept, everyone of us here, as experienced politicians, can readily see what an unstable political situation exists and has existed in Northern Ireland itself, a situation in which small incidents can and
48
indeed did give rise to violence, arson, looting and now to killing.
In August, this led to a confrontation in which in Northern Ireland 572 houses were damaged, 174 of them totally destroyed, and many of the remainder suffering from very severe damage. Probably over 5,000 people lost their homes in the riots of August, and of those rather less than a half have been able to reoccupy their repaired houses.
It was at that stage that the Northern Ireland Government, on 14th August, decided that it was not possible for them with their resources to restore order, and troops were ordered in at that time to separate the communities. Our objectives were clearly stated then and still hold good today: first, to keep the peace between the communities; second, to ensure that there is in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, a common standard of citizenship; third, that the forces which sustained the State and which for a number of reasons had been unable at that time to maintain law and order should have their rôle examined in order that the reasons for the breakdown could be made clear and remedies proposed; fourth, that the Government of Northern Ireland should be given every help by Her Majesty's Government to make the necessary changes themselves and to carry on the task themselves.
It is to those objectives that policy has been directed during the last two months. Some of these things are being achieved, while others have been achieved. Let me make it clear, in relation to law and order, that what underlay the very strong conviction of both Governments that a committee should be set up under the chairmanship of Lord Hunt to review the rôle and structure of those forces was the belief that law and order cannot be maintained in isolation.
It is part of the totality of social, economic and political policies. In a democracy it must rest upon the consent of the general body of citizens, neither outraging the majority, not inflaming the minority. To those who suggested at one time that Westminster might confine itself to the problem of law and order and allow others, the elected Government, to carry on with the social, economic and political policies that they

49
thought appropriate, I say that it seemed to Her Majesty's Government that it was not possible, in a democratic State, to do this. The whole context must be considered together.
It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, especially in the light of your request for short speeches, to take the House through the events since 14th August; they are well known to hon. Members and are on the record. But there has been, continuing, small-scale violence, sometimes growing larger, and at others dying away. Many areas have been unpoliced since that date in August, notably in Belfast and Londonderry. Some have said that the troops should have gone in and ensured that those areas were policed forthwith.
It is not a policy that I recommended to the General Officer Commanding and I would not recommend it to this House. It neglects the whole background of the situation. I must point out to some of those rather more militant gentlemen who are now anxious for British troops to go quickly into these areas, and who have been pressing for that since August, that the two major areas were unpoliced, in an effective sense, before 12th August. It was, alas, the case that, in the months preceding, as we have heard from the many experts who went over there, in parts of what became known as "No Go-Land" in Belfast, the police went only in response to the most urgent 999 call. They did not patrol at all during the night and, when they went, never less than two cars attended, with one to cover the other.
I am speaking, I want to emphasise, of the period prior to the time when the troops were asked to take over this situation. In my view, it would have been extremely irresponsible, in the face of, at that time, the unreformed political situation, with tensions as they were, to have expected the troops to have immediately gone in and restored order in a situation where the civilian forces, with their natural links with the population, had been unable to do so. Areas of the Bogside have been unpoliced for even longer, because the police were unacceptable. This was the situation in which the Army had to do a most difficult and thankless task and it has done that with exemplary courage, patience and diplomacy.
50
The House would want me, without taking them through all the events, to say a word about the rioting that took place on Saturday in Belfast. This has marked a most serious turning point because, for the first time, the rioters have used firearms freely and the troops were forced to return the fire.
The security forces, to my personal knowledge, acted with great gallantry and restraint. The House will know of the police constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, P.C. Arbuckle, who was murdered in the most cold-blooded manner. When the R.U.C. was linking arms in the manner that has become traditional in this country to repel crowds, and as it linked arms across the street, a shot rang out and the man fell to the ground. But even then, and I wish to praise the gallantry of the R.U.C., its line did not break. Their comrade was carried away, and the line reformed and stood there.
Alas, the situation got worse. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that the sympathy of everyone will go out to the widow of P.C. Arbuckle and his young son. Late on Saturday evening, crowds gathered in three areas of Belfast, demonstrating, they said, against the decisions of the Northern Ireland Government, on the reorganisation of the R.U.C. It has, of course, become not without irony that the R.U.C.—and I speak from my personal talks with a great many of the men—welcomed the reforms and changes now being made. I was asked to bring that message back to this House; it is not that it acquiesces in the reforms and changes, or accepts them, it welcomes what is being done.
In the Shankill Road area the mob sought to attack a block of flats which mainly house Roman Catholic families. It was in this area that the most serious trouble occurred. First, the troops of the R.U.C. used tear gas in an effort to disperse the mob, but after due warning, as the mob came on, the troops were forced to return the fire. They fired five shots on four occasions. The fighting continued until nearly dawn and was marked by sniper attacks, in response to which the troops fired about 20 rounds.
I would like to make the point that is not perhaps always clear on the pictures we see on television, about how impossible it is to sort out these events.

51
The first shot which killed Police Constable Arbuckle undoubtedly came from the crowd, the mob there. What is also clear is that probably very few people in the crowd knew that a shot had been fired. Such is the general noise and atmosphere there, it is easy for hon. Members to understand this, that a shot may come from the middle of the crowd which would not be heard because of the din and the noise.
All that the crowd sees is the return fire and they say, "We have been fired on. They were the first to fire." In these circumstances, passions can easily be inflamed through a sheer failure to comprehend the situation on the streets. I must say they had been asked not to be on the streets, they were attempting to march, to create violence. This must be clear. Even so, this is a situation in which I can understand the response from some in the mob, even though I in no way condone it or am in the slightest degree in sympathy with it. This was senseless mob violence.
The result, apart from the death of P.C. Arbuckle, was that two civilians were killed, two soldiers were seriously injured, 19 slightly injured, three police slightly injured and 33 civilians were injured. The number of arrests totals 68. Some have appeared in court this morning. I welcome very much this new activity which is enabling the police and the R.U.C. to arrest some of the troublemakers on the spot and have them brought before the courts. It is very difficult to do it, but they are quite right to plunge into the crowd to get these ringleaders out. It is possible that some of the arrests may be quite significant.
In addition, yesterday a cordon was thrown around three streets in Belfast as a result of the information and knowledge about the situation there. After a search, with great inconvenience to the innocent citizens, valuable information and material came into the hands of the R.U.C. The situation at midday today is that in Belfast there are no significant barricades, but there are some piles of rubbish around. All the weekend Protestant barricades, if I may so describe them, were removed at 7.30 a.m. The Shankill Road is clear, but some barricades have appeared on the Catholic side of "No Go-land" in Grosvenor
52
Road. The Falls Road in the Catholic area is also clear. In Londonderry, there are no Catholic barricades today, but there are three Protestant barricades, which I hope will come down.
I say one other word, in view of what I have to say about the Ulster Special Constabulary. Last night, there was a full turn-out of the Ulster Special Constabulary throughout the Province; every one of them reported for duty.
I come back now to the position of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, because this and the position of the Ulster Special Constabulary is, if not the heart of the matter, certainly the matter which is causing the gravest concern among many people in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I start with that.
I thank Lord Hunt for taking on the responsibility as he did for the Report which he and his colleagues so quickly produced—men, I may say, who are among the best policemen in this country, and assisted by skilled assessors who also are well versed in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain police practice. They produced a unanimous Report. Their verdict was clear. It is that we have tried, over the last 50 years and with greater or lesser success, to saddle the Royal Ulster Constabulary with too many roles.
The constabulary was not only an English-type police force dealing with traffic and controlling crime; it was also a para-military force with responsibilities and blockhouses on the border between north and south. It was this mixture of rôles which, in some ways, separated the constabulary from the public and so prevented that free and relatively easy communication which prevails in this country between police and public and which makes the public feel that the police are part of the community.
The Hunt Committee was clear in its view that the rôle of the Royal Ulster Constabulary should be that of a civilian unarmed police and that its para-military rôle should be split away from it and be dealt with elsewhere. That clear view, argued in the Hunt Report. was accepted without question by Major Chichester-Clark and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Government, and Her Majesty's Government believe that they were right in so doing.
Second, because of the difficulties in a country where there is a permanent

53
Government without opportunity or chance of replacement, it was thought necessary—again, this has been accepted by the Northern Ireland Government—that there should be interposed between the Minister of Home Affairs, who is responsible for the police, and the police themselves a separate independent police authority much on the lines which many of us know in this country. The Hunt Committee made some recommendations, which may or may not be fully acceptable, about the composition of the police authority—this is set out in paragraph 87 of its Report, suggesting that a number of authorities in Northern Ireland should have a statutory responsibility to nominate certain members to the new police authority.
The Committee was inspired to do this, I may say—as Lord Hunt has explained to me since—because it wished to see on the police authority representatives of the Catholic community as well as of the Protestant community, and it believed that this was the best way to do it. I have myself had the opportunity of talking to some of the prominent Catholics in the community. I am certain that they wish to take their full part in this new police authority, but they may, obviously, have their own ideas about the manner of nomination, and I am certain that the Government of Northern Ireland will wish to take that into account when they constitute by statute later on the new police authority.
Third, the Hunt Committee recommended very strongly that the R.U.C. should seek, even more dynamically than in the past, recruits from all classes and all parts of the community. I was glad to note Cardinal Conway, Primate of all Ireland, expressing his view publicly that Catholics should be encouraged to join the new unarmed civilian Royal Ulster Constabulary, and saying to me privately that he would discuss this matter with his priests so that they might give it encouragement, too. I am absolutely satisfied that it is his firm desire that this civilian unarmed force should be fully representative of all the community.
The next recommendation made was that the Inspectorate which now inspects the 47 police forces in England and Wales should have its responsibilities extended to Northern Ireland. This is a matter for the Government, but I believe that the
54
House would want us to do that so that the same interchange of information and of standards should be built up.
Next, there is a matter which affects the House even more than that. As this is an Adjournment debate, when we must not discuss legislation, I put it in the conditional sense since, if we were to pursue it, it would require legislation. I refer to the prospect of mutual aid between forces here and in Northern Ireland. At the moment, as is well known, if the Metropolitan Police wishes to call for help, it may go to the chief constable of, say, Birmingham, Hertfordshire, Kent or Surrey and ask, "Will you lend us some men?" The recommendation of the Hunt Committee is that the same system should apply between English forces and Northern Ireland, since it. is clear that circumstances can arise, particularly in Northern Ireland, in which even a larger police force than it has now could not possibly hold the situation in all areas.
Clearly, this is a matter which must be discussed with the representatives of the men in England and Wales as well as of the forces in England and Wales, and, therefore, I was not able to give a definite assurance to the Northern Ireland Government that it would be so. The House of Commons itself would have to adjudicate upon it. Nevertheless, I should myself strongly recommend to the House that we should enable that mutual aid to be freely made available when called for.
Finally—I am picking out the major matters—there was the decision by the former Inspector General that, to assist the reorganisation of the force, he would retire. As is well known, the Northern Ireland Government have appointed Sir Arthur Young in his place. I wish to thank Sir Arthur Young for the willingness and readiness with which he took up this responsibility. He did it, literally, at almost a moment's notice. While, naturally, he had his hesitations, he felt that it was a challenge, and, as he said, "If it is my duty, I must go and do it".
I can only say that Sir Arthur has embarked on his task in such a way during these 48 hours that his men feel that they have a real leader who will stand by them and one who will insist on the most rigorous and impartial methods of policemanship throughout the whole Province. That will percolate, quickly

55
or slowly, down through the Province, throughout all the communities living there. I am sure that we all wish Sir Arthur Young great success in the difficult task which he has taken on.
I come now to the B Specials, the new local reserve force, for it is this, certainly, which underlies a great deal of the uncertainty and fear among the majority of the population, as well as arousing fear among the minority. Once the Royal Ulster Constabulary is stripped of its para-military functions and its own squads which were formed and which number a few hundred men, for the purpose of defending the border, being armed with automatic weapons for that purpose, and once the R.U.C. ceases to have that rôle, it seems to me, as it seemed to the Hunt Committee, that the B Special police, also with a Para-military rôle, clearly have no logical part in such a force and, therefore, the split must be made.
If they are to become, or if, as Hunt recommends and as the Northern Ireland Government have agreed, there is to be, a local reserve defence force armed with equipment and trained in a military manner, it must be a force which is under military discipline, under military control and responsible to Her Majesty's Government. This is the basis of the Constitution. The Irish have fought many battles, and we, too, have fought battles for the control by Westminster of our armed forces. There simply cannot, in constitutional terms, be any argument about it.
Nevertheless, if I may say this to the House, Westminster must recognise the atmosphere in Northern Ireland because they have a land border and we do not. Therefore, the Northern Ireland Government are extremely sensitive, even more sensitive than we are, about having some say in the kind of military forces which are there to protect their border. That seems to me to be reasonable. For example, the General Officer Commanding, General Freeland, at the moment meets with the Security Committee under the Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Porter, every day.
This is a matter which clearly affects the Northern Ireland Government. If such a force is formed, as is the intention of the Northern Ireland Government—I
56
must put it in the conditional because this, again, would require legislation in this House—then it must come under the control of the military. It must be accountable to Westminster, but the Northern Ireland Government must have a very substantial say in what is to be its future rôle, although the decisions have to be taken here.
I believe that a great deal of the real fear in Northern Ireland among the Protestant population, and which to some extent was responsible for the outbreaks at the weekend, is based on a false appreciation of the situation and on rumours which have no relevance at all and no truth. Her Majesty's Government will recommend to the House in due course legislation to create such a force which will be responsible to Her Majesty's Government, and arrangements will be made for the fullest consultation with the Northern Ireland Government in view of their special responsibilities.
I made a statement yesterday, with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, which was intended to help the situation and to set the matter in perspective. Its history has made it a source of very great controversy and fear. Its present rôle would be inappropriate in a changed R.U.C. The Army will defend the border. The Eire Government have given assurances that they do not intend any armed attack on the North. I am sure that everyone would accept those assurances. Nevertheless, it is not only from the Eire Government that attacks may come in this matter. There can be incidents. It is, therefore, important that the Northern Ireland Government Security Committee should have the fullest consultation on the composition of this force and upon the rôle which it will fulfil. That is the purpose of the working party which has been set up.
It would be less than realistic not to recognise the great fears that exist genuinely among some Protestants—though among some of the mob with much less genuine feeling—about the future of what they call "their force". I will come later to whether it is wise in a State for one part of a community, if they are to create a stable and democratic society, to rely on something which they call "their force". That is why I hope that this force will draw its members from all parts of the community. One Stormont Member of Parliament told me that

57
he himself would apply to join the new force under these conditions.
I move on to deal with what I regard as the other essential parts of this issue, the social and economic prospects. The two Governments have proposed very great changes in the house allocation and house building programme. Up to the moment 73 local authorities between them have built fewer houses than is the total stock in Birmingham. The Northern Ireland Government recognise that this was both a waste of resources and led to inefficiency, and they are proposing to reduce the number even further.
It is apparently the case that perhaps 10 per cent. of these local authorities have been allocating houses on a basis of discrimination. This certainly does not apply to the other 90 per cent. of local authorities, but it is probably true in relation to 10 per cent. of them. In the view of the Northern Ireland Government, and in my own view, it will not be possible to restore a belief in the fairness of housing allocation unless there is seen to be a body which allocates houses on a pure basis of need, made up of people who are professionals in housing matters and who represent both the communities.
The new central house authority will be both independent and impartial. It will control a stock of houses which is smaller in size than that of Birmingham and, therefore, it is by no means an impossible task. It can subsume the existing housing trust, which has a very good record indeed, and in due course it will do so, but not immediately because of the necessity for not interfering with the existing housing programme by altering the structure.
I am sure that it will not be too long. I can envisage its coming into being within a matter of 12 months. It will then be responsible both for building and allocating houses in Northern Ireland. I believe that this not only will demonstrate, as was our desire and intention, the complete impartiality of the house building and house allocating programme as between areas and as between individual citizens, but also will increase the efficiency of that programme.
Naturally, local authorities will regret the loss of their housing functions because under previous proposals they were due to lose other functions. Therefore, the Northern Ireland Government intend to set in hand a review of the whole of local
58
authority functions in order to see whether or not their proposed new shape for local authorities is the right one. This, also, will have a side effect, because complaints have been made about the boundaries of the proposed local authorities. But, since the Government now intend to set in hand a full review of the functions, that obviously will mean that they will want to see over what boundaries any new authorities they decide to set up should function. It therefore gives them a fresh opportunity to look at that important matter.
Mr. Eric Lubbock: Could the Home Secretary tell the House how members of the central housing authority of which he has spoken are to be appointed?
Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir, I cannot say that. It is for the Northern Ireland Government to decide; they want to examine the matter rather more fully. Certainly, it would be the intention, as I understood from my discussions with them, that there should be professional housing managers, people expert in building and representatives of both the communities, but I cannot say how they will be drawn. Such is the determination of the Northern Ireland Government, that, when the exercise is over, I do not believe anybody—obviously there will be complaints because there always will be in such a situation—will be able to justify discrimination on a religious basis.
The Government have appointed a Minister for Community Relations, Dr. Simpson. I was much impressed by his energy, conviction and the way in which he is tackling his job. He obviously intends to try to bring the two communities as close together as possible. He is in close touch with the proposal to set up a Commissioner who will deal with complaints by persons who allege religious discrimination in local employment. This was a matter which was put to me strongly by the minority when I was in Ireland. It is a genuine and deeply-held conviction. Just as in this country we have an Ombudsman to investigate cases of maladministration in the central Civil Service, they will have, in addition to our own Ombudsman who will have his impact on the central Civil Service, a Commissioner for local complaints in matters of local employment.
Mrs. Anne Kerr: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the question of full employment for the minority is perhaps the most important question, overriding even the housing question?
Mr. Callaghan: I would not care to say whether housing or employment is the more important, but I am clear that the complaints on employment are not confined to the minority. Complaints about employment are heard just as much among the majority.
It is one of the sad features of the Irish situation that when I was over there I was called a "Fenian lover". I saw the hatred of poor Protestants, whose housing and whose lack of employment justify a better deal than they have had and they heap it all on the heads of the Catholics.
Mr. Stanley Orme: Fifty years of Unionist rule.
Mr. Callaghan: Let my hon. Friend make that point elsewhere. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is true."] There are many things that are true. If I were to say all the things that were true about this situation, I could easily provoke a blood bath. That is not my intention.
I want to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr), who, I know, is genuinely concerned about this matter, that there are social and economic problems that bestride the bigotry of the religious groups there. It is time that some of them turned away from mouthing their religious slogans and turned to these political and social issues.
A declaration will be required from all employers on the subject of no discrimination in their employment, because what we are proposing to apply to public employment cannot, for a number of reasons with which I will not detain the House at the moment, be applied also to private employment. The Government also propose to introduce an antidiscrimination clause in Government contracts.
I ought to say a word about the economic development situation. We were very glad indeed to see that the Northern Ireland Government propose to introduce an insurance scheme for
60
new investors that will enable them to feel more reassured about the prospects of their future in case of arson, riot or civil commotion. We certainly are ready to support that as the Northern Ireland Government propose.
The other proposals that we were able to put forward jointly were that there should be a 5 per cent. increase in investment grants and in the grants under the Industrial Development Act. It is hoped by a special grant from the Treasury to create 2,500 jobs this winter, especially, I would hope, to the west of the Bann where employment is at its worst.
This economic situation is one which I had to tell them they shared, but in a much greater degree, with development areas in this country. It is not as easy as they sometimes think to remove this situation. One has to get the kind of restructuring that is taking place in this country where, if I may make the point, it is quite clear that the running down of the coal and textile industries, and to some extent the steel industry, has been, and is being, matched in the development areas by the running up of the more technological and science-based industries. This is a long job with the Northern Irish, as it is with us, but it must be continued. The economic mission which went from Whitehall Departments has come back and we intend to continue our close interest in this.
I want before I finish to say one thing about what lies behind some of this, but I would like to thank hon. Members, on both sides, for the help they have given inc. A deputation comprising a group of my hon. Friends went to Northern Ireland. They were good enough to come back with a report which I very much welcomed. I was also grateful to the Opposition Members who went and who had no obligation to me, but gave me the benefit of their views. I would particularly like to thank the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, who, thoughout the whole of this, has followed a course in which he has sought no party advantage but has endeavoured to put the situation as he saw it as fairly as he could, and, through him, the Opposition as a whole.
I should like to mention one other person who has been extremely helpful, because he is no longer with me, and

61
that is Lord Stonham, whose work for Northern Ireland has extended for the last five years, and whose work in the matter of distress and the relief of distress as well as in other directions, is well known. I shall certainly miss his very great help.
I conclude by saying this. We are faced with the misery of lives lost and the fears—some irrational, some rational—of change and, of course, the ever-brooding sense of history that hangs over everyone in Ireland. We are sometimes apt—I detect it even in myself—to have a feeling of smugness about the irrationality, and then I pause and say that there is no need and no occasion for us here to be smug. We do not have to dig far beneath the surface of our own problems to see much of the same irrationality coming to the surface. There is no need for any of us to feel superior about it.
I must say a word about the essence of Paisleyism. I wondered whether it was worth while to elevate this gentleman, but it is. He has a very considerable following and I feel that it is necessary to say something about this. By all means let us sweep it under the carpet if it will disappear, but we must drag out this spectre, face it and show it for what it is.
I would put it this way. Mr. Paisley always says that he does not attack the Catholics. What he does is to attack the Church of Rome. Of course, he condemned yesterday every single act of violence and of murder. Naturally, I found that a welcome expression, but the language that he uses otherwise is very strange language. It is the language of war, cast in a biblical mould. "Fight the good fight", sung in Belfast after a night of rioting, is very different from when it is sung in an English country chapel in a village. This is what the Reverend Paisley either fails to appreciate or deliberately plays on.
It is a very small jump from saying that everything is the responsibility of the Church of Rome—the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone has fallen foul of him; I am a "preacher of Rome"; the Leader of the Opposition has not escaped; we are all victims of the Church of Rome, this great publicity machine—it is an easy jump from that to saying that if one is a Protestant without a house it is because the
62
Catholics are getting all the houses, as was said to me in Wapping Lane, Londonderry, on Saturday morning, or that if one is a Protestant without a job it is because the Catholics are getting all the jobs, or, with supreme illogicality, that Protestants have to pay high taxes because the Catholics will not work and they breed like rabbits.
One finds all this great conglomeration and it is easy to extend this evil brew to almost every social, economic and political problem which exists in Northern Ireland. "No, I do not attack the Catholics", says Mr. Paisley, "I merely attack the Church of Rome". But the jump is a very little one. In my view, this devilish theme—and I believe that this is increasingly recognised in Northern Ireland—has to be attacked and driven out.
Mr. John Lee (Reading): Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Callaghan: Not at the moment.
Let us be quite clear. The fears of the Protestants are very real and genuine. They are as real and genuine as the fears of the Catholics were, and their sense of injustice. These things must be understood and, I believe, are understood increasingly in this country.
It would be wrong to assume that the Reverend Paisley has a following only of wild men. He has a following of strict fundamentalists, too. Those of us who are older in this House were, perhaps, brought up in that vein. I was myself. I remember how my parents regarded the Catholics. The strict fundamental, narrow climate in which we were brought up is now no longer so common in England, although it is still to be found in certain parts of England and Wales today.
The Reverend Paisley has a following of good people, in the strict biblical sense of the word, who believe very passionately and firmly and with deep religious intensity that the Church of Rome is wrong, and he plays on that— [An HON. MEMBER: "It is inexcusable."]. I thought I was saying that it was not excusable—in order to ensure that the fears of these two groups, who should be devoted to improving their material and social conditions in which they have a

63
common interest, are not relegated to the background.
Mr. Peter Mahon: Does my right hon. Friend really believe that deep down this is a problem of religion? Is it not really a problem of no votes, no homes, no jobs and no hope?
Mr. Callaghan: I thought that I had indicated something of that sort, but I have also said that it was not confined to one section of the population or one community. This is a common problem to both communities and, in my view, it should be tackled by Westminster, by the Government and the Opposition here, in that sense.
There will, of course, be other problems that will come up. I have had some brought to my notice already. To those who want to bring up other problems and who feel that there should be solutions—I will not enumerate the problems or their solutions this afternoon—I would say that I believe that the programme which has been set before the Northern Ireland Government and which they have taken on, of reforming the forces of law and order, introducing a new housing system and, therefore, revising the local authorities, and the work they are doing in public employment and discrimination, is a large meal to digest at present. I believe that it would be asking too much of them to take up some of the other problems which will come up in due course and will need to be discussed. We must give them time to digest what is being done. It will be a very big task for them indeed.
In a strange way I do not feel unhopeful about the situation, despite the misery of Saturday night, and, to a lesser extent, of last night. I do not feel unhopeful, for these reasons. First, we are now engaged in creating a single standard of citizenship throughout Northern Ireland. That is a solid foundation upon which to raise one State. Once that is there, everybody can go forward, and so we start from that point.
Second, I do not believe that the Northern Ireland Government intend to be deterred from the paths which they have willingly and voluntarily followed. They are determined to fight this thing through because they believe it to be
64
right, and I am convinced that they will use every effort to do so.
Mr. John Lee rose—
Mr. Callaghan: No. I am winding up my speech.
Third, I believe that the situation with regard to law and order will gradually improve once the ridiculous rumours about the so-called intention of the Westminster Government to destroy the security of Northern Ireland become understood for the false rumours they are.
There is now more working together amongst the leaders of the communities. The police and the Army are working together. The Ulster Unionists and the Opposition are meeting together in the Stormont and outside it. The Cardinal and the Prime Minister are meeting together. Here the Government and the Opposition are broadly working together, although I shall take any criticism and comments that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) wishes to make. Thus, we are far from an unhopeful situation where divided counsels among major parties would destroy any prospect of settlement.
It is vital that Her Majesty's Government should back Stormont at the present time. They must carry this programme through. They cannot do so without our support and our help, and we intend to give them the fullest support and help that we can. The minority is beginning to work with the State much more than it has done hitherto. I need not go into the reasons for that, but I see it developing. I see the intention there, and to me that is a source of encouragement.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone wound up his speech at the Conservative Party conference by saying what was needed. I must follow his example. The right hon. and learned Gentleman summed it up in three words. I do not put my view down to the exclusion of his, but what is needed is understanding, first, of the real fears and prejudices that exist there. Second, what is needed is patience to reassure those with fears—not to trample on them, but to try to understand them, to try to work with them to dispel those fears. Third, what is needed is imagination to put ourselves in the place of those who are our opponents over there.

65
The woman who shouted at me "Fenian lover" did so with deep intensity and passion because she was frightened about her future security. We have to try to work these fears out of the system. It will take time, but we must do so.
Finally, there must be firmness both in carrying through the reforms and in putting down those, whoever they may be, who have no desire and no intention to allow the people of Northern Ireland to lead a happy life.
4.54 p.m.
Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): We have much to discuss this afternoon. We have the Cameron Report, the Hunt Report, the most important White Paper now in the Vote Office, and the tragic events of the weekend, all of which must come into our debate.
I should like, first, and I feel that it would be right to do so, to welcome, I hope on behalf of the whole House, the return of the Home Secretary from what must have been an exhausting, and, in some way, a harrowing experience. I, who have been through very much less, know a little of how exhausting and how harrowing it must have been.
I was deeply touched by what the right hon. Gentleman said about me and about members of my party. We have tried to provide a constructive element in the situation, and we shall continue to do so. I have done so for many reasons, but particularly because we are now running up to a General Election, we do not know how long delayed. There will be many matters in bitter controversy between us, but I believe that this is a matter upon which the voice of Britain should be heard as a single voice, and not as a babel of discordant sound.
The right hon. Gentleman has made it easy for me to support him in what he has been saying to the House. I believe that our objectives at least are identical. I put them in my own words, but I am saying in different words the same thing as he is saying. I believe that we want to create a just and peaceful society in which all may participate on the basis of equal citizenship within the boundaries of the United Kingdom. It is because of both those ideals—the society that we want to create and the integrity of the United Kingdom—that I feel we can
66
stand together and reassure all the people of Northern Ireland that their fears are perhaps unjustified, and that the future holds a brighter prospect than the events of the weekend might suggest.
To the Protestants I would say that we are behind him in the integrity of the United Kingdom. To the Catholic—and I use that as a shorthand form for what I would otherwise call Roman Catholic—I would say that we intend that there should be an equal citizenship in which all can participate for the future.
I should like to confine myself to some extent to the immediate situation. I want to say something to the House about my own attitude and about the attitude of my party, which is to some extent misunderstood. We have been reproached on many occasions for not playing a more active part when things went wrong, or were thought to be wrong. It may be that the criticism is well-founded. It may be that it is ill-founded. I should simply like to tell the House how I, at any rate, was motivated in the matter.
I feared—and I do not think that recent events have proved me wrong—that an intrusion from outside might release forces too powerful to be contained. That may not be a very heroic attitude, but at least I believe it to have been an honourable one, and I do not know that the events of the last few days altogether disprove it. But now those forces have been released. It is not for me—perhaps it is for Mr. Justice Scarman—to say who was responsible, or how they came to be released, but now there are only two alternative policies for this House to pursue. We are involved, and we have a right to express our opinion. Ulster could go back to the status quo, or it could go forward to a different kind of society. Each choice has its dangers, as we have seen.
But I am sure that the Government at Westminster and the Government at Stormont are right, and I should like to support both of them, in their unequivocal choice of the forward-looking approach. We cannot go back, and I believe that it would be disastrous to attempt to do so. Apart from that, we should be betraying our trust to our own constituents in our country if we were to try to do so because the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is

67
part, cannot afford two classes of citizen in any part of its borders. We are therefore driven to accept the forward-looking approach which involves, at any rate in broad principle, the kind of document now in the Vote Office and the kind of proposal about the police which the Secretary of State has outlined and which is contained in the Hunt Report.
That brings me to the problem of law and order—a phrase often used and not always understood. When I was over there, my Ulster Unionist friends insisted that this was the matter of first priority. I found no difficulty in agreeing with that. What they had foremost in mind was the existence of the enclaves in Derry and in Belfast where, as they put it, the Queen's writ did not run, and they insisted that these could not last. I think that I went along with that, too.
I turn to the military appreciation. May I say, in passing, that, although I did not see the General Officer Commanding, as he was in London, some of our officers there are among the most brilliant professional soldiers with whom I have come in contact in peace or war. I wish to say my word of support and praise for the exemplary conduct of the troops in the field under very strange and difficult conditions of service. The military appreciation was this—and I share it, not as a military appreciation, but as a political appreciation. There are two ways of getting into an enclave of this kind: one can shoot one's way in, or talk one's way in. The soldiers, as a matter of professional judgment, and I, as a matter of political judgment, had no doubt that the second way was the right way and that the first way was the wrong way, however naturally impatient other people might be.
The second point about law and order which I want to make is this. What is sauce for the Catholic goose is also sauce for the Protestant gander, and there is very much a Protestant gander at present. The recent troubles in Belfast—and it is not for me to inquire into the original trouble because that is sub judice—were not caused by the enclaves in No Go-Land or the Bogside. They were caused by a rampaging crowd, which was not a Catholic crowd, and the shots which were fired did not appear to come from Catholic hands.
68
If we claim to be loyal—and loyalty is a word which is frequently on people's lips in Northern Ireland—we must realise that this means being law abiding, and loyalty to the Queen means loyalty to the regimental standards of our troops in the field not less than wrapping a Union Jack around one's house. Loyalty must therefore mean support for the lawful authority of Stormont and consideration for the feelings of the people of Great Britain as well as for the composition of one's own political party or one's own religious denomination.
That brings me to the question of the police, who are central to the problem of law and order. I attach more importance, and I think that the Secretary of State attached more importance, to the police than to almost any other subject. If we were going backwards, the prescription would be to reinforce the Royal Ulster Constabulary and perhaps increase the numbers of the special constabulary behind it. But we are not going backwards. We are determined on a forward course. That makes us look at the Hunt recommendations which, broadly, are these. If we want effective policing and law enforcement, we must have a police force which is acceptable throughout the community.
I think that the situation is fraught with danger, but risks must be taken, whatever we do or refrain from doing. It is fraught with danger, but it is a risk which I wholeheartedly accept, namely, that we should go over to an unarmed civilian police force under a non-political police authority, divorcing it from its political functions in the way described and shearing off altogether the military function which I believe, with the qualification which the Secretary of State made about the desirability of Stormont being constantly in consultation, is fundamentally a Westminster responsibility. That means consequential changes in the special constabulary.
Let me say categorically that I regard the Royal Ulster Constabulary personnel as being among the finest people I have met recently. I was proud to shake the hands of some of their officers when I met them. But to saddle them with military responsibilities is to put upon them a burden which they should not be asked to bear. It is no criticism of their

69
past record, of their discipline, of their probity or even of their impartiality, which has been held in question, when we say that a gendarmerie, which is what they are, because they are not in the ordinary sense police, is inappropriate to our conception of civilian life in the United Kingdom.
Before I go on to speak about the specials, I should like to confirm what the Secretary of State said. I had my own private conversation with the Cardinal Archbishop, and we discussed the possibility of some response from the minority community to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded in his own party conference speech. Naturally, I asked him what would be the attitude of the Roman Catholic community to a police force of the kind about which the Hunt Committee subsequently reported, although at that time the Hunt Committee's Report was not out, so I had to make my own definition. He gave me to understand, as he gave the right hon. Gentleman to understand, that it would meet not merely with his tacit acquiescence, but with his positive help and approval. Without that, I do not believe that the risk could be taken. With that, I believe that it is exactly the right policy.
I have never joined in a generalised attack on the specials. No doubt evidence will be given before the Scarman Commission about individual delinquencies. But the people I met were ordinary people, the kind one would have met in the Territorial Army before the war. One I shook hands with, who was protecting the Prime Minister's house, had the hard hands of a farmer. He was up all night and was going to dig his potatoes in the morning.
It is not their fault individually that they are all Protestants. It is not their fault individually that they are not acceptable to Roman Catholics for that reason, and it is not their fault, either individually or collectively, that they are geared into a concept of the Ulster Constabulary which, if the Hunt Commission Report is accepted, must be divided into the military and the civilian. I should like them to feel that if drastic changes in their constitution are proposed and supported, which would make some of them, in effect, auxiliary soldiers and others reserve policemen, this is not intended, at any rate by any of us, as a
70
slight upon either their patriotism or their fundamental decency.
I should also like to report, because it is vital to the occasion, that I asked the enclave which I was able to visit—thanks to the courtesy of the military and of the organisation in control of the Bogside—whether they would accept such a police force, again using my own terms of definition, because I did not know the exact terms of the Hunt Report. They said that it would be acceptable. I put it to them that such a force cannot be created overnight—it does not grow under a gooseberry bush. I asked them whether they would co-operate with interim arrangements and they told me that they would. All this, I think, adds up to a satisfactory deal on law and order.
I turn now to the package in the White Paper. I say again, as I told my party conference—I hope I need say it only once—that, at any rate to the Opposition, as I know it is to the Labour Party, any form of religious discrimination is hateful and inconsistent both with our dignity as a nation and with our legal obligations under the various conventions of human rights which we have signed and intend to keep. I will not trouble the House with it, but I have always rather hankered after a Bill of Rights which would make this part of the constitution of the United Kingdom. We can debate that on another occasion. In the meantime, I should like to make one or two short points.
I welcome the local Ombudsman, to use that common expression. I am glad that there is now in it a clear statement to the effect that maladministration includes religious discrimination, since I know there were those who had doubts about it before it was made plain. I should like to feel that the Stormont Government considered at least the appointments situation in honorary and unpaid office. There are a great number of forms of public service which are not rewarded monetarily and where perhaps the minority community has not been fully considered, or perhaps has been unwilling to take part.
I should also like them to ponder the suggestion of the Irish trade unions that the Privy Council and the Senate membership might form a sphere in which wider types of appointment could be made.

71
I accept, though with the same degree of reluctance as the Government have expressed in their White Paper, their central housing authority as alone being capable of matching the needs and possibly providing some guarantee against discrimination. I understand that between 100,000 and 110,000 houses are required. I feel that this is an acceptable suggestion.
I should like to comment about the purely economic part of the White Paper. I was told that male unemployment in Londonderry was about 20 per cent., or possibly a point or two less. If we want to build a new age for Northern Ireland—I know that I am sometimes reproached, as are others on this side of the House, for encouraging Government expenditure and preaching Government economy, but I hope that this reproach will not be levelled at me now—we must treat Northern Ireland, particularly the part of it west of the River Bann, as a special case.
I ask the Defence Secretary, who is to reply, now that it is clear that British troops have an increased rôle to play in Northern Ireland, to consider the policy initiated by us, but followed on a greater scale by his own colleagues, of dismantling defence establishments generally in Northern Ireland, particularly in Londonderry where the "Sea Eagle" is under sentence of death. I think that thought should be given to permanent military establishments there for training which can sometimes more usefully be placed, from the point of view of land planning, in places where jobs are scarce than in Aldershot, where they are less scarce.
I suggest that the Government should look at rather big projects. For instance, I have never been satisfied that an atomic power station would be out of the question in Northern Ireland. This would lead to discussions with the Republic, too, because, as with France, power generation is something which can transcend national boundaries.
The only oil refinery in the island is in Cork. I wonder whether it could not stand another.
If 110,000 houses are to be built, what about a factory, or factories, building components?
Mrs. Anne Kerr: Hear, hear.
Mr. Hogg: I am overcome. But there are advantages in industrial building.
I say, both to the Government and to the Stormont Government, that I was very much impressed, when I was there, with the responsible attitude taken by both the local Labour Party and the Irish trade unions. I think that they have a part to play. They have kept religion out of the top echelons, at any rate, and I am hopeful that they may play a bigger part.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the name, to borrow a phrase from "Old Mortality", of the Reverend Habbakuk Mucklewrath. He was charitable to him. I intend to be charitable, too, though I think that he criticised me rather more warmly than him. He said that I preferred to see the Cardinal than him—which indeed I did. But I address to him the prayer of Oliver Cromwell. The more numerous and more ancient Protestant denominations, with a tradition of Protestantism not less honourable than his own, have taken a markedly different line in their approach to their Roman Catholic brethren. Although he is entitled to his views, I feel that, in moments of social instability and inflammation, religious speeches should be couched as much in the desire of making peace as of rubbing salt into the wounds.
I have finished. I said when we last discussed this problem that the log jam had broken, and that is true. Northern Ireland always reminded me in one way of the Sleeping Beauty's house. When the Treaty was signed, everybody was frozen into an attitude from which he was incapable of moving. Obviously, the moment at which the log jam breaks or the frozen attitudes unfreeze is the moment at which bloody incidents and unedifying episodes take place, but, as the Home Secretary said, the very fact of the unfreezing is a moment of challenge and hope rather than of despair.
I have one last word, which I hope is not out of place and will not be misunderstood. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will think seriously about bridge building with the Republic to the South. They have their own lines of communication with the North which are not quite our own. Of course, we must settle this business ourselves, and, of course, it is true that talk of the border increases Protestant fears rather than diminishes them, but I have a vision too

73
about these islands, which I am told that I must not call the British Islands for fear of offending somebody.
I look forward to a time when our independent nations can have a relationship not less warm than those of Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, interpenetrating each other's culture, respecting each other's independence and borders, and with constant communication, without let or hindrance, between minds and personalities on both sides. I am sure that some of the bitterness which exists in the six counties of Northern Ireland has been the result of a coolness, an alienation, between our nation and the Republic. We are all of us the prisoners of our history. We must step out of it sooner or later. I hope that they, too, will respond to a gesture of friendship and to a suggestion from the Westminster Government that we may open a new page of happiness to us all.
5.23 p.m.
Mr. H. J. Delargy: As the first backbencher to be called, I hope to set an example to the others. I say this modestly but seriously. My speech will be brief and it will be without rancour. I suppose that I have listened to almost every debate about Northern Ireland during the last 24 years. The two speeches which I have just heard are by far—by very far—the two best Front Bench speeches on the subject which I have ever heard. Nevertheless, I hope that the two right hon. Gentlemen will not misunderstand when I say that a rather bitter price has been paid for the excellence of those speeches.
The Home Secretary has said more than once that, when we debate Northern Ireland, particularly at this time, there should be no recriminations. Usually, when I hear a man say, "Let there he no recrimination", I suspect that he has something to hide. I suspect that there is something in his past record which he does not wish to have mentioned again. I can very well understand why this Government and previous Governments, when talking about Northern Ireland today, should ask us to have no recriminations.
Nevertheless, I said that I would not be rancorous, and I agree with the Government that there should be no recriminations. I agree, not for the Gov-
74
ernment's sake, but for the sake of people who belong to areas like the Falls Road in Belfast, many of whom are homeless now, all of whom are suspicious, and most of whom are living in great fear. They will not be interested in the niceties of our debate. They will not be interested in the length of our speeches. Indeed, as Mr. Speaker has reminded us, the length of a speech is not indicative of its effectiveness. They will not be concerned either about who scores points off whom today. They are looking to us anxiously for help and for hope. Despite what we have heard, it will be desperately difficult to provide them with either.
On my last visit to Belfast, just over a fortnight ago, not as a member of any delegation, but all on my own, the Belfast which I used to know well and loved as a young man; the Falls Road, the Springfield, and Clonard; when I stood in streets where houses used to be, houses which I knew, tenanted by gentle people, but where houses stand no more, razed to the ground—Bombay Street off the Kashmir Road, Brookfield Street, off the Antrim Road, and other areas which I knew well—after I had spoken to people I knew, to relatives of mine who live in the area, after all this, when a newspaper asked me what solution there could be, I replied, "I do not know; at this moment, I am drained of all hope". I am terribly sorry to say that even after the two admirable speeches which have been made, I still have not much hope. I hope to God that the two right hon. Gentlemen are right and I am wrong, because we must find solutions: the alternative is so terrible.
I welcome the Hunt Report, which is admirable, and the Cameron Report, and I welcome all that my right lion. Friend the Home Secretary and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has said, but I have one suggestion. It is a favourite of mine, which I have mentioned arid written about before. There should be appointed to the British Cabinet a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland affairs. I say this in no criticism of my right hon. Friend—he knows that. He has behaved admirably. If it gives him any consolation, all those to whom I spoke when I was there spoke of him with affection. He often has respect, but not always

75
affection. However, in the foreseeable future, this will be a full-time job, requiring the services of a full-time Minister, who will have to spend much of his time there.
We need a Secretary of State responsible to this House, who will come here regularly and answer our questions and tell us what is going on in Northern Ireland, and what happens to the money which the British taxpayer is providing for Northern Ireland. When we have a separate Ministry of Overseas Development, which supervises the funds spent in under-developed countries, surely we should have a separate Ministry concerned with the money supplied overseas to Northern Ireland. The two sums are about the same. I shall not go into the details, though I can if I am challenged.
The British Parliament and people should be presented with a regular balance sheet of what is happening to our money, so that we can question it all. So far we have been left in the dark. Nobody knows what happens. The burden is all thrown back on the British taxpayer. The British taxpayer will have to pay for all the results of the arson which has gone on recently, and he does not know why. So I suggest that a separate Ministry be set up for Northern Ireland, responsible to us.
If the Northern Ireland Government cannot enforce all the proposed reforms, we must. We have the power to do so under Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act. Under that Section we have the power to legislate for Northern Ireland at any time; the Crown, by Order in Council, can legislate for Northern Ireland to amend laws, abolish them or introduce new ones.
It would be a good idea if it were made known to the Government of Northern Ireland that if they cannot enforce these reforms we will. We could send them drafts of laws which we propose they should put on the Statute Book, with a warning that if they do not do so by a certain date we will put them into effect by Order in Council. I do not think that Stormont would object to this. It could not do so. I am merely invoking the very Act on which the Northern Ireland Government depend for their existence.
76
One last word to my hon. Friends on the back benches: we have some of the blame for this catastrophe. We did not insist on our rights under Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act. We have not asserted the supremacy of this House over Northern Ireland. The final responsibility is here. We have accepted too meekly and for too long the rulings of people who said that we were out of order. We should have had a showdown long ago about our responsibilities and rights under the Government of Ireland Act. There is no excuse for our not demanding it now. I only hope to God that it is not too late.
5.33 p.m.
Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: Were I to take up the speech of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), I should, though it would be against my wishes, find myself becoming very provocative, and that is the last thing I wish to do this afternoon. But there are some things that should be said.
The Home Secretary this afternoon used the word "fear" many times. I think that he used it more than any other word in his speech, and this was not inappropriate, because we are dealing with a situation which is one of fear, a fear which is, as he rightly said, upon both sides. But it is perhaps right—and I do not think that I shall be considered one-sided in doing this—for me to dwell a little upon the Protestant fears, because they are dominant in the present situation. One must think back a little, and remember what has happened.
There has never been a sense of real security among Protestants in the North, and because it was not for nothing that Dr. Hillary, the Minister for External Affairs in the Republic, said in the Security Council in New York on 20th August that the Republic's claim to Northern Ireland
"… had been asserted and sustained without interruption up to the present day …"
That is true. Public policy in the Republic has been dominated for many years by Fianna Fail, the hardliners of the Irish civil war. They do not like to be reminded that in 1925 an Irish Government accepted the border and undertook to promote a friendly relationship with the Northern Ireland Government. This has been regarded for some

77
time as a scrap of paper, beneath contempt. It is strange that a country like the Republic, which has played a most creditable part in setting up international organisations and making them work, has such an astounding disregard for international obligations. This must be accepted, in fairness, by the House. [Interruption.] I said that I do not want to provoke. I have the friendliest feelings in other respects for the Republic of Ireland, but I am trying to explain how those fears started.
More than half a dozen people died violently on a night in August in Belfast. That followed a speech by Mr. Lynch, and one can ask oneself in the gentlest way—
Hon. Members: Oh!
Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am not saying that it was the full reason for the tragic events, but how much would have happened if it had not been for the movement of Eire troops to the border, which had its effect on people in Northern Ireland, and if it had not been for the menacing words used by the Republican leader?
I did not expect the Home Secretary to be able to reveal this afternoon just how far diplomatic pressure has gone to bring some announcement of the recognition by the Republic of the Northern Ireland position, but I hope that the pressure is relentless and that it is maintained because, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), I see no reason in the world why there should not be the friendliest relations—he mentioned the analogy of Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland—between our countries. I welcomed the meeting between Captain O'Neill, then the Prime Minister, and Mr. Lemass. I have always believed that there should be the friendliest co-operation. But this one point, the constantly reiterated claim to territory north of the border, is one of the causes of the major fears among Protestants today, and it is one on which only Westminster can act.
What then is the second fear? It is this. Northern Ireland has the highest birth rate in the United Kingdom—and, incidentally, the lowest death rate. The great preponderance of that birth rate is, naturally, among the Roman Catholic
78
community, and for a very long time there, both justly and unjustly, Roman Catholicism has been equated with Irish Republicanism or with nationalism. The Ulster Protestants have over the past years looked apprehensively at the increasingly numbers of Roman Catholics in the schools. Their fear of being out-bred and ultimately taken over has been augmented by the numbers crossing the border from the South into the North. They have therefore in some cases—and this is Cameron's conclusion—acted repressively at a local Level. An hon. Friend of mine said recently that in Northern Ireland people were no less decent, kindly or honourable than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. This is true, and it is true of both communities. But they are motivated by fear, and living in a situation which has no parallel anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
Why does, say, a Unionist councillor on a local authority mis-allocate to a Protestant a house which should have gone to a Roman Catholic, as is said? Is it really because the Roman Catholic believes in the infallibility of the Pope and his Protestant counterpart does not? Is it really because the Roman Catholic believes in the Assumption of the Virgin Mary while his counterpart does not? Of course it is not, and I am convinced of that. If it were, I would be without hope of any kind in this situation.
The reason why he does it, with or without justification and with or without understanding, is purely and simply because he believes in his simple way, and sometimes he may be right, that, in the main, the Roman Catholic has the intention of overthrowing the State in which he lives. That may be hard for many hon. Members to accept, but I am stating the facts of the matter.
I am not asking anyone to condone cases where there has been discrimination. I am merely asking that hon. Members should understand; and it is at this point, when they understand, that we can go further. I know that there has been discrimination [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and not by one side, either. I prefer to listen to Cameron rather than to that other champion of civil rights, Mrs. McCluskey, who, anxious to make a point about discrimination in Dungannon, wrote exclusively to Roman Catholic hon. Members at Westminster.

79
As Cameron said, discrimination is not at Government level, and it is nothing like as widespread as people in this country believe. I accept the Cameron Report, and I am sure that, in the main, my colleagues agree with me. I suspect, however, that had the Commission deliberated a little longer it might have put its conclusions in a different order, with Protestant fears emerging as the root cause of causes. One may be forgiven the reflection that six months is perhaps not an exhaustive time in which to analyse and unravel the consequences of 350 years of history. However, we must act wholeheartedly on the Report, and where discrimination exists it must stop.
To those at home who find it hard to accept that political discrimination in these cases is not justified—and there are such people—I say that they must try to accept that it is no longer expedient. [Interruption.] I see no reason why hon. Members should object to that statement. I am merely saying that I believe it to be wrong and I am reinforcing the argument on behalf of those who cannot accept it now, by saying that it is not expedient.
Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom will remain so in the face of an increasing Roman Catholic population only if some of that growing population is persuaded, fairly and beyond doubt, that the way of life which the link with Britain offers is the best way of life open to them. I say to the people at home that we can expect the religious minority to accept and vote for the British way of life only if they have a chance to sample what it is. Discrimination must stop on both sides.
It may not be necessary—they may realise it for themselves—for me to remind the leading figures on both sides in this House that at this stage to appear to be rubbing Protestant noses in the dust is unwise. There are no doubt certain things which had to be said to certain people. I accept that and, in the main, they have been said. However, to go further now would create the impression that the majority in Northern Ireland have no friends in this House. That would court the danger of them deciding to go it alone, and that would have the most dreadful consequences for every-
80
body. It would also betray and hopelessly erode the position of those who have fought over the years for progress and moderation.
Mr. John Mendelson: While the hon. Gentleman is talking about people who have fought for progress and moderation, may I remind him that I recently met Mr. Ferguson, a member of the Conservative Unionist Party in Stormont? The hon. Gentleman will know—he must have read about it and I am referring to his party—that Mr. Ferguson has been driven out of public life by letters and threats to his family and his personal security. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that Mr. Ferguson is a man who could be most helpful in co-operating to achieve the implementation of the very reforms that are necessary? What is the hon. Gentleman and his party doing to protect Mr. Ferguson and to invite him to remain a member of his party in Parliament, so preventing an outrage to public decency?
Mr. Chichester-Clark: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. There is no need for Mr. Ferguson to be invited to remain a member of the party since he has not resigned from it. However, I am sorry about what appears to have happened in Mr. Ferguson's case. I do not believe that the facts in this case have been established, but if he was attacked in this way, then that is to be deplored. I would only add, however, that he is not the only man in public life in Northern Ireland or elsewhere who has had to put up with this sort of attack. Some of us have a good deal of personal experience of matters such as this.
I have, in the main, been speaking of Protestant fears. Perhaps that is because the fear, whether real or imaginary, of losing one's country, one's nationhood and one's flag, with all that goes with it, comes somewhere near to the zenith of human fears. The Roman Catholic fears are also real. I appreciate that. But, as The Times remarked in an editorial at the time of the publication of the Cameron Report:
"… the grievances, though real, are towards the bottom of the scale of human injustices."
Those grievances are being eliminated.
While this may be taken as a partisan point, it is worth reminding the House that it has been only at local government

81
level that the franchise has not been based in Northern Ireland on the one man, one vote, concept. This has disfranchised almost twice as many Unionists as members of other parties. Further, the Northern Ireland Government—which, I agree, has not been accused of discrimination—has treated Roman Catholic schools with greater generosity than have Her Majesty's Government in England.
What can Britain do to help—and, incidentally, to salve her own conscience in this matter? It is not for me to suggest what the economic aid programme should be, though I approve of the matters which were thrashed out last weekend and the conclusions that have so far emerged. There is, however, one factor which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone mentioned and which stands out a mile. To my regret, in recent years announcements have been made about the closing of Service establishments in Northern Ireland, notably H.M.S. "Sea Eagle" and the Ballykelly R.A.F. station.
These stations have been providing employment for a large number of civilians and a spending power of enormous proportions. This is important to the North-West, which has an acute economic problem. In one case, and possibly in both, the decision, on strategic grounds, was, to say the least, marginal, and I do not believe that we conceded then or concede now the arguments that were adduced.
In present circumstances the case for retaining these bases, certainly on social and economic grounds, must be absolutely overwhelming—[Interruption.]—and it is hard to believe that any hon. Member would quarrel with the Government if they were to come to a purely political decision to keep the bases there. Further, the Government should be considering the establishment of other defence establishments in Northern Ireland—[Interruption.]—along with other Government Departments; that is, as long as that would not be to the detriment of the security of the rest of the United Kingdom.
As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the new responsibilities of the Army will involve many more troops being in Northern Ireland. I am not thinking about now, but later. That could pro-
82
vide a source of employment there, possibly in the unskilled and over-forty categories, which are particularly important.
I cannot find words to express the horror I felt about what happened on Saturday night. We do not really even yet know what did happen and one may be perhaps prejudging the issue. All I can say is that if it had been the I.R.A. we would not have been surprised if they had opened fire on British troops—that has happened before. But when it comes to people who call themselves "loyalists"—and they would regard me as a loyalist—I can only say that I am filled with shame and, as far as I can muster it, a little pity for people who do this kind of thing.
I surrender to no one in my pride in British troops, and that goes for those serving in Ulster. Of course, one realises that going to the aid of the civil power is not a job that any soldier likes to do and that conditions are often extremely far from being easy. I recognise also that some units are more efficient than others, that some battalions are better commanded than others and that there are some men whose behaviour is better or worse than others.
My right hon. and learned Friend at Brighton deplored what he called the "odious things" insinuated about British troops. I echo what he said and I deplore those things as well. They are our own troops, too, and justice must be done to people who cannot answer back. Their morale must be maintained. I reiterate my pride in British troops.
But we also have in Northern Ireland a police force—a force no doubt wrongly—which has been operating in a paramilitary rôle for which a remedy is now being found. In other words, they have been operating in reality as troops. These are the realities of the situation. These police had to defend virtually the existence of the State. Some of them, I have no doubt, took actions which were in no circumstances justified; others probably went to the borders of justification. But these were only a handful.
Yet would any policeman from any part of the United Kingdom, or any hon. Member, indeed, who had been subjected to seven hours of merciless stoning and who had seen his companions struck and set alight by petrol bombs—some with

83
hooks in them so that they stuck—have behaved in any better way than a small handful perhaps of R.U.C. transgressors? I think that remarkably few lost control of themselves and I have yet to be convinced that British soldiers, proud as I am of them, would have behaved with any greater restraint than those police did in those days in August. That should be said.
On Friday morning one of the news bulletins reported that after British troops were fired upon they were very angry. It was reported that they became very rough. One report even suggested that they had gone down a street smashing windows. If they did so, of course it was wrong, but I cannot find it in my heart to get very angry with them for doing it. However, I cannot help reflecting what the headlines would have been in some newspapers if this smashing of windows had been done by the R.U.C. I resent these slurs on the names of both troops and police.
Most of us will welcome the Hunt Report's conclusions about the R.U.C. as a force. I am particularly glad—I know that it is still problematical but it looks as if they will be able to do so—that they will be able to call on police forces in the rest of Britain when they feel it necessary. I also welcome the appointment of that distinguished policeman, Sir Arthur Young, as the new Inspector-General.
The question of the B Specials brings us to very controversial ground. They are a fine force and have been subjected to far too many lies and calumnies over the last few years. I hope that very large numbers of them will join the new force which the Hunt Report puts forward. But, in the context of the present situation, there are several things which perhaps ought to be done quickly.
I welcome the working party which has been set up and I want to see its conclusions come about quickly. For a start, it seems to me that the figure of 4,000 suggested for the force is probably too small if an effective force is required.
Let us consider the question of the present B force. It has 8,000 members. I suspect that at any one time one will only be able to call out 6,000, because they are all part-timers. So I believe that
84
a force of 4,000 part-timers is probably too small to be effective and that a force of 6,000 or 7,000 is more realistic. I hope that the working party will look at this matter. It would be a commonsense policy, would do a great deal to reassure much of the population and ought to be implemented.
The Hunt Report says that the policy for the use of the force should be decided by the G.O.C. in close consultation with the Northern Ireland Government. This is something we need to define closely. But it should be made very clear from the beginning that this force, whatever size it may be, will not become a kind of irresistible target for pruning by the Chancellor of the Exchequer whenever economies come to be made. I believe that this would help decide people to join the force.
Mr. Orme: I am disturbed by the emphasis which the hon. Gentleman is putting on the recreation of the B Specials force. If we have the assurance that the Government at Westminster will guarantee the border and that there will be military guarantees of this subject, why do we need the creation of such a large para-military force again?
Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Gentleman should read the Hunt Report. If he is not satisfied with it or with the reasoning behind it—with which I agree—he had better ask Lord Hunt about it. I do not want to delay the House too long in argument with the hon. Gentleman, who has been talking a great deal from a sitting position. I know that he feels strongly about this and I am trying hard not to be provoked by him, as I am sure he will try not to be provoked by me.
The end of all these troubles is not easy to see. I must say that I do not share fully the pessimism of the hon. Member for Thurrock. Nevertheless, it is difficult for anyone who has been in Ulster all through this long hot summer and has seen so many false dawns to be over-optimistic. Sean O'Faolain wrote of the plantation of Ireland by the Tudors—and he might have been speaking about today—
"Out of it emerges a kind of Siamese duality of mind just as indissoluble and just as incoherent. It neither can be dissolved nor can it hang together."

85
However true that may be, it cannot be regarded as a recipe for tackling the situation. I think that both sides of this House accept that the situation cannot be dissolved, because there are more against its dissolution than there are for it and because dissolution would bring greater resentments and bloodshed on a scale as yet undreamed of. Therefore, it must hang together, and we must make it do so.
There is duality of mind at the individual level—on the one side, the Roman Catholic who may want a united Ireland but would resist to the last any attempt to reduce his present level of family allowances and sickness benefit, and on the other the extreme Protestant who chalks on the barricades, "Ulster is British, Army go home".
But, thank God, in the middle there is a single-mindedness on the part of the Northern Ireland Government—as the Home Secretary recognized—not only to be British but to attain British standards and to press ahead with changes, both legislative and mental, which began, albeit slowly, some years ago. I think that the British Government have made some mistakes in this situation and that one of them was serious. But I do not think that this is the time to analyse that sort of thing. Rather is this the time to place the united weight of all parties in this Parliament behind those who stand in Northern Ireland for law and order, justice and moderation. Whether we like it or not—and I like it—the Northern Ireland Government is the body which stands for those things.
I hope and believe that this House ought to make an effort—and for some it is perhaps a conscious and may be even a painful effort—to let it go out from this place that the United Kingdom Parliament believes three things. First, that law and order must be allowed to prevail in those enclaves where the Queen's Writ does not run. Secondly—the Home Secretary has said this—that it has absolute faith in the intention of the Northern Ireland Government's sincerity in pressing through its reforms. There have been ample pledges given to that end. Lastly, this House should say that, following the restoration of law and order together with the promised reforms, no man will be able reasonably to say that he does not enjoy full British civil rights
86
and that there should be now no justification whatever for rioting and disorder.
6.1 p.m.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) started by trying not to be provocative. I too do not wish to be provocative, but the hon. Member spoke of fears by the majority in the North in terms of the birth-rate and in terms of trying to restore the economic prosperity west of Strabane. I wondered whether he and I were trying to present the same constructive attitude to the problems in Northern Ireland that we have had from the two Front Benches.
When he raised the bogy of the Border, the hon. Gentleman did more to support some of the unreasoning fears of the majority in the North than anything else that has been said recently. To have expected the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland to have done other than put hospital field stations on the border when the troubles were taking place in Londonderry and Belfast was to suggest that he should sell his birthright and the ideals for which he and the parties in the south of Ireland have always stood in quite proper constitutional form and legitimate constitutional aspiration to see divided Ireland reunited as one country. To have expected him to have done less than send hospital aid to the frontier where people he knew looked to the south and rightly or wrongly were being injured and were in fear of going into hospitals in the north—for him to have denied the setting up of refugee bases would have been a complete negation of that man's political standing in the south.
The hon. Member has done a great disservice to the cause which both of us want to see prevail, peace in Northern Ireland, by raising some of these unreasonable bogies. We know that they exist on both sides. Fact has little place in the myth and legend in Northern Ireland at present. A relative of mine asked me as a criterion of General Freeland as a soldier what his religion is. When people in parts of Belfast complain because British soldiers go to mass the situation becomes unreasonable. It is something which we in this part of the United Kingdom find almost incomprehensible. There is fear, there are myths,

87
legends and tissues of lies and rumours which spread like wildfire. In all this it is very difficult to get at the basic truth.
I do not want to try to unravel all the history of the matter but to look as I see it at what can help in the north. I see as the key to this situation and the immediate problems rapid implementation of the Hunt Committee recommendations on the organisation of the police. There is no magic wand which will suddenly produce all the jobs needed by Catholic and Protestant alike. There is no magic wand which will get everyone properly rehoused and no magic wand which will get rid of all the prejudice which exists. But there is something which can be done. The police can be seen to be an impartial body standing between the political factions and administering the Queen's Writ and not the Writ as it has sometimes been interpreted in the Bogside.
The terrible thing to me when I was in Londonderry on the day on which the riots started was not the actual riots, which were sad and tragic, but the fear shown by the fact that ordinary people were in their homes with their windows boarded up and that they spoke in fear of what would happen if the police invaded their streets. The Queen's Writ would not be able to run because the police were not seen to be impartial. This may have been only isolated cases and a few "baddies". I am certain that the majority of the Royal Ulster Constabulary are there to do a decent, honest job and I am sure that in the main they succeed. I am also sure that the B Specials feel that they are doing a patriotic, conscientious and noble job. This may be true of 100 per cent. of them, but it would not alter the situation one little bit because the myth is there, the fear is there, the suspicion is there. Because of this suspicion and fear no police force could have been accepted in the Bogside without some sort of trouble on 12th August, and I regret this.
Therefore it is most important that the Hunt Committee's recommendations should be carried out speedily. I welcome the declared intention of the Government in Northern Ireland in co-operation with Her Majesty's Government here to see that these reforms are carried out,
88
because the sooner we get the Queen's Writ running impartially in all parts of the United Kingdom the sooner can we start to create situations which will enable a better future. This will not happen overnight. One cannot hope to see it happen overnight, but there are signs that a situation is being created in which one can see hope.
I do not wish to go through all the details of the various proposals which have been mentioned, but the suggestion of a Londonderry local liaison committee is perhaps one of the most helpful things that have come out of the Hunt Report It is essential that the suspicions which exist on both sides and the fears which exist on both sides should be removed. This perhaps will be the best instrument for removing them.
I was also happy when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that the original proposals in the Northern Ireland Government's plan for local government reform have now again gone into the melting pot. This was seen in many quarters as merely a more sophisticated Derrymander. There would be the inclusion of Fivemiletown in Tyrone and Fermanagh, the loss to Derry of its hinterland, the apparent choice of Coleraine as a new growth point to the exclusion of Derry. Strabane and Castlederg have a population of 32,000 compared with Coleraine with a population of 110,000. These are all indications of a sophisticated Derrymander. They were, with the best will in the world, interpreted as being just that.
One point which has not been touched upon at great length today is the Emergency Powers Act. This is an emotive issue. If the protection of the north of Ireland frontier is to be given to Free-land's frontier force when it is constituted, which is controlled from Westminster, as it has been said it will be, surely the control of the agencies against internal subversion should also be controlled from Westminster. There is no need for an Emergency Powers Act to contain the Welsh extremists, although I grant that they are not on the same scale as the I.R.A. in the past. But we do not need an Emergency Powers Act. If we are to have British standards in Northern Ireland, the Emergency Powers Act must go. In fact, the Hunt Committee recommended this most strongly.

89
I am trying not to take up too much time, but I should like to refer briefly to the point which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) made about relations with the south of Ireland. The British Government have stated that they stand by the agreement contained in the Ireland Act, 1949, about the integrity of the north. The Prime Minister of the south has forgone the use of force in trying to unite Ireland. In those circumstances, surely it is possible for both sides to show generosity in bringing about positive worth-while co-operation, for two reasons. First, the more each side can be seen to be co-operating with the other, the more the fears and tensions which have existed and still exist can be diminished, and the more it can be seen that reasonable men exist on either side of that unnatural frontier.
But, second, it is tremendously important that this co-operation should come about soon because next year is celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the establishment of the Northern Ireland State as part of the United Kingdom. It could be an occasion for the waving of Union Jacks and tricolours, and the problems which would almost immediately follow. There could be a tremendous resurgence of nationalism among the minority. There could be a tremendous resurgence of jingoism, minus the British Army, among the majority. This must be avoided. It is therefore most important that there is co-operation between the north and the south. The suspicions are there. They will not disappear immediately. But at least a positive effort can be made to overcome them. If they are not overcome, even further trouble could result.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) said that he felt there was very little hope but that he hoped he was wrong. I believe that there may well be a great deal of hope. I was brought up in Liverpool where there was a colour question far worse than anything which exists in Wolverhampton, where it was orange and green. For years we had bad housing and high unemployment. Now there are jobs. The ghettoes in Everton Road, Vauxhall Road and Scotland Road are gradually disappearing. There is mixed housing. The communities are able to have a
90
healthy relationship one with the other. This has taken time. It has come about because we had fair institutions, in which we could work and bring about the necessary remedies. Many of the extremists disappeared because it was seen that their remedies perpetuated an existing grievance and did nothing to improve the situation. We can get rid of the grievances if we show the necessary degree of good will and generosity.
Therefore, for people to be immediately suspicious of anything which is coming would be wrong. But it would also be wrong for people to say, "Everything has changed, but nothing is different. The new frontier force is the B Specials in a different guise". This is a real suspicion and fear, and I should not like to see it happen. But the opportunities are there. People can work to operate a State in Northern Ireland under the new dispensation when the new reforms come, as was promised, by Christmas. The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland is known occasionally as Father Christmas, and it would be nice if all those promised reforms appeared on the Christmas tree at Christmas. Within the institutions it will be possible for people to have honourable ideas and attitudes. Republicanism and a desire for a united Ireland is an honourable and creative thing. The desire among the majority to maintain links with the United Kingdom is also honourable. What has happened in the past has been that one side has felt deeply suspicious of the other side's aims and desires. Within the new State it should be possible for the aims and desires of both sides to be expressed.
I hope that we shall see the day when we have a united Ireland, under terms acceptable to both north and south, which maintains and increases its links with this island. The hope for the future lies with the middle men on each side. Courage will be demanded. People will have to ensure that there are no more Fergusons and no more Hassans. The voices of the moderates who came in such tremendous numbers to support Captain O'Neill after his famous television broadcast and then disappeared almost as quickly should be heard. The institutions are there. Let us work them fairly and let them be seen to be working fairly; and the last part of the sentence is the most important.
6.18 p.m.
Sir Knox Cunningham: We are under the shadow of a tragic weekend. I am pessimistic about the future. I hope that nothing I say will increase the chance of violence or death in Ulster. I do not want to be provocative, and I hope that I shall not allow myself ever to be provoked. I want to make a short speech.
Her Majesty's Government have taken over security in Ulster. This means that from now on questions on security will appear on the Order Paper and debates will take place in the House. These matters are again back on the Floor of the House. After the 1918 Election and the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, everyone thought that the Irish question had ended at Westminster. It is salutary to read the HANSARDS of pre-1914–18 vintage. If anyone cares to refresh his memory by looking at columns 2272–8 of HANSARD for 19th March, 1914, he will see that Sir Edward Carson, as he then was, made the final speech about Northern Ireland, or, as in those days, about Ireland and Ulster, before the Great War broke.
What about the security that has been taken over by Her Majesty's Government? On 14th August the Army was called in to restore law and order. I personally regret that the Army did not come in to support the civil power as has been done previously in the United Kingdom. Instead, the Army is in control of security and directs the operations of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Special Constabulary?
What has been achieved in the past two months? I am not in any way blaming the troops but I do blame those who give them political direction from Westminster. The barricades have gone up and they have come down. The barricades have gone up again, and I trust that they will come down again. Most regrettably, lives have been lost. For the past two months an area in Londonderry has been under the rule of Mr. Paddy Doherty and his committee. No police are allowed in. There is no law and order. Citizens are being tried by private courts. The flag of the Republic flies there. The Queen's Writ does not run. The military stayed on guard outside that area until yesterday when it was announced that our patrols
92
would be allowed inside. This is in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Paul B. Rose: Hon. Members opposite are responsible for that.
Sir Knox Cunningham: I do not want to be drawn by provocative remarks. I want to make a very short speech.
I should like to ask the Home Secretary about a curious incident on 2nd October when Captain John Richardson, an Army doctor, who entered the Bogside to tend Mrs. Mollie Doherty, an elderly lady of 78, whose home had been damaged by a domestic gas explosion, was ordered to return to his own territory by an American citizen from Pennsylvania, a Mr. James O'Boyle, the chief security officer in Bogside. How does that come about in the United Kingdom? Who is responsible for security in the area? Is it the Army or Mr. O'Boyle? Is it in accordance with the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown taken before you, Mr. Speaker, for any Member to go into such an area and encourage the inhabitants to defy the Crown?
I want to say a few words about "discrimination"—and I put that word in inverted commas. I am speaking for a section of the community which, election after election, on the basis of one man, one vote, democratically return Unionist Members. I believe that religion is a matter for the person concerned. Whether a person is a Roman Catholic or a Protestant or a Jew or has no religion, that is a personal matter for him or her. Because I think that, I have never spoken about religion in any political speech that I have ever made until about a year ago. I do not believe it is possible, however, to talk about the present situation without referring to religion. I am doing it, I hope, without giving offence to any person. If I do give offence to anybody because of religious beliefs, I apologise now. I have never been given any instance of discrimination practised by the Northern Ireland Government against any Roman Catholic because of his or her religion. It simply does not exist. I hope, however, that there is discrimination against members of the Irish Republican Army and other terrorists who aim at overthrowing the Constitution. I should be horrified if such people were accepted as members of the security

93
forces, in the same way as I should be horrified if active Communists were not excluded from membership of the Special Branch in London.
Coupled with this reference to discrimination are references to segregation and sections of the community becoming—here again I use inverted commas—"second-class citizens". There is certainly a division in the Ulster community. Why is this so? May I give some instances? From the start of the Parliament of Northern Ireland 50 years ago, there was a provision for one of the chaplains at Stormont to be a Roman Catholic. That position has never been taken up by the Roman Catholic Church. The Head of the Roman Catholic Church does not afford the ordinary recognition to the Governor as the Queen's representative. Many Roman Catholics, but not all, will take part in any public function where the National Anthem is played or the Union Jack flown. All Roman Catholics go to their own schools and only mix with Protestant youth when they go to university. Is there any wonder that these attitudes make for segregation from the majority of the Ulster community who are intensely loyal to the Crown?
Mr. Rose: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how many members of the Northern Ireland Government over the past 49 years have not been members of the Orange Order?
Sir Knox Cunningham: No, I could not say, but I can say that there are quite a few who are not. I could not, however, give the figures.
May I ask the Home Secretary a question? Mr. Doherty is reported as saying to people in Bogside that the Home Secretary, during his first visit to Ulster, had said that he would
"bind Stormont hand and foot to ensure that discrimination would never again take place."
Did he say that, or words to that effect? If so, what did he mean? Was the Home Secretary referring to discrimination because of religion? If so, does he believe that he can ensure that Protestants will be happily welcomed as teachers in Roman Catholic schools or that Protestant nurses will be employed at the Mater Hospital in Belfast? Even if he meant some different kind of discrimination, was it a wise utterance to make when a democratically elected
94
Government were striving to maintain law and order during an armed uprising?
When the Home Secretary visited Bog-side at the weekend can he doubt that many regarded his action and reported jokes as appeasement to those who started the violence, who tried to burn the police with petrol bombs and have overridden all law and instituted mob rule? The danger is that other people begin to say that the only way to get one's views across and action taken is by violence. That is the terrible danger today.
Mr. Callaghan: The hon. and learned Gentleman asks me a question. I shall answer it. On my visits to Northern Ireland, in meeting a great many people, I have quite often found myself quoted and sometimes I have not recognised the quotations. I am sure that we have all had that experience. I do not, therefore, intend to comment on what people say about the way in which I phrased my remarks when I met them. But what I did say about discrimination—the hon. and learned Gentleman can be certain of this—was in line with what his Government in Stormont said in conjunction with the Prime Minister of this country in the declaration, which was that every citizen of Northern Ireland is entitled to the same equality of treatment and freedom from discrimination as obtains in the rest of the United Kingdom, irrespective of political views or religion. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman supports that, too.
Sir Knox Cunningham: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary, and I appreciate that he did not make that remark about binding the Stormont Government hand and foot.
Now, a word about the Hunt Report. The Report has been accepted in principle, and, no doubt, the Home Secretary used his considerable influence to make sure that it was. I hope that the right decision has been taken. My personal view is that it has not. I am glad that Lord Hunt and his colleagues paid tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and had this to say about the Ulster Special Constabulary, the B Specials:
"We know that, to a man, members of the Special Constabulary are devoted to the cause of Ulster and that they and their forebears have done gallant service, and we recognise the value of the anti-guerrilla patrols and

95
armed guard duties they have carried out, particularly in time of emergency".
Then they recommend the abolition of the B Specials.
The Home Secretary does not recall the events of the early years in Northern Ireland when it came into being. I do. I was there. Gunmen came up from the south, which is now Eire, and the I.R.A. was in action in Ulster. Murder walked in daylight in the streets of Belfast. Twaddell, a Unionist Member of Parliament, was assassinated in the centre of the city and left dying on the pavement. Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson was assassinated in London.
The people who, over a long and difficult time, brought peace and restored law and order were the newly formed Royal Ulster Constabulary and the B Specials. The military certainly helped, but they could not have done it alone, and the Black and Tans had by that time been disbanded.
In the present position of appalling danger, the Hunt Committee recommends that the Royal Ulster Constabulary be disarmed. I hope that the Home Secretary realises that the army has been given an almost impossible task and will be engaged in that task for years, not months.
What is the root of the trouble? It is the aim of a minority to use force to disrupt government, and the fear of the majority for the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. The great majority of Ulster people are determined to remain part of the United Kingdom under the Crown.
Mr. Peter Mahon rose—
Sir Knox Cunningham: I am just about to finish. The hon. Gentleman will have opportunity to make his own speech.
There are 3 million people in Eire and 1½ million in Ulster. The loyalists see Mr. Lynch moving troops to the border, and they hear him say,
"The reunification of Ireland is the ultimate solution".
The loyalist people of Ulster are determined to remain British and will not go into a Republic. In conclusion, I quote the last four lines of some verses written by Kipling about Ulster in 1912 which have a relevance today:
96
"What answer from the North?
One law, one land, one Throne.
If England drive us forth
We shall not fall alone."
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that I have appealed for brief speeches.
6.35 p.m.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: The hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) began by saying that he hoped that he would not provoke any other hon. Member. I cannot answer for that—I do not think that he provoked anyone here; it was more a matter of amusement than anything else—but in Northern Ireland his remarks this evening can certainly be calculated to inflame the so-called loyalist opinion the representatives of which are now rampant in and around the Shankill Road, shooting down British soldiers and members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. If that was not the hon. and learned Gentleman's intention, he should have had second thoughts about making such a speech as the one he has just made.
During the years that I have been in the House, the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South has been regarded as one of the most extreme Unionists sitting here. It is his opinion and his mentality, ably supported by allies of the mentality of Craig and Paisley—he has repeatedly appeared on their platforms—which has brought about the terribly dangerous situation which has existed and still exists in Northern Ireland today.
We have heard of fears about the abolition of the Border and the fears of the Protestant community. I am ready to admit that there is a fear among the Protestant community at the present time. They feel that they will lose something; they feel that they have had something which, in fact, they have never had. The seven conclusions on this matter reached in the Cameron Report were clear and explicit. The Cameron Commission was in no doubt that there were very real fears—well documented, to use its own words—about discrimination in housing, in local Government appointments, in the manipulation of local government boundaries, a growing sense of frustration among the Roman Catholic minority about having their grievances redressed by the Stormont Government, and a fear of the B Specials and of the Special Powers Act. Those six fears were

97
very real. The Catholic minority in Northern Ireland have had to live with them over the past 50 years since the inception of that State.
There was then the seventh conclusion in the Cameron Report, that the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland are afraid that there may be, through an increase in the Roman Catholic birth rate, a Catholic take-over of Northern Ireland.
I ask every reasonable Member of the House to put those two situations together: on the one hand, six firm and real fears about discrimination in housing and in jobs, about gerrymandering, about the B Specials and about the Special Powers, and, on the other hand, a fear of something which has never been put into practice—in effect, that "Our justification for the six sins of which we have been found guilty by the Cameron Commission is that you will breed us out of existence and, perhaps, we shall have the same treatment that we have been giving you for the past 50 years". It cannot be accepted.
For many years, both while I have been in the House and for long before that, representatives of the minority in Northern Ireland have appealed to you, Mr. Speaker, and to your predecessors to get the House of Commons to take action. The fourth conclusion of the Cameron Report is that there was a powerful sense of frustration among the Catholic minority because the Northern Ireland Government would not listen to their legitimate grievances. I have been here since 1966, and I felt that same terrible sense of frustration, with many of my hon. Friends, when we attempted to raise the question at the Despatch Box and to go to the Table of the House to focus British public opinion on what was happening in Northern Ireland. We were told that because of the niceties of the Convention of 1920 there was a convention that the House was not prepared to question what was happening in Northern Ireland. That is why we find ourselves in the tragic position of today—because for 50 years we were not prepared to face up to what was happening under the aegis of the Government here in Northern Ireland.
As I said—and I said it last week in another place—I am now prepared to admit that there are very real Protestant fears. They are completely unthinking
98
fears. I have met these people in recent weeks, and their fears almost border on hysteria because of what they have been told throughout the years, in speeches such as that by the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South, speeches in Northern Ireland by the Member for Larne, and the well-known clerical gentleman who has so disrupted Northern Irish life in the past 10 years. It is in this way that these fears have been instilled into that section of the Protestant community in Northern Ireland.
They have been told that if they do not vote Unionist, if they do not vote Tory, and if they dare to vote Labour, the border will disappear and all their rights will disappear with it. That is completely untrue. The Unionist Party has deliberately exploited sectarian differences. It has deliberately kept the two communities apart in Northern Ireland, with the intention of maintaining and perpetuating its political rule in Northern Ireland. If there is a sin to be answered for in political life, it now lies fairly and squarely with the Unionist Party.
I have always said that there was a great parallel to be drawn between the Unionist mentality in Northern Ireland and the mentality in Rhodesia today. This is true. The loyality of the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, of the Unionist extremists, is conditional. They are ultra-loyalists. They will fly the Union Jack and sing the National Anthem of the United Kingdom—so long as Britain is prepared to accede to their demands and afford them privilege and favouritism. But let the British Government be deflected from that line and we see what we tragically saw on the streets of Belfast on Saturday night, which I regret as a Socialist. I never wanted to see, and hope to God never to see again, British soldiers firing on anyone in Northern Ireland, whether from the Falls Road or on the Shankill Road. These are ordinary Irish people, in such a hysteria on Saturday night that they fired on British troops and their own R.U.C., for whom they were allegedly campaigning. I do not blame them. They deserve the greatest pity and sympathy that we in this House can afford them. But that happening, that convulsion on Saturday night, was as a result of 50 years of listening to the propaganda which emanated from the Tory-Unionist Party in Northern Ireland.

99
I am not saying that the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland as it exists today is responsible for what happened on Saturday night. I am not saying that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) is responsible, or any other hon. Member, except perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South. What I think they will admit in their own conscience is that the situation has not been helped by what has been said by previous Administrations in Northern Ireland—previous Prime Ministers like Lord Brookeborough and Lord Craigavon, who said,
"This is a Protestant Parliament for Protestant people."
How can he expect a Catholic minority not to be afraid? Lord Brookeborough, Prime Minister of Northern Ireland for 20 years, said,
"A Roman Catholic? I would not have one about my place."
How can he expect the Roman Catholic minority to have any faith in the Administration he headed?
I do not completely absolve the present Unionist Administration in Northern Ireland, nor hon. Members here. They must bear some of the guilt for the indoctrination which has taken place over so many years and which has driven the poor, oppressed, working class Unionist majority into the same ghettoes and mentality as their Catholic brothers have had to live in.
I listened keenly to hear the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South condemn the activities of the extremists which have taken place in Northern Ireland over recent months. I listened for him to condemn the people on the Shankill Road who fired machine guns at British troops and shot dead a young R.U.C. constable. He did not, and I do not really think we expected him to. I listened to him, and there was an interjection from this side of the House—
Sir Knox Cunningham: I would like just to make it plain to the House that of course I condemn violence and always have.
Mr. Fitt: That conversion will certainly make my day.
100
I listened to hear whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would condemn what happened in Bombay Street on 15th August, when 66 Catholic homes were burnt to the ground, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was able to see. But this condemnation did not come, and unless there is a forthright, outright condemnation of such activities no one can be sure that they will not happen in the future.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) made a very reasoned speech this afternoon, which was calculated to take the tension out of the atmosphere. I congratulate him, and only hope that his words are listened to with a great deal of interest in Northern Ireland. But he said that in his discussions with his Unionist colleagues in Northern Ireland he had found great resentment because the Queen's Writ did not run in the enclaves in the Bogside and Derry and certain areas of the Falls Road. I believe that there is bitter resentment there, but did they tell him why these enclaves came about? The barricades in the Bogside were erected against the incursion of a police force which the people, rightly or wrongly, believed would do injury to the men, women and children behind those barricades. They went up because of the bitter experience of what happened in Derry on 15th October, on 4th and 5th January, and 19th April, when a man died after having been visited by the police. There can be no contradiction. That was why the barricades went up in the Bogside.
Why did they go up in the Falls Road area? Because in the late hours of 14th August and early hours of 15th August a rampaging Protestant mob—and here I must make a qualification—
Mr. John E. Maginnis: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is making a judgment on what happened on 14th August. Surely, this should be left to the Scarman Tribunal?
Mr. Speaker: Order. No point of order is involved at present.
Mr. Fitt: There must be a more subtle way to try to silence me.
On the evening of 14th August and in the early hours of 15th August, a mob of extremists—I hesitate to use the word

101
"Protestant", because I do not believe—
Mr. Stratton Mills: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has referred to 14th August. Perhaps he would refresh the memory of the House about the evening of 13th August, because he admitted on television that the call went out from Londonderry for a diversionary attack on the Hastings Street police station in the Falls Road area, for people there to take the heat off Londonderry, and he condoned that in a subsequent television broadcast. Perhaps at the same time, as he has quoted the Cameron Report—[HON. MEMBERS "Speech."]—he might also refer to what the Cameron Report says about him.
Mr. Fitt: The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) is trying to force me into the position of admitting that the people in Falls Road made a diversionary attack on Hastings Street police station. This is not true. A call went out from the chairman of the civil rights movement, on behalf of the people of Derry, after 48 hours of constant attacks by members of the R.U.C. when over 1,000 canisters of tear gas were thrown into their homes. They asked that something should be done about the situation and for the withdrawal of R.U.C. members. There was no question of an attack on the Hastings Street police station.
Hon. Members opposite would like to pose in the House as moderates. We are the in-betweens. The hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South is on the one side, Paisley is on the other, and we are the moderates. But once the true facts are told of how a mob of their supporters went into the Falls Road area, through Percy Street and Dover Street, and burned houses in that area, of how they shot up and killed innocent people, when a young boy of nine was killed by a bullet which went through two or three walls, they are not prepared to condemn those things. They jump to their feet and say "It is wrong and grossly exaggerated".
I do not ask anybody in this House just to accept my word. Many hon. Members have been able to go to those places and see the bullet holes. They have seen the rubble in Bombay Street, where before the attack stood 66 houses.
102
In this debate we must try to find out the reason for the trouble and see if we can take any steps to ease the tension which at present exists in Northern Ireland. At the moment there seems to be a blockage of communication between the two communities in Northern Ireland.
Yesterday afternoon I received a telephone call from an irate lady, who said that she did not support me politically but lived in my constituency, requesting me to take some action to get British troops out of Shankill Road. This was a request by a loyalist. I tried to reason with her, and asked her why she thought the British troops went to Shankill Road in the first place. I asked whether she agreed with what had happened on the Saturday night and whether she condemned the indiscriminate firing at British forces and the R.U.C. Eventually she began to see reason.
I asked her why she thought British troops were forced to fire on the mob in Shankill Road. The Home Secretary said in his speech this afternoon that a mob of 5,000 was marching down the Shankill Road to a Catholic ghetto in Unity Walk, a road which is completely isolated. Had the mob succeeded in reaching it, with their machine guns and the other arms they were carrying, there would have been an absolute holocaust, a massacre. Thank God, the British troops were there to prevent that.
I speak as an Irishman who believes in the eventual reunification of his country. I cannot find words of praise high enough to commend the actions of the British troops since they arrived in the streets of Belfast. Had they not arrived there on 14th and 15th August hundreds of people would have lost their lives. It was only through the presence of the British troops that many lives were saved.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been criticised by the Unionists in Northern Ireland and by some of the more vociferous journalistic elements in Northern Ireland about the timing of the publication of the Hunt Committee proposals. It is said that they should not have been published on Friday morning because the weekend is a dangerous time in Northern Ireland. The truth is that at whatever time they had been published they would have brought about the same result. It was inevitable that there

103
would be a right-wing backlash as a result of the report of the Committee.
I realise that I may have said some very hard things during the course of this debate, but I have said them with complete honesty and conviction. I know what happened. My constituents in Belfast, West were burned out of their homes in Bombay Street. I know that there is a bitter and burning resentment among the Catholics of Northern Ireland that no steps were seen to be taken to apprehend the perpetrators of those dreadful outrages. The things that happened in the area which I have the honour to represent are symptomatic of all the evils which affect the whole community in Northern Ireland.
What does one do in this situation? Am I supposed to say that there are fears on both sides, that we should all live together and should all take steps to ease the tension and to create a better future for all? Of course I subscribe to those principles. But something must be said to the Protestant working class majority in Northern Ireland, who have been deluded for so long, to make them realise how long and how dangerously they have been deluded.
I ask hon. Members whether they can see any justification for the burning of homes and the distress and despair which has been caused in Northern Ireland over the past two or three months. As the representative of the Belfast, West constituency, I represent all my constituents irrespective of religion. I repeat that I do not believe in Protestants burning Catholic homes or in Catholics burning Protestant homes because it is un-Christian to involve oneself in such an act.
I conclude by saying, in the knowledge that in Northern Ireland politics I may be taking something of a political risk, that I hope I may live to see the day when we have a Socialist Government for the whole of Ireland. I remember saying in my maiden speech in this House that if I supported Socialism for England, Scotland and Wales, then I must be given the right to demand Socialism for my own country. I believe that my sincerity and bona fides were accepted on that occasion, and I believe that they are accepted today. I commend the Labour Government not only to the
104
people of Northern Ireland, whom they have helped recently by the decided stand which they have taken, but also to every Irishman in the United Kingdom as a Government worthy of support. I hope that that support will be forthcoming at the next election.
7.0 p.m.
Captain L. P. S. Orr: In nearly 20 years in this House I have never found a debate more difficult to approach. I say this for two reasons. The first reason is that if ever objectivity and calm were required it is now, and it is difficult in present circumstances to speak without passion. The second reason is that every single word said in this House may affect human lives.
It would be easy on an occasion such as this to make the kind of speech which would be loudly applauded by the majority of one's supporters and constituents. It would be easy to say things that would make one very popular but it would not be in the best interests of those constituents so to do.
It is with that in mind that I find this debate exceedingly difficult to approach. It is for that reason that I shall not enter into the argument between my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). The hon. Member for Belfast, West was not out of order in seeking to conduct an inquest or in laying the blame upon his political opponents. That was a fair tactic.
The Scarman Tribunal was not set up by this House and, therefore, the hon. Member was not out of order, but I think that he was unwise to anticipate the Scarman Tribunal. I prefer inquests to be conducted when calm is restored. I prefer inquests to be conducted when the Scarman Tribunal has given us the facts as well as it can. Consequently, I do not propose, tempting though the hon. Member for Belfast, West well knows it would be, to join in the inquest.
I want to talk about the present situation and the future, because I respond to what was said by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The tone of the hon. Member's speech was reasonable and moderate, and I welcome that. I did not agree with what he said, but, none the less, I accept the tone of it.

105
The first subject with which I would like to deal—and this, in a way, is fundamental to the whole issue—is the question of the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Here, the hon. Member and I part company. We do not want to see a united Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, West and I part company as well on this. What we want to see preserved is the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland remaining part of the United Kingdom.
One of the things for which it would be totally ungenerous not to applaud the Home Secretary was that the first thing he did on coming to Northern Ireland was to re-emphasise his party's and his Government's support for the Union. He was right to do so, and I welcome what he said. It is a curious paradox that out of all that has happened, one of the great Protestant fears, which the hon. Member for Belfast, West recognised to exist, was the fear that they would be sold down the river to what they regard as a foreign State. The Home Secretary made it plain that this was not so. When it is realised that those who have those fears considered that the aim of the civil rights movement, the people's democracy and all the other organisations which appeared to be causing trouble was to destroy the Union, it is a paradox that out of everything that has happened there is one thing that is good: that is, that the Union with Great Britain is now safer than ever before. This is a gain for which we have to thank the Home Secretary.
It would have been easy for the Home Secretary, because of historic reasons and pressures in his party, to have been equivocal about this. Members of his party have been equivocal about it before. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was not equivocal. I for one respect what he did and I thank him for it.
So the Union is safer than ever before. This is not appreciated in Northern Ireland. It is remarkable that as a result of all that has happened the two great parties in Britain are now committed absolutely to the preservation of the Union. To a Unionist, that is a great gain. [Interruption.] Indeed it is. If it were thoroughly understood at home, it would do a great deal towards the reduction of tension.
106
May I say a word about Protestant apprehension. One of the oldest instincts of mankind—and it is not confined to man; it is found in practically the whole animal kingdom—is a desire to mark out and protect one's territory, the old territorial instinct. The ornithologists tell me that even the bird song of the blackbird is to mark out his territory. One of the oldest instincts of mankind is to say, "This is my land" or, "This is my house", and anyone who seeks to invade that territory is looked upon as an enemy.
In the case of the Ulster Protestant, one cannot really understand all that has happened unless one grasps the simple fact that after the Tudor wars, when Northern Ireland territory—the north-east corner of the island—lay derelict, there came, rightly or wrongly, English and Scottish colonists to settle in those northeastern counties. Unlike other people who had come before, that colony put its roots into the soil. They built the bridges and the roads. They cut down the forests and drained the fields. They made the agriculture and industry and, rightly or wrongly, they regarded the territory as theirs. When this is clearly understood, and if it is understood with compassion, all else becomes explicable. It may not necessarily be excusable but it is explicable. It is then understood why some councillors on a local authority allocating dwellings may say, "The people who are the enemies of our State—".
Mr. Rose: Five years ago, when I put that to the hon. and gallant Member, he asked me to produce a dossier and said that discrimination did not exist.
Captain Orr: I remember very well the occasion five years ago. The hon. Member said that there was discrimination. I said that there might very well be discrimination—
Mr. Michael McGuire: The hon. and gallant Member has always denied it before.
Captain Orr: If the hon. Member looks at the record, he will see that that was what I said. I also said to the hon. Member, however, that if he would let me have his dossier, I would see that every case in it was fairly and justly examined. I am still waiting for the dossier.

107
All that has happened is explicable if the territorial instinct is properly understood. The deep feeling of the Northern Ireland Protestant about the special constabulary is explicable—everything is explicable—if one clearly understands this.
Mr. Peter Mahon: Is it not explicable, too, that if ordinary justice had emanated from the Stormont Parliament its integrity would not be in question?
Captain Orr: I do not think that the integrity of the Parliament of Northern Ireland is in fact in question. I hope to come to that question, which is germane. It is easier in this context if an hon. Member can make a speech without interruption. I always readily give way, but this debate is one of great significance and I should prefer not to give way. In any case my speech will be shorter if I do not give way.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) said, the Army is our Army. It is doing an extraordinarily difficult job. I am glad that the hon. Member for Belfast, West paid tribute to what the Army is doing. It is very difficult to say that everything that every commander does, or even the overall military direction, has been right without doing something to undermine the authority of the troops on the ground. Consequently, this is not the time for inquests into the handling of affairs when troops are engaged in this extraordinarily difficult task.
The task of everyone of good will is to deplore attacks upon the Forces, to deplore anything which looks like resistance to their attempt to enforce law and order, and to sustain them in their difficult task. Impartiality is difficult to achieve. There may come a time when I shall have to say some things about the success in achieving it. I have certain views about certain things. I do not think that it is wise to say them now, because in anything that has to be done we must support the forces of security at this time.
On the question of the reorganisation of the police, the Royal Ulster Constabulary has accepted the Report of the Hunt Committee. Is the Home Secretary shaking his head?
Mr. Callaghan: "Accepted" understates it. It has positively welcomed it.
Captain Orr: I accept from the Home Secretary that the R.U.C. has welcomed the Report of the Hunt Committee. The trouble about the Report is that it is not quite clear exactly what is to happen. We may need a little more enlightenment upon the details.
No one can complain at the fact that the R.U.C. is to become a completely civilian police force. This is right. It is sad that the force has had to carry the burden for so long in the way it has. I am glad that the Home Secretary paid tribute to its magnificent efforts over so long and in such a difficult situation. The force is held by all Ulstermen in esteem, verging in some cases upon idolatory.
It is difficult, in the context of reorganising a police force, to avoid giving the impression that the force has done something wrong, has committed a great crime against the State as a whole. It will be helpful if the Home Secretary can assist to prevent public opinion from reaching the view that the reorganisation of our police force is a reflection upon it. He has done something to bring this about, but it may not have been enough.
I accept that the special constabulary has been, to say the least of it, held in disfavour by certain sections. Hon. Members opposite must accept from me that the Special Constabulary has been held by the Ulster Protestant as one of the great guarantees of their liberty. I therefore think that it is wrong for hon. Members to suggest that what is happening is that this famous force is to be abolished, that these men are suddenly to be told that they are no longer wanted. It is not right to use the word "disband" when talking about this force. These men will be required for the defence of the State, if the Report of the Hunt Committee—
Mr. Rose indicated dissent.
Captain Orr: If the Report of the Hunt Committee is accepted, men at present serving in the B Special Constabulary will be required in the security force under the General Officer Commanding. In other words, the House is making more clear than it ever did before, as it should have done long ago, that the

109
security of the State of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom is the responsibility of the House.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: But the hon. and gallant Gentleman said we should not interfere.
Captain Orr: Indeed not. The security of this State, the security of the frontier of the United Kingdom, should have been made clear long ago. The fact that these men are to be used in this way is a good thing. There should be no talk about "disbanding" the force. One can think of nothing more inflammatory than to talk in those terms.
Mr. Lubbock: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not represented correctly what the Hunt Committee said. It said that an opportunity should be given for all members of the community to enter a new force, not least those former members of the B Specials who were educationally and otherwise qualified. The emphasis there is a little different from that put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to put what interpretation he likes upon the Hunt Committee Report. He concludes that the definition excludes most of the members of the Special Constabulary. I say that it does not. I shall interpret this in my way, and the hon. Gentleman can interpret it in his way.
We ought to address ourselves to what should be done. I do not share the pessimism of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy). I am sorry that he is not present at the moment. I see a good deal of hope in the present situation. I see the possibility of much good coming out of evil.
There is one solution which would not work, and that is the concept advanced by the hon. Member for Thurrock, namely, that this Parliament and this Government should seek to rule Northern Ireland directly from here. That would not work. If government is made difficult with the support of a Parliament freely elected on the basis of universal adult suffrage, which is how the Parliament at Stormont is elected, how much more difficult things would be if administration were the responsibility of a Secretary of State at Westminster. There
110
could be no better recipe for civil war on a big scale—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—That is not intended to be inflammatory. I am surprised at the reaction of hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is no threat in that. I am merely saying that if things are difficult with a freely elected Government—and I am sure that the Home Secretary understands this—it might be impossible if government is carried on from here. I do not think that that is the solution to the problem.
That being so, one must consider the solution which does present itself. There is only one solution, and that is to sustain the Northern Ireland Government in the policies and plans which they have put forward. We can argue about the past if we want to. We can argue about whether it is too late to do anything, or about other matters which would not help the situation. The fact is that never before has there been a parliamentary democracy in which an Opposition have exerted pressure so effectively as to bring about so large an exercise of power, so comprehensive a system for protecting civil rights, and so elaborate a procedure of guarantees.
One must in fairness to the Ulster Government recognise the extent to which they have encountered difficulties and dangers—and not only political—in their efforts to bring about those changes. I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite should recognise how far this has gone. I welcome what Cardinal Conway said, but I think that there ought to be more expression now from the minority of the fact that they are not to be enemies of the State, that having achieved British standards they intend to be British and help us to maintain the integrity of the State. I do not doubt that everybody is trying to be objective and fair, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will recognise that that is necessary.
If the Home Secretary pursues the path broadly set out in his speech, he can expect no opposition from these benches.
7.25 p.m.
Mr. Hector Hughes: I am particularly glad of the opportunity to take part in this debate at this stage because the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) and the hon. and

111
gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) provided us with admirable exercises in parliamentary effort to prove the impossible. They tried to prove either that there was no discrimination in Northern Ireland, or, alternatively, that if there was it was justifiable and justified. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), on the other hand, in an equally good parliamentary performance demolished both arguments and proved, first, that there was discrimination in Belfast, and, secondly, that it was not justifiable.
I am particularly suited to deal with those arguments, because I am an Irish Protestant. I have lived in Ireland. I was born and bred there. For many years I practised at the Irish Bar. I know Southern Ireland and I know Belfast. I have practised at the Bar in both places and on circuit in the rest of Ireland. I therefore humbly suggest that I am in a good position to deal with the elements of the three speeches to which I have referred.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South and the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South tried to prove that there was no discrimination, or that if there was it was justifiable or justified. Unlike them, I want to sound a note of hope and to show that while there is this discrimination, and while it is not justifiable or justified, it can be cured. Past thinkers realised before partition that there was a danger, but that it could be avoided if suitable measures were taken.
The barriers which separate the Catholics from the Protestants in Northern Ireland are not merely the barriers to be found in the streets. They are barriers of mind and soul. They are barriers which prevent the citizens from realising that they are all brothers under the sun, and the sons of God.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said that these barriers were set up by a minority of evil persons in Northern Ireland. We all know that there is a certain gentleman who calls himself "Reverend" and who parades about Northern Ireland preaching anarchy and causing trouble and destruction.
The fact that the Government of Northern Ireland have allowed that kind
112
of thing to happen and to persist is evidence of their failure to govern properly. It is a tragic failure by the Ulster Government resulting from the artificial partition which disfigures Ireland.
I was charmed to see that the constructive thinkers in this sphere followed the admirable line of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Home Affairs. When he visited Northern Ireland he gave a strong warning that Ulster's trouble makers must be brought to justice swiftly, and he acted accordingly with satisfactory results so far.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone is reported in The Times as saying:
"The immense majority of people in Ulster are good men, but on both sides there are evil men in a very small minority."
I agree with both those speakers. But the fact that the Government of Northern Ireland failed to preserve law and order, the rule of democracy and justice, is evidence of their failure. The cure for these troubles is the elimination of partition. That is supported by the contrast between the conduct of the citizens in Northern Ireland and those in Southern Ireland. In Southern Ireland there is no rioting and destruction. They are orderly citizens. Catholics and Protestants live in peace together. I know, because I was there during the Parliamentary Recess.
The question for the House to consider is: how and why did this evil minority inflict these troubles on what the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylehone calls the majority of good citizens? Why did not the Ulster Government prevent or stop it? What is the solution to the present troubles? Why is there such a contrast between the peace, order and good government in Belfast and Dublin respectively?
The answers are stated quite openly. I refer to the dicta of some of the great parliamentary and political thinkers of the past. They deprecated sectarian societies which were allowed to organise, develop and act provocatively in Northern Ireland.
One immediate instance that we all know is the march of the Apprentice Boys in Londonderry. The Stormont Government did not prevent it. They took no

113
steps to deal with it. Worse, a fortiori, they have discriminated in the giving of houses and employment and the other ordinary rights of citizenship.
There is no such provocation in Southern Ireland, which is not sectarian. It is democratic and practises the rule of law, equality of opportunity, fair play and democracy without religious prejudices.
Irish history supports what I have just said. I shall not go into historical reminiscence beyond referring to what was said when Home Rule was granted to Southern Ireland and partition was created. On that occasion, King George V, when opening the present Northern Ireland Parliament in Belfast in June, 1921, said:
"This is the prelude of the day in which the Irish people, North and South, under one parliament or two, as those parliaments may themselves decide, shall work together in common love for Ireland upon the sure foundation of mutual justice and respect."
They have not done that. They have done it in Southern Ireland, but not in Northern Ireland.
Miss Bernadette Devlin rose—
Mr. Hughes: At the same time, Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) is seeking to intervene. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware and wants her to intervene.
Mr. Hughes: I will not quote at length.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. An hon. Lady behind the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to intervene. Does he give way to her or not?
Miss Devlin: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: I beg the hon. Lady's pardon. I did not see her.
Miss Devlin: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, in the first place, in this debate the behaviour of the Dublin Government is not in question? But, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has brought it into question, I, standing on this side of the House and being Irish, must point out that the illnesses which exist in the north of Ireland also exist in the south. The social and economic
114
troubles are not on a religious basis, but on the basis of the same troubles in the north in that the poor suffer while the rich do not. The south is not free from these problems any more than we are.
Mr. Hughes: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention which, with respect, is not relevant to the argument I am presenting.
I was about to quote from Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister of Britain at that time, who said:
"Ireland is a nation. Not two nations, but one nation. There are few cases in history—and as a student of history in a small way I know of none—of a nationality at once so distinct, so persistent and so assimilative as the Irish."
Even Lord Craigavon, who at one time, as Mr. Craig, was Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, said:
"In this island we cannot live always separated from one another. We are too small to be apart and for the border to be there for all time."
I now come to the last quotation with which I want to trouble the House. It is from probably the greatest man in Britain—perhaps in the world—over the last hundred years. I refer to Sir Winston Churchill, who said:
"Whatever Ulster's right may be, she cannot stand in the way of the whole of the rest of Ireland. Half a province cannot impose a permanent veto on the nation. Half a province cannot obstruct for ever the reconciliation between the British and Irish democracies and deny all satisfaction to the united wishes of the British Empire."
I am sure that the House will agree that the British Commonwealth is built on brotherhood, on the co-operation of the nations which compose the British Commonwealth, and Ireland was part of it, is associated with it, and with Ireland the other nations are its main strength.
I said that I would not trouble the House with more quotations. I was mistaken. I must quote another. This is a current quotation from the Prime Minister of Southern Ireland, Mr. John Lynch, who, on 20th September, said:
"I need not explain or justify the fundamental desire of the overwhelming majority of the people of this island for the restoration in some form of its national unity. This desire is not confined to Irishmen of any particular creed or ancestry. I want to make it clear, however, once more, that we have no intention of using force to realise this desire. I said as recently as 28th August that it was and has been the Government's policy to seek the reunification of the country by peaceful means."

115
I said at the beginning that these troubles are caused by the partition of Ireland. The terrible facts of trouble and discrimination have been adequately dealt with in the Cameron Report and the Hunt Report. They are beyond question.
The real solution of these problems is the elimination of the border. I have a Question down tomorrow to ask the Prime Minister to invite the Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland to London to confer with him with a view to seeking a means whereby the border can be eliminated. In my view, that is the way that peace can be achieved in Ireland.
7.42 p.m.
Mr. Eric Lubbock: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his historical excursions, except to say that, judging from the quotation which he gave from King George V, His Majesty was a great optimist and his hopes for the future of the Northern Ireland Government which he expressed at the opening of the first Parliament in 1921 certainly have not been justified.
But if I may come on from 1921 to 1969, which is the subject of this debate—with great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not think that we have time to go over the past 50 years, although that would be interesting another time—everyone would want to echo the tributes paid to the Home Secretary for the very hard work which he has been doing over the summer—I know how much time he has been spending on it—and also to express his thanks to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) not only for his excellent speech at the Tory Party conference but also for his outstanding contribution to the debate this afternoon.
I will try to keep the temperature down to the level which both right hon. Gentlemen set as their example and not say anything which might exacerbate the situation in Northern Ireland, which is still very tense after this weekend. As the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said, we must remember that every word said in this Chamber could mean a danger to some-
116
body's life in Northern Ireland if construed in the wrong way. I shall bear in mind that wise advice.
I am surprised that the situation has changed so quickly in the last few months, so that we can debate here the subject of Northern Ireland, which we have never done in the past. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) that if we had been able to go into this situation earlier, we should not have the difficulties and disasters which face us in Northern Ireland today. If in 1964, the last time that I can remember that we had a full-scale debate on every aspect of the Northern Ireland situation, speeches like those today from the two Front Benches could have been made, the disasters this summer could have been averted. But, of course, that was not possible then.
We have always been inhibited by the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, even though some people have argued that under Section 75, because this House is all-powerful, we could have been able to discuss questions of discrimination and so on. One result at least will have been achieved by the events of this summer. No longer can we be prevented from discussing those problems, if they are not cured, because Westminster has now spent money in Northern Ireland and Ministers are directly responsible for what happens there. Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham), who deplored this as an undesirable tendency, I think that the best way of ensuring continued progress is if Westminster always has the power to overlook what happens in Northern Ireland.
This does not mean that I do not trust the Stormont Government. To take up another point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, I would express my wholehearted admiration of Major Chichester-Clark and his Government on what they have managed to achieve and on the tremendous change in the attitude of their own supporters, which is remarkable. Captain O'Neill was pushed out of office because some of the things which he tried to do were along the lines of the present reforms announced jointly by the Home Secretary and Major Chichester-Clark. One is delighted to see that Major Chichester-Clark has been able to persuade the Unionists in Stormont that these reforms

117
are absolutely necessary and to take his colleagues along with him.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) said that fear was directly at the root of the present difficulties—for instance, the fear of the Protestants which underlies their thinking on the subject of the border—and others have mentioned the fears of the Catholics. The hon. Member for Belfast, West mentioned this. Therefore, whichever part of the community we are talking about, whether Catholics or Protestants, fear is at the root of the situation.
It was wise of the Home Secretary, on his first visit to Northern Ireland, to say that the border did not come into the discussion, that it was absolutely guaranteed, and that, unless there were any change of opinion in Stormont—which is, of course, most unlikely—the border would not be an issue. The right hon. Gentleman has done a lot there to set Protestant fears at rest.
Similarly, when Unionists speak in their constituencies, I hope that they will not mind my advising them that they should try to set at rest the fears of their Protestant supporters when talking about the speeches of Dr. Hillary and Mr. Lynch. Although they have said—we have known this for many years—that it is the policy of the Southern Ireland Government that Ireland should be totally reunited, they have reaffirmed clearly that they would do nothing to achieve this end by force. This should also be mentioned when discussing the speech of Dr. Hillary to the United Nations or the various remarks of Mr. Lynch over the last few months.
Also on the subject of fear, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that, if the threats to the security of Northern Ireland were to be the responsibility of the Westminster Government, as foreshadowed in the Hunt Report, that Government should also assume responsibility for dealing with an extraordinary situation which might arise, such as we had in 1956 in Northern Ireland, when otherwise the B Special would have been employed and the Special Powers Act invoked. But if the Westminster Government is taking over responsibility for the one, it should equally be in charge of the other. The Special Powers Act would no longer be needed and could therefore be rescinded.
118
So I would agree with the hon. Member that the time has now come to look again at the Special Powers Act.
I said that one should keep the border absolutely separate from any discussion of civil rights in Northern Ireland, and I welcomed what the Home Secretary said on his first visit, but, at the same time, it is impossible to leave it out of a discussion on Northern Ireland altogether. Practically every speaker has referred to the border. In fact, the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North made it the whole theme of his speech and was not concerned with any of the other problems which affect Northern Ireland at present.
My only comment on the border is to support the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone about bridge building. Much has been done, and a great deal more could be done, to build bridges; for example, in tourism and electricity generation. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone mentioned a subject dear to my heart, the possibility of the Government of Northern Ireland and the Republic jointly considering the building of nuclear power stations. This subject was referred to in the recent Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology when dealing with the nuclear reactor programme of the United Kingdom. The more that co-operative ventures of this kind could be launched between the Republic and Northern Ireland, the more we could reduce tension and assist in the economic development of both regions of the country.
On a personal note, and without speaking for my party, I believe that the long-term goal in people's minds could be a united Ireland within the framework of a united Europe. This could come about in 15 or 20 years' time, but whenever it occurs it must be done without compulsion and always at the wish of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. As one who believes strongly in the principle of self-determination, I could not be a party to a decision which would be against the wishes of the majority.
I agree with virtually everything that has been said about our troops having done a magnificent job to preserve peace in Northern Ireland. While I have not

119
visited Northern Ireland personally, I have spoken with many people who have been there during the troubles, including some hon. Gentlemen opposite. All have been impressed with the efforts of the armed services and have spoken of the magnificent restraint which they have shown in a most provocative situation. The House should express its sincere thanks to our troops for what they have done, for they have prevented a far greater loss of life than would probably have occurred had their presence not been maintained.
While nobody can say with certainty how long the troops will have to remain if further loss and destruction is to be avoided, I hope that the Secretary of State will give an undertaking that the troops at present committed to Northern Ireland will remain there as long as their presence is necessary for the maintenance of peace and that forces will be committed in sufficient numbers and strength to ensure that order is maintained.
I am prompted to comment on Lord Hunt's Report and particularly the ending of the B Specials by the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South. When we reconstitute this force we must be careful to interpret correctly what has been said about members of the B Special force being eligible to join the reconstituted organisation in accordance with their educational and physical qualifications, just as other members of the community will be eligible. I intervened in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South to make this point because I understood Lord Hunt's remarks to mean that he wants to see a more balanced type of force than we have had.
It is remarkable that there was not one Roman Catholic member of the B Specials. If we are to reconstitute this force in a way that will make it acceptable to all sections of the comunity, there will obviously be room for only some of the old B Specials to rejoin, bearing in mind that the force will be smaller—Lord Hunt recommended a maximum size of 4,000, meaning that there will not be room for all the old B Specials—and particularly if it is to contain some Catholics as well. This is bound to mean a smaller minority of the old B Specials being able to rejoin.
120
I have a positive suggestion to make to the Government, one which has not yet been considered but one which would do a great deal to reduce sectarian tension in Northern Ireland. I have written jointly with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party to the Home Secretary making this suggestion, and while I trust that the matter is receiving his urgent attention, I appreciate that we cannot expect a definite answer tonight. The suggestion is of such importance that it should be made known to the House so that others can also consider it.
If one considers Northern Ireland politics one finds that the most depressing feature is the close affiliation between one's religious adherence and one's political beliefs. If one happens to be a Unionist one is almost automatically a Protestant. If one is a member of the Opposition one is almost invariably a Catholic, although there is not quite the same correlation in the Opposition as in the Government party. Thus, religious prejudices are constantly fed into the political discussion and one cannot get away from them, and that will be the position as long as this close correlation persists.
We believe that the reason for the present state of affairs can be largely explained by the electoral system in Northern Ireland whereby since the parties can choose only one candidate for each constituency, they naturally choose a candidate whose religious view is likely to be acceptable to the majority of voters in that constituency. This is why one always finds a Protestant standing as a Unionist candidate.
In the south, on the other hand, a different situation applies because there one has the single transferable vote in a multi-member constituency so that it is possible for people of all religions to stand for different parties. We find Protestants and Catholics mixed up in the platform presented to the electorate, whether it is for the Fianna Fail, the Fine Gael or even the smaller parties. This does not occur in Northern Ireland, with the result that the moderate and progressive forces in the north, such as members of the Northern Ireland Labour and Liberal Parties as well as some sections of the Unionists, are not able to make progress.

121
I join with the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone in deploring the tragic departure of Mr. Ferguson from Northern Ireland politics. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Ferguson when we did a television programme together in Dublin. I felt that he was the kind of man who held out some hope for a change in the political outlook of the Province. It is almost impossible to envisage such a change coming over the political scene in Northern Ireland while the present electoral system persists. I therefore hope that the Home Secretary will give extremely careful consideration to the views which we have conveyed to him on this subject.
Mr. McGuire: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the most serious indictment that can be made of politics in Northern Ireland is that the Unionist Party is tied to the Orange Order, that a Catholic is not encouraged to join the party, although the members of it do not mind Catholics voting for them, and that nowhere is it officially said that the party wants members of every and no religion to join and become active members?
Mr. Lubbock: Mr. Ferguson resigned from the Orange Order, and perhaps what the hon. Gentleman said was the reason why it became so intolerable to him. Mr. Ferguson received abusive letters, and threats were made against himself and his family to such an extent that his health suffered and he had to retire from politics. The close connection between the Orange Order and the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland was, I felt, a feature of his resignation and it is another defect in the system which would be corrected if we did not have this process of elections being tied so closely to religious groupings and sectarian organisations.
I am not trying to be provocative. I think that this is absolutely inseparable from the single-member constituency, with the first-past-the-post-system. If one has a multi-member constituency, as they have had in the Republic for 50 years, one entitrely avoids that kind of sectarian politics. Experience has shown that to be true.
To sum up, there are four things that I think must be done. First, we must remove fear, and we can do this with the Protestants partially, as the Home Secretary has, by saying that there will
122
be no alteration of the boundaries without the consent of Stormont. I would prefer to go further and say, "no alteration without the consent of the people". We can remove Catholic fears by taking the steps the right hon. Gentleman has taken jointly with Major Chichester-Clark to remove discrimination.
Second, we can aid Northern Ireland economically, and I am delighted with the progress that has been made on that front. There is the creation of new jobs, spoken of by the Home Secretary in his speech this afternoon. But I hope that this will not be through the maintenance of defence establishments which have passed their useful life, as suggested by two hon. Members on this side of the House. I hope that we shall create new jobs in new industries with a long-term future, and not prop up establishments with only a limited usefulness whose existence can be justified only on political considerations.
Third, we must keep the troops there as long as necessary. I was pleased to see the Secretary of State for Defence nodding as I made that point earlier.
Fourth, we as a House must resolve that this will not be the last time we discuss the problems of Northern Ireland. Now that the whole field has been opened up, Westminster has at long last recognised its responsibility. We shall continue to watch the situation there until the reforms have been implemented and peace has been restored.
8.2 p.m.
Miss Bernadette Devlin: Sitting here this afternoon listening to hon. Members discuss the Northern Ireland situation and their repeated pleas to have no recriminations and no provocative speeches, I was reminded of a simple sentence from a school Shakespeare:
"What! will these hands ne'er be clean?"
It is interesting that both sides of this honourable establishment try with fine words, with non-provocative speeches, with very responsible attitudes to the problems of Northern Ireland, to say nothing that might make them realise that the problem of Northern Ireland is not one which comes out of whether one believes in the virgin birth or whether or not one happens to go to a Roman

123
Catholic church. It started in this Parliament, in this building, and it was actively continued, actively supported, by the Members of this establishment, both Labour and Conservative, who may now talk about conventions that were not very wise, about things that were impossible not only five, 10, 20 years ago, but things that were impossible one year ago. Now they are all possible, but, "Let us have no recriminations. Let nobody, Labour or Conservative say here, 'We were wrong. We are the people—not the Rev. Ian Paisley and his hot Gospel, not the mobs in the Shankill Road or in the Bog-side, or any Queen's Writ anywhere—but we the people who deign to govern these islands, who think we are responsible to tell the people how they should run their lives, we are the people responsible for the death of Mr. King in Londonderry and Constable Arbuckle in Belfast.' "
It is your fault, your blame, and your shame, and I do not intend to stand here and make no recriminations and no provocative speeches.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Absolute rubbish.
Miss Devlin: It is not absolute rubbish. You have sat in this House a damn sight longer than I have. It was rubbish only a year ago. The people who did not have rights and votes and could not lead a decent life said "Rubbish" then. You said "rubbish" 25 years ago. And on 5th October, the Prime Minister as much as said "rubbish" when answering a question of my hon. Friend. You say "rubbish" when people are dead in Northern Ireland who will never vote, never have houses and never have jobs. Rubbish to you, sir. It is not your father, your mother or your child.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Lady must use the conventional language when addressing the House.
Miss Devlin: I apologise for not using the conventional language.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis rose—
Miss Devlin: I will not give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr.
124
Kenneth Lewis) must resume his seat if the hon. Lady will not give way.
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. The hon. Lady is answering an intervention of mine, and she is suggesting in not very—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
Miss Devlin: I apologise for my lack of conventional behaviour in the House, and will attempt to be less provocative, more conventional and less recriminative. Nevertheless, when we return to the quiet, smug, self-satisfied attitude in which the rest of the debate was continued, let us look at the problem of Northern Ireland and what hon. Members have said. Let us forget that until today hon. Members were not very interested in saying, nor were the honourable Government very interested in doing, anything about Northern Ireland.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer rose—
Miss Devlin: I will accept that there are quite a number of people—
Mr. Heffer: Let us have the truth.
Miss Devlin: There are people who have worked hard, but to no avail, to try to get the House to listen. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has been here for years, and for the work he has done Lord Cameron said that he did nothing but seek publicity. Had it not been for the work he did that was not listened to, and but for the publicity he attracted to 5th October, the Home Secretary would not have bothered to go to Belfast to see what was happening, if the events which he deigns to call nonsense on the streets had not been forced to take place.
Those are the facts. They may be emotional, provocative and recriminatory, but they are the hard facts. I do not speak as a mature and esteemed politician but as an individual born and bred in the system that you actively supported in Northern Ireland, and someone who, like many others, has suffered under it.
What do we get today as solutions? We get everybody talking about Catholic and Protestant fears. Nobody asked why the Protestants are afraid. Nobody asked

125
why the people in the Shankill Road came down it armed, and shot what they call their police and their British Army. No reasonable man would do it. Hon. Members told us that it was because of Protestant fears of the Catholics out-breeding them.
I shall read something that is not emotional but is sheer statistical fact. The party which the people in the area known as Shankill support has been in government in Northern Ireland for 50 years. That Government's most adamant supporters are known to everybody to be the people of Shankill and Sandy Road area in Belfast. What have they done for the people who have supported them almost fanatically for 50 years? The conditions of the people who live in the Shankill in Northern Ireland's capital city are shown by the following figures. Those houses with no internal toilet—95 per cent. Those houses with no bath—96 per cent. Those houses with no hand basin—95 per cent. Those houses with no hot water supply—97 per cent.
Who are the people who follow the Rev. Ian Paisley? Are they fanatical Protestants who hate Catholics? No, they are not. They are a people, a people who have been led and betrayed by a Government who used their religion for that Government's own political ends, a Government who for 50 years led those people to believe that by virtue of their being Protestants they were superior beings. That was what that Government gave them for their superiority, but still they were led to believe that they were superior. They were told that to be Protestant was to be Unionist and to be Unionist was to be Protestant, that Ulster was British and was right. Suddenly, they were told that what was right as a way of life was now wicked and to be condemned, and they found the people they voted for on that basis totally disowning them, turning round to them saying, "What we told you was wrong. What we led you to believe, without giving you an economic basis of security, was wrong. It is better for us now because we can keep our power by following Mr. Callaghan and we do not need you."
That is why these people came down Shankill. That is why 6,300 people voted for the Rev. Ian Paisley in Bannside. That constituency is 83 per
126
cent. Protestant and 55 per cent. of the houses in it have no flush toilets, while 47 per cent. have no piped water at all. It is our ex-Prime Minister's constituency.
These few and simple facts are why we have a near-revolution in Northern Ireland. It is not because people are Roman Catholic or Protestant. It is because the people are too poor, because the Northern Ireland Government decided they could keep the working class divided on the basis of Catholicism and Protestantism, just as in this country people are kept divided on the basis of colour, black or white, Englishmen or immigrant. But they are kept divided.
But Northern Ireland was not living in isolation. There was the Government of Ireland Act, containing Section 75. Therefore, it is the responsibility of this Parliament, of those who sat here year after year and pretended that it was not happening until they could pretend no longer, until it came upon them and they could not ignore it any longer. But they always did the minimum. They took the least possible action at the latest possible date—indeed, only when it was almost too late to do anything.
Now we find that we have paid a bitter price for the little we have got, that still the Members of this Parliament, and still the Labour Government, do not understand our problems. A Socialist Government cannot see that the social ills of Northern Ireland are much more important than the question of law and order. Yet, without those social ills, the threat to law and order would not exist.
We are grateful to the Home Secretary for the new scheme of housing he is introducing. But there is one great problem, and it is a sad problem. Northern Ireland cannot afford to solve its problems financially. The Home Secretary's new housing scheme is about to be born with congenital paralysis. We have been told that 73 local authorities were building houses and now we are to have one outhority. Is the new housing authority to take over the debts of the Northern Ireland Housing Trust and of the local councils? If it is to take on the debt of the Northern Ireland Housing Trust it starts with a burden of almost £20 million which the Trust pays out—almost as much in interest every year as it collects in rents.

127
I demand that the Labour Government—because they and successive Governments at Westminster have been responsible for it—underwrite the debt of the Northern Ireland Housing Trust and give us an authority which can at least start building some houses. Let us have less of the poor law relief schemes, which are an insult to working men. Let us stop saying to them, "Get on to the roads and into the forests in the winter because that will keep you happy until we think of something else in summer."
Let us have State industries in Northern Ireland. It is surprising that it is not the Labour benches but the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) from the benches opposite who has said that we should not have relief schemes but should all start doing something about bringing real industry into Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] I am talking about what has been said today. I make it clear for the benefit of the irate hon. Members around me that I am not talking about those who have done their best to bring these things to the attention of the House. I am talking about the House, which did not listen, and the Government, who did not choose to act.
What we need is a guarantee of 3,000 permanent jobs for the people of Northern Ireland within a year and a housing authority which can start building houses—and then we shall begin to solve the problems of Northern Ireland. That is the way, and not playing about with gestures like sending Catholics to Protestants' houses and Protestants to Catholic houses and looking as if we are behaving ourselves. We want real, meaningful gestures which will make the people of Shankill and Bogside see that they have no reason to fear each other because there is enough to go round for the poor for a change.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Stratton Mills: The speech by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) was negative in content—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—except for the one part which was Marxist in orientation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It should be viewed in the light of her remarks elsewhere that she was going to come here and make faces at the Prime
128
Minister and that she was also going to urge a boycott of British goods and British airlines. Whilst I do not want to refer to many more of her activities, I ask her one question, which she did not deal with.
The hon. Lady told us that she was going to America to raise one million dollars. She went to America and subsequently left having collected 92,000 dollars—9·2 per cent. of what she had aimed for. She left America in a great hurry, without a Press conference. She left at an hour or two's notice. I would like to know what purpose these funds are being put to. Has the hon. Lady given information to the Attorney-General of New York State as to the telephone conversation she is supposed to have overheard? I invite her to clear the matter up now.
Miss Devlin: I would like to take this opportunity of answering the three hon. Members who went to the United States. One of them said that I was such a silly little girl that I should not be paid attention to. However, I note that they all paid their own fares to New York.
It is true that I collected about 92,000 dollars. It is not surprising that apparently the hon. Gentleman knows exactly how much I collected. I had these people on my tail saying, "She is stealing all the money", "She is going to run away with it", or "She is going to put it to terrible purposes." I put that money into banks in the United States where I collected it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Do you know the names of them?"] Yes. I am not as stupid as some hon. Members opposite.
Nevertheless, I left America because I was sure that the money I had collected would be used for the purpose I intended, but I was not sure that any further money I collected, because of the strain on me of keeping up with that job, would be used for the purpose. So I decided to leave America. What I did was much more honourable than what the hon. Gentleman has done—and I seem to remember that I made a considerable fool of him on television.
Mr. Mills: The hon. Lady this evening runs away once again from answering the question.
Mr. McGuire: Tell us about Northern Ireland.
Mr. Mills: The hon. Lady spoke at great length about everything except the point which I asked her about. A very big question mark must hang over her fund-raising activities and other activities in America. [An HON. MEMBER: "And in the Bogside."] I shall be coming to the hon. Lady's activities in the Bogside in a few moments and I hope that she will not run out of the Chamber as she ran out of America. I regret that I have to begin addressing the House in an atmosphere of some tension, tension which has been fanned by the hon. Lady and is not of my choosing.
Much has been said in the debate about British standards in Northern Ireland. Both Front Benches have referred to the Northern Ireland Government's programme of reform. I think it important to put on record that the programme of reform was started five years ago by Terence ONeill. Perhaps the pace was not great enough. Perhaps one could say that it is easy to be wise after the event, but I certainly think now that the programme of reform has gained momentum in Northern Ireland. It was started by Terence O'Neill and has been continued by Major Chichester-Clark. What is important is that the Government of Northern Ireland, the Cabinet of Northern Ireland, the Unionist Parliamentary Party and the Standing Committee of that party as a whole are all firmly committed to this programme.
Mrs. Anne Kerr rose—
Mr. Mills: I wish to make progress with my speech, if the hon. Lady will forgive me. Perhaps she will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I wish that there had been slightly more generosity of spirit among hon. Members opposite—I exclude the Home Secretary from this—in a recognition of the very real and sincerely meant programme of reform which is now under way in Northern Ireland. When one talks of British standards one also talks about economic standards. I welcome what the Home Secretary said about further assistance in economic development. I had hoped that he might have gone further. This is a modest programme, but it is welcome. I hope that the mind
130
of the right hon. Gentleman is open to other ideas and initiatives over British standards of employment so as to reduce unemployment in Northern Ireland and bring employment to the level existing in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Also when one talks of British standards one joins in welcoming the assistance given by the Civil Service. One welcomes the assistance and the interest taken by the Home Secretary and the pledges which he gave today. One welcomes the assistance of the Army, which is our Army too, in helping us during a very difficult period. When one talks of British standards this help from other parts of Britain is something which we feel is assistance we are entitled to. Throughout the debate hon. Members have made reference to the fears felt on both sides, by Protestants and Catholics. The Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) both emphasised this today.
I beg the House not only to see the fears of Roman Catholics but to try to understand the very real fears of Protestants in Northern Ireland, to try to understand those fears and the reasons behind them. My hon. Friends have gone into this in considerable detail. It is easy for us in this House to gloss over those fears or to listen to the superficial reference made by the hon. Lady, but they are very real fears. To get an understanding of the situation and to get the programme of reform, they must be borne continually in mind. I think that the Home Secretary from his visits to Northern Ireland understands this.
It is also one of the prerequisites to ask for a rigid enforcement of the law. We have a new Inspector General, a man of great experience, and one joins in welcoming him and wishing him well in his new post. He has behind hire experience in many parts of the world, including the City of London. I know that we can call on the assistance of other police forces in Britain. When one asks for a rigid enforcement of the law I fully accept that it must be applied to both sides. This was emphasised by the Home Secretary on his arrival in Belfast. As well as Shankill Road, this includes the Bogside and the enclave in the Falls Road area. There is no doubt that one of the factors contributing to the Protestant backlash on

131
Saturday night was the continued existence of areas where the Queen's Writ did not run, in Bogside and the Falls Road, and the existence of what many people believe to be a double standard.
Mr. Rose rose—
Mr. Mills: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to conclude my speech. The events on the Shankill Road on Saturday night must have put a chill of horror into all of us in this House. The police and the Army were fired upon in circumstances which no one could defend. I believe that the continued provocative nature of the enclaves in the Bogside and Falls Road has contributed greatly to the troubles of last Saturday night.
The Army has a very difficult job to do, and I join in no criticism of it, but I have heard many reports that the Army is now approaching everyone from the Shankill Road as a trouble-maker. If a person comes from the Shankill Road he is automatically viewed by soldiers as a trouble-maker. I think it will be borne out by more detailed examination that the overwhelming bulk of the people of the Shankill Road are decent, law-abiding citizens and it is a small, noisy, dangerous rabble who must be clamped down on, who are causing the trouble. It is of great importance that that should be understood.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) talked about the violence which had taken place in Belfast in August. He referred to Bombay Street. I have seen Bombay Street, and I have also seen Conway Street, and I was appalled by what I saw. I was sorry that he, as the Member for Belfast, West, did not take the opportunity, as I did, of going to the other side of barriers and—[Interruption.] I went to the Roman Catholic side of the barriers.
Mr. Rose: What is the hon. Gentleman frightened of? Does not he know that if my hon. Friend went into that area he would be gunned down immediately? Does not he know how many threats of death many of us have received from these people? Has he not, in an interview of 30 minutes on television with me, defended every one of the things which happened two years ago which were condemned in the Report? Is not this sheer hypocrisy on his part?
Mr. Mills: I have been on both sides of the barricades in the Falls Road. I went without a police patrol. I believe that there was no danger from anyone. I am sure that the Protestant people of the Shankill Road would welcome the opportunity of puting their point of view to the hon. Member for Belfast, West. But the hon. Gentleman did not go there. When he described the events which I have condemned, as he condemned them, he did not say that the first person who was intimidated and bombed out of her house was a Protestant of 80 years of age, Mrs. Gilmour of Hooker Street, in my constituency. He did not refer to the 70year-old blind Protestant man, Mr. Totten from Blackwater Street, who, as reported on 4th October, was chased out his house because of intimidation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Mr. Stan Newens: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mills: No. I wish to make a brief speech and then resume my place.
Mr. Newens: Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many Catholic houses were burned out?
Mr. Mills: I do not deny—and I have said this publicly before—that far more Catholic houses were burned out than Protestant houses. I have condemned that in Northern Ireland, and I condemn it here.
Mr. McNamara: As the hon. Gentleman has made an attack—
Mr. Mills: I will not give way.
Mr. McNamara:—on my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) must remain seated.
Mr. Mills: I am not giving way.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West called a meeting of his constituents in which he said that no person, Catholic or Protestant, would be bombed out of his constituency if he could help it, and he received the support of the meeting for that statement of policy before the troubles reached Belfast, West.
Mr. Mills: I referred to a blind man of 70 years of age, an ex-Service man, who was chased out of his house in Blackwater Street, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and the hon. Member did nothing about it.
I wish to refer to the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster, who always looks so sweet and smug.
Mrs. Anne Kerr: That is very rude.
Mr. Mills: I have here a picture showing her engaged in the peaceful pastime of breaking up bricks and missiles in Bogside. I want to refer the House to a Dublin magazine which shows her engaged in making petrol bombs. The significance of her activities in deliberately engaging in stirring up violence in Londonderry is such that I hope that both she and the hon. Member for Belfast, West will take an early opportunity of going to the Scarman Tribunal and making a full statement about what they were doing on these occasions.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give way, hon. Members must remain seated.
Mr. Mills: The only person to whom I will give way—
Mr. Orme: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mills: —is the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster, if she would like to give an explanation about her petrol bomb and missile throwing activities.
Miss Devlin: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that as he is not God Almighty he does not know everything that I intend to do. He may be aware of his own self-importance, but he does not know that I have already notified the Scarman Tribunal of my eagerness to assist and I shall be doing so. I shall give my evidence to a responsible body, to the Scarman Tribunal, and not to someone who changes his coat as he does his politics, like the hon. Gentleman. I am not answerable to him and therefore I will not make a statement to him.
Mr. Mills: I am glad that the hon. Lady is to give evidence to the Scarman Tribunal. I hope that she will remember, when she takes the oath before the Scarman Tribunal—
Mr. Orme: Go out with Paisley.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order. I do not wish to comment on the activities of the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), but I was very grateful for the barricade which she helped to build behind me.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should not make an intervention under the guise of a point of order.
Mr. McNamara: The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) raised a point of order about evidence before the Scarman Tribunal. This is evidence which is to go before that tribunal and has not yet been heard. Surely this is sub judice and the hon. Gentleman should not be allowed to continue in this way.
Mr. Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) has referred to the oath. I request that he be asked by you to withdraw any disreputable remarks of this kind which reflect upon hon. Members of this House. He has suggested that an hon. Member of this House—
Mr. Mills: On a point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can rule only on one point of order at a time. Mr. Rose.
Mr. Rose: The hon. Member has suggested that an hon. Member of this House is deliberately not telling the truth. Will he withdraw that allegation—
Mr. Mills rose—
Mr. Rose: —and restrain himself till I have finished my point of order? Will you ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his implication suggesting that the hon. Lady is not telling the truth?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) was interrupted in the course of a sentence. Mr. Stratton Mills.
Mr. Mills: The hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster admitted in America that she had broken the oath of allegiance which she took in this House. I am making no implication. I am merely asking—
Miss Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important

135
question. I wish to take up this matter very seriously with him. The hon. Member and his colleagues have seen fit to misrepresent quite a lot of what was said in America. Because I do not put very much faith in people like the hon. Member, I have a number of witnesses—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid the hon. Lady is not raising a point of order. She is trying to re-enter the debate.
Miss Devlin: Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I ask what protection I have against allegations made from the other side of the House?
Mr. Orme: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we can have one point of order at a time. Up to this point I have not seen fit to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, North.
Mr. Orme: With due respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, surely hon. Members on this side of the House may have some protection against irresponsible allegations from the other side of the House? We ask for a Ruling on this matter.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Ruling is quite clear. Personal attacks are certainly forbidden and are frowned upon in this House. I hope the hon. Member will not pursue any more personal attacks in the debate.
Mr. Newens: Mr. Deputy Speaker, is it not a fact that if an hon. Member makes statements in this House which reflect upon the integrity and truthfulness of another Member, those statements are out of order? Is it not a fact that the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) has made such statements and accordingly should withdraw them?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Attacks on the integrity of any hon. Members are certainly not in order. So far as I have heard up till now, no such attacks have been made.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that the hon. Lady apparently seeks to intervene in every speech either by asking hon. Mem-
136
bers to give way or by raising points of order? Yet when she made some outrageous statements at the beginning of her speech she refused to give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a genuine point of order. Mr. Stratton Mills.
Mr. Mills: Some hon. Members on the other side of the House appear to be unduly sensitive on this point, but the facts speak for themselves. I am not going to pursue the matter any further. I think the House will have noted that the hon. Lady gave no explanation at all about her missile-preparing and petrol-bomb-throwing activities in the City of Londonderry. When we hear what she has to say to the Scarman Tribunal, at least we shall have the benefit, first, that she will be under oath and, second, that she will be under cross-examination.
I move now to another point in conclusion—
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This is an important matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Belfast, North has made a statement again about missile throwing, about petrol bombs, and so on. It may or may not be true, but the point is that subpoenas have been served upon the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) to answer summonses on those matters. Therefore, the points raised by the hon. Gentleman are (a) sub judice and (b) would place the hon. Lady in a difficult position. Is it not, therefore, quite wrong and ungallant of him to say such things? In fact, they are out of order, and typical.
Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before you occupied the Chair this evening, Mr. Speaker ruled that, whether it was desirable or not that the matter of the Scar-man Tribunal should be sub judice—as I endeavoured to treat it during my speech—technically speaking, it was held under the order of the Stormont Parliament and, therefore, it was in order to refer to it here without the sub judice rule being applicable. That is my understanding of the Ruling. I should be obliged if you would confirm it, or say that I am mistaken.
Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the greatest respect to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), this point is different from the question of the Scarman Tribunal. These are criminal charges.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am seized of the point of order. On the question raised by the hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, I concur in and confirm the statement which he made. But I suggest that the hon. Member for Belfast, North might not pursue the point which he was making with reference to those charges.
Mr. Mills: I have been endeavouring to move to a conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in order to allow another hon. Member to take part. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I have no intention of withdrawing. Let me make that clear. What I have said is entirely justified by the facts and by the photograph which I have produced.
I wish now to conclude on a different point, if the House will allow me. It has been said that behind this enormous programme of reform introduced by the Stormont Government, introduced in a short time and introduced in an atmosphere of violence in the streets, it is essential for there to he a great response from the minority in Northern Ireland to make the reforms work. I was glad that both the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone emphasised that today.
Mrs. Anne Kerr: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Does he accept—
Mr. Mills: I hope that other hon. Members opposite who have great influence in these matters and have many contacts with Northern Ireland, even though they represent constituencies away from it, will play their part in encouraging people to respond to the programme of reform and to remember that there must be a full Roman Catholic response to the privileges and the responsibilities of citizenship. I was glad that Cardinal Conway had joined in this process. I ask the Home Secretary to do everything he can to encourage the minority to play their full part in Northern Ireland.
Mrs. Kerr: Will the hon. Member give way?
An Hon. Member: Oh, shut up.
Mrs. Kerr: I will not shut up.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must resume her seat if the hon. Member for Belfast, North does not give way.
Mrs. Kerr: Will the hon. Gentlemen give way? I have asked three times.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must respect the Chair.
Mr. Henry Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not the hon. Lady's insistence that she will not shut up a gross disrespect to the Chair?
Mr. Mills: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for taking up time. I have been trying to finish for the last ten minutes.
Mrs. Kerr rose—
Mr. Mills: I believe that the hon. Lady is trying to instigate something under the guise of a point of order. Could I say—[Interruption.] It is elements such as we are now seeing—
Mrs. Kerr rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already asked the hon. Lady to resume her seat. The hon. Member for Belfast, North is not giving way.
Mr. Mills: As I have said on about eight or nine occasions, I wish to conclude my speech. I have referred to the necessity for a response from the Roman Catholic community, which I hope will be forthcoming. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to play a part here. That, combined with the programme of reform, is vitally necessary for Northern Ireland.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: This is the first occasion when I have spoken in the House on Northern Ireland. I want to say from the outset that I deprecate one or two speeches that have been made which have not been positive, and which have clouded the vital issues at stake. As a working-class person witnessing these events in Northern Ireland I have felt that it has been a tragedy that ordinary working class people, Catholic and Protestant, have been involved in a struggle against each

139
other when they should have been uniting their ranks to fight together for the elimination of poverty and unemployment in Northern Ireland.
That, to me, is the great tragedy. I know this deep down here, I know it because I come from a city which in many ways had the same difficulties and problems as Northern Ireland now has. In the main the people of my city have learned to live with one another, to unite in their interests as citizens, irrespective of whether they are Roman Catholic or Protestant.
For example, only two weeks ago I went into a small and mean street in my constituency—and there are a lot of them—precisely the sort of street that exists in Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland. Every year the people of that street organise a day out to the seaside, at Southport, to which the whole street contributes. I went into the house of the man who is the secretary of this organisation, and on his wall was the Orange sash. I went into the chairman's house, and on the wall was the Sacred Heart. They had worked together for the benefit of the people in that street. What can be done in Liverpool today can also be done in Northern Ireland.
I want this lesson to go home today. We have had some extremely important speeches, and it has been said that the minority in Northern Ireland must make a response. They made their response in the Bogside a few days ago when they removed the barricades. They are now disbanding their committee.
We hear all about reforms, but these reforms should have been brought in a long time ago. The minority in Northern Ireland, since they are citizens of the United Kingdom in the same way as we all are, should have had those reforms as of right.
I hope that we will not keep raking over all these things as we have done in the past. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) quite rightly said that we are prisoners of the past. One still sees sometimes on the walls in Liverpool "No surrender. Down with the Pope." What a lot of nonsense it all is. The fight for Derry happened 400 years ago. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not quite."] Well, 300 years ago. I am a hundred years out. Any-
140
way, it is a very long time ago. Are we going to have that battle all over again? Is it not idiotic in this technological age?
Everybody has a right to full citizenship and to full democratic rights. I believe that in the ultimate it would be a good thing to have a united Ireland, but the best way to achieve such a goal is for the whole of the people in the north to have complete equality in rights with the people in the south and for them both to bring their social systems into line with each other. When they have eliminated the problems there will be no reason to have a border. But that is in the future. The real issue is not the border, but the right of people to have equality inside Northern Ireland.
I draw the attention of the House to the words on page 11 of the Cameron Report:
"It is plain from what we have heard, read and observed that the train of events and incidents which began in Londonderry on 5th October 1968 has had as its background, on the one hand a widespread sense of political and social grievance for long unadmitted and therefore unredressed by successive Governments of Northern Ireland, and on the other sentiments of fear and apprehension sincerely and tenaciously felt and believed, of risks to the integrity and indeed continued existence of the state."
There lies the problem and it is the responsibility of this House to do everything possible in a positive way to solve it. That was the main point in the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone in regard to his positive suggestions which were in line with the proposals made by the Home Secretary.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will also tell the Conservative Party in Liverpool to put a stop to their agreement with the Protestant party and to start putting up Conservative candidates in the wards held by Protestants at present.
Mr. John Tilney: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) must know that there is no agreement—there may have been in decades long past—between the Conservative Party on the local councils and Protestants in Liverpool. I have had a Catholic chairman, who is now a vice-chairman of the Liverpool Conservative Association.
Mr. Heffer: I am delighted to hear that there is no agreement. I ask the

141
hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) to tell his party to put up candidates in the areas where these particular people hold seats. In parts of my constituency we are now finding Catholic candidates in the Conservative Party. This is something positive which has not occurred in the past. I want this to be extended.
I make this point only because the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone said that we have to go forward and not back. Because we have to go forward, I ask in all sincerity that the Conservative Party, which has, perhaps, gone a long way in the City of Liverpool, will go just that bit further and put up candidates in every ward in the city, as we do, so that we fight the elections on the basis of politics and not on the basis of religion, as has happened in the past.
I do not want to make a long speech. The arguments are known and have been reiterated time after time in this debate. We could go into the historical past. We could argue what we mean by freedom, which, after all, means different things to different people at different times. The Protestants rightly fought for freedom to express their opinions and their religion in the past. So often we find that the very thing one fights for becomes transformed into the opposite at a certain stage of development. Unfortunately, this is what has happened concerning Northern Ireland.
We could go into all those arguments and into the arguments of the struggles of the people of Ireland for their freedom against Britain. We could go into the fact that Protestants were alongside Catholics in that struggle. Some of the greatest leaders of the Irish people who fought for their independence were Protestants and not Catholics. That is the historic truth. At this stage, however, we do not wish to go into those arguments, not because they are sterile, but because they will not help us out of the situation that we are in.
Therefore, I appeal once again to hon. Members. What we have achieved after bitter struggles in my city, I hope that the people of Northern Ireland will achieve in their area as well, where Catholic and Protestant workers not only work alongside each other in the docks and in the factories. A beginning has
142
been made in Northern Ireland precisely because the workers in Harland and Wolff and in other factories now work alongside each other and the old antagonisms are not developing in the factories, because the trade union movement has given a positive lead in this direction. Let us extend that further. Let us not despair.
An hon. Member who spoke earlier said that he was full of despair and depression. I understand the bitterness of the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), brought up in that environment. I understand only too well. In my family, for example, when a Catholic married a Protestant—I have both sides in my family—there was antagonism at one stage. We live with these problems, however, and we overcome them.
It is not a question of concentrating the whole time on the religious aspect. Let us unite our forces, both here in Britain and in Northern Ireland, and fight to eliminate the poverty, the unemployment, the slums and the bad, rotten, lousy conditions under which not only Catholics, but Protestant workers, live. If we make that serious contribution, we shall have made a contribution towards peace for ever in Northern Ireland.
8.59 p.m.
Sir David Renton: I must confess to something of a fellow feeling with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) when he described the religious conflict within his family. I am in the strange position of being an Anglican who had among his God-parents an Irish Roman Catholic priest, and a Scottish Presbyterian aunt. Therefore, on the religious issue, I hope that I can be said to be sitting squarely on the fence.
It may seem to be tempting Providence for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to call the Member for Huntingdonshire to intervene in this debate, because Oliver Cromwell was one of the Knights of that Shire. I intervene on account of four and a half years in the Home Office during which, I assure the hon. Member for Walton, we did a great deal to inject capital into Ulster. We even went out of our way, somewhat uneconomically from the United Kingdom point of view, to arrange that several important defence

143
contracts should be placed in Ulster rather than in Britain. When considering what to do with present defence installations in Ulster, the Government could well follow that precedent.
I am possibly among the few Members of the House, perhaps the only Member, who has visited nearly all the police posts along the border. I have travelled, so far as one can travel, because it is very inaccessible in places, a great part of the border. Although I welcome practically every point in the Report of the Hunt Committee, it would be unrealistic to say that when the police have been civilianised the various police stations on the border could be eliminated. As a matter of practice those where there are highways crossing nearby will have to be retained.
The Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) have set us a splendid example. For once, I agree entirely with what the Home Secretary said. I pay tribute to his speech, as I do to the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend. Tomorrow we shall be discussing civil rights, and we shall not then be in agreement with the Home Secretary.
I am thankful, in particular, that the Home Secretary stressed that responsibility for law and order must rest upon the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland and that we must back Stormont. Northern Ireland cannot be controlled from Whitehall. Some people think that the situation might get worse and worse so that it will have to be controlled from Whitehall but the more difficult the situation becomes in Ulster, the more impossible it would be to exercise control from the Home Office. Therefore, it is right to support the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland in the decisions he has taken.
It was very wise to appoint Sir Arthur Young as Inspector General. From my contact with Sir Arthur in the past I am sure that he is the best man for the job.
I am also thankful that the Home Secretary made it clear that the Army would defend the border. The Hunt Report does not deal fully with this question. The Home Secretary very valuably filled in the gap today.
144
On the question of the border, much depends upon the attitude of the Government of Eire from time to time. When I went along the border in 1958 it was because of I.R.A. trouble which the Eire Government condemned. The defence of the border must be done in depth when the Army are doing it. However, the frontier posts would have to remain, whatever the attitude of the Irish Government, because they will not be held responsible for what the I.R.A. or others might do.
The Home Secretary warned us of oversimplification. He could also have warned many people against exaggeration. I am tempted to say that the real problem now is how to isolate the extremists on both sides from moderate, reasonable people whose genuine fears they exploit, whose grievances they exaggerate, and whose freedom they threaten by force and intimidation. I think it is fair to say that on the Catholic side the extremists who exploited the civil rights movement, which had a good case, and most of whose grievances have been met, or are being met, are now out on a limb, and hence the improvement in the Bogside.
But what about the extremists on the Protestant side? It is absurd to say that they have no following and no fears to exploit. They have the fear of one day being dominated politically by the Irish Catholics, whether the border remains or not, and it is no use saying to Protestants, "But democracy is just a matter of arithmetic. If one day you are outvoted, you will have to accept majority rule even though that majority might try to do a deal with Dublin". That is a genuine Protestant fear.
How do we set at rest that long-felt foreboding? This is where we at Westminster can help, and where we have a part to play. They look to us to defend their constitution and so, incidentally, do a proportion of Catholics, although, for reasons which I have mentioned, they have had to keep pretty quiet about it in recent times. Therefore, it greatly helps that we have had the kind of speeches that we have had from both Front Benches this afternoon. The best thing that we can do in this debate is to reaffirm in unmistakably clear terms that, whatever may happen in Ulster, the border will remain and be defended, and

145
that the constitution will be upheld. It would be a mighty helpful gesture if the Roman Catholic bishops and clergy would back us up in saying that. That might do more than anything else to draw support away from the Protestant extremists.
I promised to make a short speech, and I conclude by saying that the deep tragedy of Ulster—and this carries a stage further forward the argument used by the hon. Member for Walton—is that although different Christian sects, different members of the Christian communion, have fought each other hard in the past in various parts of the world, Northern Ireland is the only place today where Christians are attacking each other. The thought which we must plant in their minds is that this cannot go on, and that, above all, if they wish peace, if they wish freedom, they must begin to tolerate each other.
9.8 p.m.
Mr. W. F. Deedes: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) that this is not the easiest sort of debate to join in any capacity. Far too much may hang on what any one of us says Generally—I think the Home Secretary will agree—and making certain allowances, the debate has been characterised by restraint and good sense on both sides.
One conclusion borne in on me by this debate is that we have embarked on an exceedingly difficult and perhaps a very long task. I do not doubt for a moment—I accept all that the Home Secretary said—that it is right for us to do this. Indeed, we have no choice in the matter. The fact remains that the programme outlined by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, and further outlined in the White Paper, Cmnd. 4174, will take a very long time, longer perhaps than many people think, and longer perhaps than we hope. It may all come about peaceably. That is what we all pray for, but over that we have absolutely no control.
We share the Home Secretary's sense of profound disappointment over the events at the weekend. Naturally the right hon. Gentleman is disappointed. I do him the credit of thinking, since he has been there for longer than any of us on his two visits, that he cannot have been altogether surprised.
146
I confess that the poignantly penitential mood in which I found many in Belfast at the time of my visit in August did not wholly reassure me. The curse of the sort of violence which occurred there in the middle of August is that it does not, as some people think and hope it may, act as a catharsis. It acts quite otherwise. It may well simply provoke later acts of the same kind. The Home Secretary knows, without my dwelling on it, that we have embarked on a very long road which may still carry for us a good deal of trouble.
There remain factors here which will not readily respond to the best of motives, to the soundest of judgments, or to the wisest of actions. The savage mood which provoked the disorders, particularly in August, has not altogether been quelled, and the minority responsible for that mood are still there and still, as we have just seen, in action.
That said, it seems that the wisest course for me is not to dwell overmuch on the events of the weekend, nor to swell the drama of this subject, nor even to deal with its history; but, recognising our own limitations, to concentrate on those areas where we are trying to make distinct and perhaps eventually decisive contributions.
I do not dismiss the past, for that would be absurd, but, taking up a point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)—I hope that we are not all prisoners of the past. The task of some of us is to try to enable some to escape from being prisoners of the past—I agree that we should now address ourselves to the present and the future tasks.
That takes me, naturally, to the subject of the Hunt Report, on which a certain amount has already been said. I should like to join those who have paid tribute to the work of this Committee. It has dealt with a contentious subject with astonishing expedition. I calculate that it is six weeks since the Home Secretary set the Committee's hand at this, and today we have the document in print.
Mr. Callaghan: And accepted.
Mr. Deedes: And accepted. Moreover, the main conclusions will coincide with some of the superficial impressions gained by those of us who paid visits to Northern Ireland.

147
Of all the impressions that I got there, none was more compelling than the need to end the para-military functions of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Not, as the Hunt Committee testified, because it has grossly abused its powers, but because it is an impossible and intolerable rôle for any civilian police force to be asked to undertake. Even for what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) described as a gendarmerie, the establishment of machine guns, which existed for the Royal Ulster Constabulary, has no place at all. Not only was the rôle intolerable, but it was wholly inimical to the calmer mood which now everyone is trying to restore.
I should like to illustrate what I mean from a personal experience. As every hon. Member who visited Northern Ireland may have done, I spent the greater part of one night with the Royal Ulster Constabulary touring Belfast. I was afforded the protection of an armoured car—one of the "moth-ball" fleet. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had the same experience. As we bounced round the streets, safeguarded by the strictest drill—steel shutters and the rest and flanked by men with arms—I confessed that a sense of profound insecurity began to asail me. I became more and more reluctant to dismount at the various road blocks and to chat with the agreeable people on both sides who were manning and surrounding them. The expedition seemed like some deepening nightmare, reviving at moments the ugly visceral sensations not experienced since the days in Europe 25 years ago. It reminded me of what it was like to stand on a shattered street corner and half expect a bullet to crash through one's back. If that is the sensation felt by one uncommitted and with some experience of other people's wars, how the world do those feel who are committed and are fearful? I carried this reflection away from my night's work—my very hospitable night's work—with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. This was surely part of the anatomy of fear which we have been discussing.
In a sentence, there is a paramount need to scale down the melodrama, and I see that as an essential prerequisite to reducing tension. That is at least one
148
outcome of the Hunt Report, and there are other excellent features. If I have a reservation, it is whether, ideally—I know that we are not dealing with ideals—this is the most propitious moment to try to build a new voluntary force under the G.O.C. I am sure that the Home Secretary perceives the difficulties for himself. Dual control will not be easy. It will be a very delicate business, and we cannot hope that it will be effective very quickly. No doubt the Secretary of State for Defence will add something to this.
Taking a relative detail, closer association between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British police, mutual assistance in particular and temporary reinforcement of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in emergencies, which is in the White Paper, will surely need very careful thought. Their men training here, our men working there, obviously has many attractions, but I sense that the implemention will take a little time and a lot more detailed consideration.
The idea of the Inspector-General that they should come under the umbrella of our Inspectorate-General for the police is obviously excellent. Whether he should be one of our Inspectors or an Inspector (Ulster) is obviously another detail which will be thought out. I am sure that those who know Sir Arthur Young will accept that we could have hardly contributed a better man to this task.
That said, it will also be accepted that the reorganisation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary will carry some very heavy implications for us. Lord Hunt and his Committee have done their work in two months. To put these proposals through, even the main proposals, will obviously take much longer. To do what is proposed to any police force in a normal climate would be hard enough. Much of this may have to be done, as it were, in the battle line, and we should be aware—no doubt the Secretary of State will mention this—of what this may entail by way of an irreducible military commitment, for some little time perhaps.
The sort of duties now being undertaken by our soldiers, it will be agreed, are prodigal of manpower. One man on a road block in the daylight hours calls for about 12 altogether in barracks if one doubles the guard. It is tiring, it

149
is dispiriting work, and I have no doubt that the G.O.C. will sooner or later seek to ring the changes. Moreover, this work may become more exacting and it is not likely to become less dangerous. A number of hon. Members have paid sincere tribute to the troops and I echo that, but I must add that that does not cost us very much. The right hon. Gentleman will, I hope, give us some clear idea of the extent of our commitment and how it will in future be administered.
I do not want to bandy complaints with the right hon. Gentleman about tea, rest or comforts. Our Regular Forces who enlist accept risks and rigours which we would find unacceptable. However, they like leave, and that is something which will not come readily for those who are now serving in Northern Ireland.
Morale will not of itself rise automatically with the job that they have on hand, and it is important that we keep morale up. This calls not just for comfort but for consideration. A lot will depend on the assessment we now make of the duration in which we are likely to be engaged in this sort of operation; that is, how thoroughly and extensively we prepare to provide the bases, from the long-term point of view, if that should become necessary.
The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to say, "I do not know and nobody can tell." That is to an extent true, but from the point of view of the bases from which these men must operate and in which they must live, we should not assume that we are dealing with the short term. Indeed, we could be dealing with the longer rather than the shorter term.
What is one's first reaction on seeing British troops in circumstances of this kind? Those of us who visited Northern Ireland were there long enough to experience the reassurance which the presence of British troops gives. Our Army is very good at this sort of thing and has enormous experience of it. Our troops have caused the violent minority of extremists, of terrorists, to take fresh measure. However, it would be rash to assume that they have been permanently subdued. Indeed, we have had a reminder that they have not, and in the period ahead we would be wise to reckon that the presence of British troops, their task to steady and pacify
150
first of all, may give rise to other reactions as time goes on.
That would not be peculiar to Northern Ireland, and for these reasons it seems that the intelligence set-up in Ulster is important. It has obvious advantages over the police intelligence, which, bluntly, struck me as a weak element.
Rumour plays a terrible part in this business. There was—I think there still is no more tragic sight in the blackened areas of Belfast than the factories which have been fired. People had burned themselves not only out of homes but out of jobs; and jobs are extremely precious in Belfast. Why did they do this? They did it because, as often as not, at the height of the disorders the factories were alleged to hold snipers; and what happened was the price of the compound of rumour and panic. The people in the streets were not the only victims of rumour. The police were caught up in it, and that is where a superior military intelligence system could in future render valued service.
Industrial investment is mentioned in the White Paper, although it has not figured large in this debate. This has always been crucial to Northern Ireland and it has never been mere crucial than it is now. What is said in the White Paper strikes me as important and not unhopeful. Obviously it is important that long-term industrial expansion should not be permanently damaged by fear of disturbance and further unrest.
The scheme adumbrated for compensation will help and so, no doubt, will the Government's proposals about investment grants. Together these may help to outweigh the fears, but I echo what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone and repeated by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), that there may be a bigger future for Northern Ireland in long-term co-operative ventures.
I am thinking not only of the nuclear power station but of other things. Many of the things which require urgently to be done, such as housing, and many of the things about which the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) spoke, depend on a higher level of economic activity, to which one would like to think that others besides Government would contribute. I would like to see some

151
figure—and this is no reflection on what is being done by the Minister of Commerce in Northern Ireland—doing what Lord Chandos did not long ago, applying persuasion and vigour to industrial development in Northern Ireland. That is perhaps an additional contribution that we might make.
I hope that I shall not end on a note of dissension if I suggest that the prime need of the Ulster régime at this juncture is simply encouragement. They are not short of advice. They are not short of criticism. They have plenty of candid friends. They have put their hands to a course of action, and I am persuaded that we shall best serve Ulster's interests and our own by giving, in conjunction with our firm intentions, sympathetic encouragement. I do not hesitate to add that that is what the Home Secretary has seemed to me to do on both his recent visits. This was amply reflected in his speech today. I urge hon. Gentlemen who are perhaps more critically inclined, for perfectly natural historical reasons, to take a leaf out of the right hon. Gentleman's book.
However we contrive it, a good deal depends, and will depend, on the people at Stormont. Once we cease to believe that and act in that belief, we might find ourselves saddled with very serious responsibilities. The programme of changes set in hand by the Ulster Administration, of which most of us approve, will not secure universal approbation in Northern Ireland. It will be quite otherwise. The further and the faster they go, the greater the risk their leaders run of being repudiated.
The programme is being borne on a vehicle under very heavy strain. The Ulster Members know that, and the Home Secretary knows it, and we must act in that awareness. We must do all in our power to prevent it breaking down under the load. To change the analogy, I would echo the Home Secretary's words earlier today. The programme of reform is a large meal for them to digest at present, and they should be made free to digest it, as far as possible.
Hon. Members have their own views, and some have expressed them, on the history of all this. I have said that I am not entering into history. I would only venture to suggest that the history
152
of it all did not begin with the advent of Unionists at Stormont. I would say exactly the same if the Stormont Government were all Socialists. It goes back further than that, and runs much deeper.
The fact is that one way and another in recent weeks we have steadily increased our stake in Northern Ireland. We are no longer simply observers, critics or advisers. We are involved, in some ways deeply. The circumstances of today are no longer the circumstances of last April, or even of August.
In effect, the capacity of the present régime to survive its difficulties, to restore order, to remain an effective Government—because that is what they must do—is now more crucial not simply to Ulster but to us than at any time since the Act. In all we say here, in all that the Government do in our name, that consideration should be uppermost in our minds.
9.30 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): This has been, in one sense at any rate, a remarkable debate. It follows immediately after party conferences whose function, as one saw them, was to mobilise opposing forces for an election battle. Yet today the leaders of those parties are united in total solidarity on the most explosive political issue facing Britain at the present time. It is also an issue which, in the last century, has divided political life more deeply in Britain than any other. There is not one word in the moving and generous speech by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) with which I could possibly disagree, and I particularly welcome the vision he displayed in his closing remarks about relations between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. I was also very impressed by the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in this respect.
I also agree with almost everything said by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), although I would wish to qualify somewhat the pessimism he expressed. I shall seek to do so later in my speech. Indeed, I think that the unity was broken only by some speeches from the back benches, but these did at least serve to illustrate the nature and virulence of the disease we are trying to cure.

153
I shall try to deal with some of the other points raised in the debate but the House will expect me to concentrate on the security aspects of the problem, for which I am now directly responsible as a Minister in the United Kingdom Government; and to talk about the unique rôle of our forces in Northern Ireland, the unique problems created by that rôle and how we hope to surmount them.
As the right hon. Member for Ashford said, security and the acceptance of a feeling of security by all sections of the people of Northern Ireland is the foundation for any solution of the Province's political problems. And, as many hon. Members have said, society in Northern Ireland has been riven for many years by fears, part rational, mainly irrational and sometimes worse than irrational. Last August, that fear exploded into large-scale violence in two of Northern Ireland's largest cities and it added to the vague irrational fears of the past a new factor which those of us who have visited the Province in the last two months have had cause to feel. That is an immediate terror of personal attack, panic at the thought that one's home might be burnt and one's wife and children beaten up.
This fear is a physical and horrible thing and I was very impressed by what the right hon. Member for Ashford said about the way he himself came to feel during his visit. It is a fear that is real and physical in both communities. Nothing struck me in my visit, when I was walking, particularly at night, around the various barricades, more than the utter bewilderment and shock of the British soldiers, who found themselves, in the United Kingdom, up against the sort of problems which previously they had found only in the Middle East or even further afield.
As the House knows, it was this situation which led the Northern Ireland Government, on 19th August, to ask Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to agree that the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland, should assume overall responsibility for security in the Province; and that is a responsibility for which he is ultimately accountable to me as Secretary of State for Defence in the United Kingdom. As the House knows, Her Majesty's Government agreed to this request; and the
154
immediate deployment of the Army not only put an end to the riots but also enabled the G.O.C. to relieve the Ulster Special Constabulary of all operational tasks in connection with riots, for which they had been employed by the Northern Ireland Government purely as a temporary measure. The U.S.C. has since been employed only on guarding vulnerable points and police barracks, and on patrol and road check duties mainly in border and country areas.
The G.O.C. also instituted more stringent measures for the control of the arms issued to the U.S.C. so that, beginning in Belfast and Londonderry, he started placing arms in armouries under central control, to be issued only when in his view the Special Constabulary's duties required them.
I know that all right hon. and hon. Members will agree when I say that General Freeland and all those under his command have acted with exemplary skill and restraint, and as Secretary of State I am very grateful for the tributes paid to the forces in Northern Ireland from both sides of the House. They are all faced with unique problems in a unique situation.
No one ever likes the internal security task. It imposes a very severe strain on all troops from the highest commander down to the N.C.O.s and private soldiers manning a checkpoint. But add to all this the fact that their task is to keep apart warring factions of their fellow countrymen and the strain on each individual is immeasurably increased. If one is doing internal security overseas one cannot understand the insults hurled in Chinese, or Greek, or Turkish, but it is a very different matter when they are hurled by one's countrymen.
As the House knows, last weekend the trouble reached a new level of seriousness. The Home Secretary gave an account of this and I will not seek to repeat what he said. The casualties among our troops, heavy and tragic as they were, would have been much higher if those in exposed positions had not been wearing bullet-proof vests. Incidentally I gather that the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) asked if it were true that the Forces in the Shankill Road area were treating all the inhabitants of the area as hostile. This

155
of course is not true. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but that is what I understood the hon. Member to say.
Mr. Stratton Mills: For the record, may I repeat that that was the feeling of people on the Shankill Road? I merely repeated that the feeling was that everyone in the Shankill Road area was being treated as an enemy, but this was only a small group of trouble makers.
Mr. Healey: There were many hundreds, at times even thousands, of people milling around the Shankill Road, despite warnings from the security forces and initially from the Royal Ulster Constabulary, to keep away. I do not think that in the circumstances when an enormous mass of people were moving around, the R.U.C. initially and later the troops could be expected to discriminate between ordinary residents and rioters in the crowds facing them. I would be surprised that the hon. Member could do so.
Mr. Stratton Mills: May I make it clear that I did not say that?
Mr. Healey: The Army is of course fully stretched. I am very well aware of that. Men have on average been working a 12 to 15 hour day over the past six weeks and there have been very few days off. Over last week-end more than half the troops in Belfast were fully committed and the men were on duty for 40 hours out of 48. But I am confident that in spite of this strain the Army will continue to react as splendidly and with such outstanding success in their very difficult rôle as everyone who has visited the Province has seen them act in the last few months. They have learnt to listen to the views of people with strong and bitter feelings about the situation in which they find themselves and to negotiate to reach agreement between these peoples. They have indeed been acting not only as soldiers but as conciliators and ambassadors; and they have done these jobs superbly well.
They have had to ensure that law and order and stability is restored, but also to use minimum force. I was grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone for making the point that it was infinitely better if they talked their way into difficult areas than fought
156
their way into difficult areas. Of course this is a difficult balance to maintain. One is always liable to criticism from one side or the other, and sometimes from both; but the fact that the Forces have incurred so little criticism, except from extremists on one side or the other, is a tremendous tribute to their leadership and to their qualities as soldiers.
As Secretary of State for Defence I welcome the fact that on this occasion the British soldier has once more displayed his supreme qualities as a peace-keeper—in maintaining order—in the eyes of !he British people and throughout the world through television and the Press—although this has brought its own problems. I should like to remind the House and the British public that the forces have been displaying these sorts of qualities in many situations all over the world for the last 20 years; and this has been far too little realised by the population of this country.
I pass to some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Ashford. Internal security is very expensive in manpower. It takes 25 men, a platoon of infantry, to keep three men permanently manning a barrier, and there are at present 10 battalions, including a Royal Marine Commando unit, together with two armoured reconnaissance squadrons and supporting units in Northern Ireland. This is nearly four times the normal garrison force. The right hon. Gentleman asked how long this would last and, rightly, he guessed that I would say that it was impossible to say. I made a stab when I talked to the Press at Aldergrove Airport a month ago and said that it would last until the people of Northern Ireland as a whole had learnt to accept an alternative basis for security, and that we hoped this would arise out of the Hunt Report. I also made it clear that it was a question, not just of legislating to carry out the decisions of the Hunt Report, but of implementing them on the ground and convincing people that they were being implemented honestly. This, I fear, will take a good deal longer than next winter.
I cannot say whether they will need even further reinforcement, although, like everybody else in the House, I hope that they will not. So far we have not had to call on forces assigned to N.A.T.O. or on forces in overseas theatres, but if,

157
as seems likely, the present force levels have to be maintained for a long time, or if the situation gets worse, we might have to withdraw temporarily troops assigned to N.A.T.O. I know that in that case our allies would understand our difficulties, as they have done on earlier occasions—for example, during the confrontation or during the emergency in Malaya.
The reinforcements have so far come from within our overall capability in the United Kingdom and there has been some disruption of our planned training programmes and normal duties. They therefore represent a considerable diversion of military capability from its normal rôle, and our overriding aim therefore must be, on the military side, to gain the confidence of all the inhabitants of Northern Ireland in the ability of the troops to guarantee their security against extremists on both sides which would enable us to reduce the number of troops there. Although there will be a progressive reduction as the Hunt recommendations are put into effect on the ground, we must see this as a long-term problem—perhaps years rather than months. So we cannot allow some of the exceptional hardships which were inevitable in the first few months to last a moment longer than necessary.
May I say a few words about how we are trying to improve the conditions of the forces.
Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that what he has just told the House is a self-confession that he has allowed the Army to run down too much?
Mr. Healey: That statement is very unworthy of a member of a party which did exactly what I fear we might have to do but have not yet had to do, because of commitments in the Far East and elsewhere in the world when it was in power. The hon. Gentleman's party ran down the units inside B.A.O.R. to 3,000 below the present manning level and took units out of B.A.O.R. to serve in the Middle East and the Far East during the period that it was in power. However, I do not think that an exchange of party banter of this nature is helpful to the spirit of this debate.
I should like to say a few words about how we are trying to improve the con-
158
ditions of the forces. First—and I think that this will meet many of the worries which hon. Members have expressed—in view of the great strain imposed by emergency conditions, each reinforcement battalion in Northern Ireland will serve for only about four months in the Province before being relieved by a new battalion or its equivalent. The biggest immediate problem is to improve accommodation for the forces, because accommodation for the troops in Northern Ireland was built for three accompanied major units, and the increase to a total of about eleven major units within little more than a month has inevitably posed very serious accommodation problems. The forces themselves have done miracles and they have had a great deal of help both from the Ministry of Public Building and Works and from the local population. But, as I saw for myself a few weeks ago, a great deal of the accommodation in which the troops are living is extremely poor, and we are taking urgent action to improve it as quickly as possible. In particular, we want to get it right before the onset of the bad weather and the winter.
The first accommodation problem has been to provide what I might call operational accommodation for the troops. They are on continuous guard duty, strung out over a very large area, and they need, first of all, some protection while they are actually on guard duty. Their conditions can be improved by providing sentry boxes, small four-man shelters, and, in isolated areas, caravans either from Army stocks or by hiring from civilian firms. Action on all these points is well under way and I have no doubt that the bulk of the problems will be solved this month.
But when the men come off duty they need somewhere to eat and sleep comfortably before going back on duty, and that is the next problem. We have had a great deal of help from the Northern Ireland Government in obtaining premises suitable for these "company bases". A great deal has been done towards solving the problem, but more needs to be done. The problem is not eased, particularly in Belfast, by the fluidity and unpredictability of the security situation. The company bases need to be near the source of likely trouble; and, as we saw so recently, the source of trouble can

159
quickly switch from one part of Belfast to another. Areas which one thought were stable can suddenly flare up. But we are giving a very high priority to providing the best possible accommodation for this purpose. I spoke to the Northern Ireland Minister of Home Affairs about this problem when I was in Northern Ireland and I have written to him since. I feel sure that with help from the Northern Ireland Government we shall be able to beat this problem before the onset of winter.
Next we come to the battalion base camps to which our troops can return for rest when they are withdrawn into reserve away from the troubled areas. At the moment we are finding our battalion base camps from some permanent barracks in which we are doubling up whenever we can, in two weekend training centres which have hutted accommodation, and so on. At my request the Northern Ireland Minister of Home Affairs is now releasing to us the former fusilier depot at Armagh. I am also asking for security of tenure at Antrim and Belfast. If he can help us in these ways I do not think we shall have any difficulty in providing battalion base camps this winter which will be adequate. Therefore, I think there is a good chance of solving the accommodation programme and seeing its back broken before winter really sets in this year.
There is finally the problem of additional married accommodation, because it would be highly desirable to have more of the battalions in Northern Ireland on an accompanied basis serving on a two-year tour of duty. The four-month emergency tour of duty is not desirable. This is a slightly longer-term problem, although we are tackling it with the same vigour as our other accommodation problems. It will take us some time to produce a satisfactory solution in this field, although we hope to have it greatly improved by the winter.
When I visited Northern Ireland two weeks ago I recognised that there was a case for giving some special form of compensation to the services there for the unique conditions in which they are serving during the early months of the emergency. I have since been considering this question in more detail and I have decided that there is a good case for
160
some temporary special payment to those serving in Northern Ireland in the present emergency. Internal security is an unpleasant and nerve-racking task at the best of times. One error of judgment can have immediate serious consequences for the man concerned.
But the strain is peculiarly severe when the burden of maintaining law and order falls upon the Service man among his own countrymen. Moreover, the troops in Northern Ireland have been operating in the full glare of publicity and in the face of provocation and hostile criticism. They have been working very long hours. Their accommodation in some cases is appalling. They have been separated from their wives and families. All leave, except that for compassionate reasons, is being interrupted. All previous internal security operations since the war have taken place overseas where there have at least been the incidental advantages of duty-free cigarettes and other goods. But these compensations cannot be given to the Services in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the conditions of service in Northern Ireland are wholly exceptional by any normal United Kingdom peace-time standards. When serving in the United Kingdom, Service men have every right to expect reasonable amenities, stability and security.
No single one of these exceptional conditions, taken by itself, would, in my view, justify the payment of a special allowance, but when they are all taken together in these unique circumstances, I am confident that some recognition in money terms is justified. In recognition of these conditions and the responsibilities borne by Service officers and men, we propose to pay a small allowance of 7s. 6d. a day for lieutenant-colonels and above, 6s. a day for other officers, 5s. a day for warrant officers and senior N.C.O.s, and 3s. 6d. a day for corporals and below, to all Service men and women stationed in Northern Ireland, with effect from 1st August this year.
To qualify for the allowance, Service men and women will have to have served for at least 14 days in Northern Ireland, though they will be paid the allowance from the first day of their service there. The allowance will be temporary. We intend that it shall come to an end on the introduction next year of the new

161
pay code for the forces based on last June's recommendations from the National Board for Prices and Incomes. The Services will then benefit from a new deal over pay which is designed to take account specifically of such exceptional circumstances as those obtaining in Northern Ireland at present, in addition to a large number of other factors arising from the special features of Service life.
The overriding need, as all hon. Members have recognised, has been to find some better long-term solution to the security problem as a basis for a better long-term solution of the economic and political problems.
Mr. Edward Heath: We welcome the announcement which the Secretary of State has made about action which he is taking to deal with particular problems, including the financial arrangements. Can he help us on one matter which is, I think, concerning practically everyone in the country? The right hon. Gentleman has described the heavy burdens falling on the forces at the moment, including, as he said, sometimes 40 out of 48 hours on continuous duty, and no leave at all. If the normal tour of duty is to be four months, what will the present deployment allow these troops from the point of view of having some time off duty? It is obviously impossible to carry on in conditions of this sort over a tour of four months. What does the right hon. Gentleman think it will be possible to arrange for the troops with the present deployment?
Mr. Healey: With respect, 40 out of 48 hours on duty was an absolutely exceptional state of affairs last weekend when the problem in Belfast was one on a far greater scale than anyone had anticipated. Perhaps we were wrong not to have anticipated it—that is another matter—but normally the men are working on what one might call normal guard hours. The big problem has not been the hours on duty but the difficulty of allowing leave because units as a wolhe are overstretched. I hope that we shall be able to begin to allow leave, and the unit which has been worst affected by this problem has, I believe, just begun sending some men on leave. But I recognise very well the problem raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and I am seeking to reduce its scale.
Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Healey: With respect, I must press on. There are some important questions to be dealt with regarding the future of the Special Constabulary.
Mr. Heffer: It is an important point.
Mr. Healey: With respect, if my hon. Friend will put a Question down, I shall answer it. I must get on with these other questions now.
The Hunt Report is the key to the problem of finding a better long-term basis for security in Northern Ireland and the permanent presence of a large number of British troops. I must say a word here on the proposals for a local defence force. As the Home Secretary announced, we agree, and the Stormont Government agree, that there should be a new part-time locally recruited force to replace the Ulster Special Constabulary. There is a real security problem here, and I think that some hon. Members who spoke in the debate do not fully understand its nature. The problem is not all-out invasion. The problem is raids by small bodies of irregulars, probably members of an illegal army, perhaps on a frontier post, perhaps on a power station, perhaps on a bank—raids which may take place at intervals of years or may take place several in one day.
We had examples of this over a period of years, about a decade ago. At that time the Ulster Special Constabulary with its local knowledge and its ability to turn out at a moment's notice, played an invaluable rôle in supporting the British Army and in creating a deterrent against a very large number of these incidents. It would be absurdly wasteful to use for this function a permanent deployment of units of the Regular Army, because there are hundreds of miles of frontier to cover to a depth of 50 miles, perhaps 100 miles, behind the frontier.
The answer is some sort of local force. Our view, which is accepted by the Stormont Government, is that this job would be far better performed by a military force under military discipline and control. That is why the Northern Ireland Government have agreed that the Ulster Special Constabulary should be replaced by two new forces, one a volunteer reserve for routine police duties such as

163
traffic control, and the other a locally recruited military force to protect key installations and to undertake such other tasks as might be necessary.
The Home Secretary gave some indication of the nature of this force but as he made clear in the statement he issued in Northern Ireland last night, the G.O.C., my own Ministry of Defence in London and the Northern Ireland Government, are consulting about the pay and conditions, the precise rôle, the appropriate equipment for the rôle, and all the innumerable problems which would arise. Probably the best model would be the local defence volunteers of the 1939–45 war. I can certainly say that the force will not be part of the normal Army Reserve. Its size has yet to be determined, after a careful evaluation of the military tasks it has to perform. Once some of these issues have been resolved I will make a further announcement to the House.
A word now about the contributions defence can make to the economic problems in Northern Ireland. I noted with great care what the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone and the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) said about the contributions which defence establishments can make. One or two hon. Members suggested that we ought to place a lot more defence contracts in Northern Ireland. We spend £3 million a year in Northern Ireland on defence contracts now, for various forms of equipment. I do not think that we could make an exception for Northern Ireland and buy equipment which we could have made cheaper in other parts of the country, perhaps in development areas on this side of the Irish Sea.
The problem of the establishments is quite a different one. I am quite prepared to have another look at the decisions we have already taken, but I can give no assurance that we are likely to change them. Here I agree very much with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), that the worst basis for a stable economy in Northern Ireland would be doling out money on defence establishments which are either not needed at all or would be better placed elsewhere, because such establishments would always be vulnerable to closure
164
by any Government anxious to cut taxes or Government expenditure.
On the other hand, the long term garrison will be substantially higher than it was before the recent troubles. This in itself will bring money and employment to Northern Ireland and it may enable us to make use, as a Ministry of Defence, of some of the facilities and establishments which we are giving up in their present rôle. I will examine the possibility of doing more training in Northern Ireland, although there are special problems here, which any hon. Member who has served there will recognise—for example the difficulty of the territory for tracked vehicle training. I only hope that those who have asked me if I will use Northern Ireland for training will support me if I ask for facilities to which there is local opposition.
I believe that British troops are making a vital contribution towards a solution of the problem. They are helping to create a climate of security, without which political and economic action is futile. Their presence has already strengthened the moderates, at any rate in the Catholic community, as we saw in the Bogside last weekend. There are limits to what the forces can do. It has been said that one can do anything with bayonets except sit on them. Forces can gain time for a solution but they cannot provide the solution themselves. They are now gaining time, at a very heavy cost in personal danger and discomfort. All are now working a seven day week. Their sacrifice will only be worthwhile if the political and social leaders in both communities in Northern Ireland work equally hard—
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

LATE NIGHT REFRESHMENT HOUSES BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motions made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
10.0 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: I was hoping that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General would commend this Bill to the House. It is a

165
consolidation Bill which achieves some purpose, and it certainly will be of considerable use to those who have to deal with such subjects as late night refreshment houses.
It is always something of a mystery to me how anything becomes a candidate for consolidation. In this case something is being produced by the Joint Select Committee, by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor and the draftsmen which will be helpful. Enthusiasm for consolidation frequently reveals a gap in the law, as indeed occurred in the Committee on this Bill. When such a gap appears in the law, I wish that the Government would let us have a consolidation Bill with Amendments.
We have before us a consolidation Bill with minor corrections and improvements, but in this particular case the gap related to the transfer of a licence on the death of a holder. If it were not to be part of this Bill, I would hope that the consolidation could have been deleted until the law had been amended in this respect.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not take any objection whatever to this Bill in this debate.
Mr. Page: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I do take objection in this way—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman takes objection, the Bill must be deferred. If the hon. Gentleman objects to some features in the Bill, and says so, then the Bill must be put down for another day.
It being after Ten o'clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

LAND, HENDON (ACQUISITION)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Armstrong.]
10.3 p.m.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I should like at the outset to congratulate the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), who is to reply to the debate
166
on having moved into a more responsible seat as Under-Secretary of State for the Army. I am sure that he will be warmly congratulated by many parts of the House. I can only warn him that there was one gentleman who made a maiden speech just as quickly as he did and that was the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell), but I hope that he will have a long and happy occupation of his seat, though I fear that his majority and the timing of the next election may artificially curtail his performance.
I have asked to raise the matter of interest payments on Grahame Park. Grahame Park will be more widely known in this House as Hendon Airfield. It is named Grahame Park after the pioneer Grahame White, whose name is well known in aviation circle; and especially well known in my constituency, North Hendon.
I put down a Parliamentary Question on this matter in January 1964 which was replied to on 23rd January 1964 asking whether it was possible for the Ministry of Defence, then the Air Ministry, to release some 3,300 acres for use for other purposes. The then Under-Secretary of State for Air, the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), replied that it would be possible and that rather more than half would be released.
On 11th February, 1964, a meeting was convened under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich which I attended. It was a joint meeting between the Department, the Greater London Council and what was then Hendon Council and is now the Greater London Borough of Barnet. I emphasise this fact because the whole of this development is a tripartite and partnership procedure.
Both councils, the Greater London Council and my local council, have a tremendous interest, and it is on their behalf, and particularly on behalf of the ratepayers who live in North Hendon, and Hendon generally, that I raise this matter. Seventy-five per cent. of the houses to be built on Hendon Airfield are to be council houses and 60 per cent. of the tenants are to be nominated by the Greater London Council. Therefore, both the local council and the G.L.C. are very interested in this tremendous and ambitious project. The Greater London

167
Borough of Barnet has no fewer than 6,000 families in the housing queue, and I know from my postbag just how much hardship is being suffered. Therefore, I wish to see this project pushed forward as fast and as economically as possible.
The total area was measured to be 286 acres, of which the defence establishments—the computer buildings and other established buildings there—would take 73 acres. The Ministry wished to retain for officers' married quarters a further 35 acres. A further 10 acres was to be retained for sports fields. There was thus to be released to the Greater London Borough of Barnet and the G.L.C. 55 per cent. of the total, which made up 168 acres.
I have a feeling that the Under-Secretary, who is new to his job, will have been told in his brief to argue that the Public Accounts Committee insisted that every drop of blood should be squeezed out of the Barnet stone and that he should quote the Public Accounts Committee in support of this. If I am wrong, I shall be pleased, but I shall not miss this portion out of my speech just in case I am right.
The Public Accounts Committee, in its First, Second and Third Reports of Session 1967–68, laid down several points. In paragraph 136 it stated:
"Committees of Public Accounts have in the past emphasised the need for transactions entered into by public departments to be the subject of firm and binding agreements."
The agreement between the Ministry and the two councils is firm and binding. It therefore meets that criterion.
The second point was referred to in the report on the development of the former Woolwich Arsenal, which became Thamesmead. I quote from paragraph 133:
"… if the Council took possession before payment was received in any particular case no interest would be payable (a concession to which the Treasury agreed, with the stipulation that any interval between the Council taking possession of land and paying for it should be kept as short as possible)."
It is my contention that as five years was taken between the original parliamentary announcement of the release of this land and the signing of the contract on 15th March, 1969, a short interval is the interval between the period when the local council wanted to enter into the land—
168
28th October, 1968—and 15th March, when it wanted to acquire the whole of the property. That is a period of only four and a half months after five years of negotiations. By any standards, that should be thought to be a short period of negotiation.
I therefore seek to ask why it is necessary to charge interest between the time when the local council wanted to enter into the land—28th October—and 15th March, when the whole contract for £4·1 million, which was the price for that portion of the land, was due to be accepted. This is unjust. A total of £124,011 falls to be paid. This falls on local ratepayers and, to some extent, on the rates of local council dwellers. It is an unfair levy in respect of the period between when they wanted to enter in and when the contract was completed. They wanted to enter only to lay the main sewers. It was a small portion—a maximum of 10–20 acres—of the total acreage.
The last recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee was:
"Generally, your Committee wish to emphasise once again that Government Departments should ensure that terms and conditions of agreements are fully understood by both sides and are clearly set out in writing."
In this case that criterion was fully met.
This is a partnership. Not only the Greater London Council and the local council, but also the Ministry of Defence, are concerned in the development, because it is the two councils which are responsible for constructing all the infrastructure for this great development. The infrastructure will serve the wellbeing of the tenants of the 35 acres of married quarters and of the Service men who are now housed in married quarters around the perimeter of the airfield.
I will list some of the facilities to be provided at local cost and which will clearly be used by the Ministry of Defence personnel. First, and perhaps rather sordidly, come the sewers. This is why we wanted to get into the land. Those are common to all users. Then parks, open spaces, schools, churches, shops, roads, the health centre, the welfare centre, the library—all those many other facilities are being provided by local funds and will obviously be of importance as valuable amenities to Service personnel living in the new quarters or in those now existing.

169
The local council has been very co-operative. One of the projects which the Ministry has launched is a museum—very appropriately so at Hendon Airfield, which is the cradle of flying. The museum there is to show the development of flying and some of our old and more recent aircraft of which we are all very proud. My local council has subscribed £1,000 towards the museum. One would think, in view of this, that the Ministry would be equally forthcoming and not try to squeeze every drop of blood out of this stone.
It is not as if the Ministry has not done pretty well on its own behalf, or on behalf of the taxpayer, in the price it has received—£.4·1 million, or £24,000 per acre. In 1926 nine of these acres were acquired at £330 per acre. Not bad to sell them back at £24,000 an acre. If it has been a private landlord, he would have been called a bloodsucker and a profiteer. We are not complaining about the price. I am pointing out that the Ministry has got a lot of value for a fairly modest investment. In 1933 another 25 acres were acquired at £40 an acre—to be sold back to the local community for council houses at £24,000 an acre. Another great area was voluntarily given to the nation because it was felt that it was valuable for the defence of our country. That land was obtained free of charge, and it is to be sold to my local council at £24,000 an acre.
The Ministry cannot argue that it has not done well in achieving a price of £4·1 million for this open space, and I cannot help pointing out that this sum takes into account, as it must, the development levy. I do not know how much that is, but it has obviously inflated the price because the district valuer must take that into account. The Ministry has done well for itself and for the taxpayers.
This time last year I toured Malaya and Singapore, where I saw acres and acres of desirable undeveloped land. I have since learned by Parliamentary Question that the Ministry of Defence has disposed of no fewer than 6,000 acres in Malaya and Singapore. What has the Ministry charged Malayans and Singaporians for this land? The answer is not £24,000 an acre. The answer is not one penny. The Ministry has given away these 6,000 acres. Is it not a little strange that whereas it is believed to be fair and
170
equitable to charge my local council and my ratepayers £24,000 an acre, land is given to people who are well able to pay for it? It seems that different standards are employed in dealing with different people.
If the hon. Gentleman says that he would like to do this but the Treasury insists on having this money, perhaps he will tell the Treasury that it laid before this House the agreement which gave all that land and all those facilities and amenities to Singapore and Malaya. The Treasury is obviously willing to give defence land overseas away free of charge. Incidentally, it is also prepared to make a loan of £25 million to Malaya and £50 million to Singapore, even though there are many rich Chinese who would be delighted to pay for the land. The different treatment meted out by the Treasury to my local ratepayers and taxpayers in this country and to people overseas in respect of defence land is so marked that I cannot help drawing it to the attention of the House.
Mr. W. Howie: I am one of the ratepayers concerned, unlike the hon. Gentleman, though I know that he is very interested in this issue. On the whole we are rather more able to pay our rates and look after ourselves than are the great majority of people in Singapore. On the whole we as ratepayers do not mind quite as much as the hon. Gentleman thinks is the case.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I am glad to hear that one ratepayer does not mind paying this sort of money. Because of the feeling of equity and of levelling down to which the hon. Gentleman's party subscribes, I should have thought that he would take the view that all people should be treated the same, but that is not the philosophy which is applied to his personal interest.
In the interests of fairness and harmony I suggest that we should now arrive at a compromise. Officers of my council have been to the Ministry, I have led a delegation to the Ministry, and all that is left to me now is this Adjournment debate. The Minister has just moved into his new office. Let him take a new look at the situation and ask whether what is being done is fair. Let him concede that I have a case and that he ought to concede something. If he does

171
not stand up to his civil servants in the opening weeks, he never will stand up to them. This is a wonderful opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to persuade them of the rightness of the case which I am deploying, which I am sure he supports in his heart.
This figure of £124,011 must ultimately be reflected in the rents for council houses, and partly in the rates paid by ratepayers in the surrounding area. If the Ministry of Defence had agreed, as my council suggested, to the occupation in stages by the two councils, as with the scheme which was approved in the case of Woolwich Arsenal which became Thamesmead, we would not have paid £124,000 extra in interest, but would have saved ourselves £91,400. I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that it is not just a matter of £124,000, because if the money is borrowed to pay this levy, over 60 years two and a half times this sum will ultimately have to be found. Surely the Government should say: Here is a partnership, a scheme which we want to see, for council houses to be built as soon as possible. It would be unreasonable to charge the full levy from the moment they started to lay the drains until the contract was completed—4½months at £124,000. Let us come to a compromise. Let us start it on a 50–50 basis."
10.20 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Ivor Richard): I should like to start by thanking the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) for the kind words he used about me at the beginning of his speech. I can perhaps distinguish myself in one regard from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell), to whom he referred. I believe that his first intervention was voluntary—at least, I think somewhat more voluntary than mine has been this afternoon.
I want, first, to get rid of one red herring in the hon. Gentleman's argument, that about Singapore. I was not aware that we had withdrawn an immediate obligation to defend Hendon, North. This is still part of the United Kingdom. The Ministry of Defence retains an actual and immediate duty to do something about this part of England. Therefore, it is utterly and totally dis-
172
tinguishable from a situation where we are withdrawing from a base which we have held for perhaps a century.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Would the hon. Gentleman describe it as conscience money in regard to Singapore?
Mr. Richard: Whether it can or cannot be described as conscience money, Singapore is a long way from Hendon, North.
It is clear that there is here a definite argument of principle. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the strong feelings of the Barnet Council on this point. I hope, however, that he will agree that there are feelings on the other side of this argument about the utter impossibility of the Ministry of Defence doing what he is asking it to do within the limits of normal public accounting procedures.
I will come on to the point the hon. Gentleman makes about the Public Accounts Committee, but, before doing so, I think it will be instructive to look into the history of the matter. The hon. Gentleman did, but not in sufficient detail.
The history of the whole affair goes back some years to the decision of the Ministry of Defence to release for housing approximately 169 acres of the old Hendon aerodrome. That is the starting point for the argument between the Ministry of Defence and the Barnet Council. It is important to recognise that the amount of land released and the price paid for it are not issues now between the Barnet Council and the Ministry of Defence. I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about the excessive nature of the £4·1 million that was fixed by the district valuer. It was not something between an unwilling buyer and an unwilling seller. It was not artificially inflated. It was fixed, as all public contracts of this kind would be, by a public official—and rightly so.
It is important that we should get those two pink, if not totally red, herrings out of the argument before going any further.
It is also important to recognise that completion took place on 14th March this year, but that the council in fact, and indeed in law I suppose, entered into

173
possession of the land on 28th October last year. So there are at least two variations of what I might call normal conveyancing procedure. First, the variation that the council was allowed in prior to completion—
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: That is always done.
Mr. Richard: Not always, with respect. The council was allowed into possession prior to completion because it so requested. Therefore, to that extent that was a concession. The second variation from normal conveyancing procedure was that, at the council's request, the completion date was put back to virtually the end of the financial year 1968–69.
The real difficulty in the case is clearly financial. Naturally, the Barnet Council was under two pressures which, to a certain extent, were conflicting. First, it wanted to get on with the job for which it was acquiring the land. Second, there was the pressure that to do this it had to find £.41·1 million at a time when money was tight, and, in the open market at any rate, it would have been difficult to raise such a large sum.
But the argument tonight is not basically a commercial one. There are no circumstances in this case which would take it outside normal conveyancing and commercial procedures. I am a little surprised to hear the hon. Member, representing the party that he does, in effect ask the Ministry of Defence to remove this case, in which I hope I can convince the House there are no special circumstances, from normal commercial procedure.
Therefore, the question which we should ask is whether there are any special circumstances around this particular development which make it so exceptional that normal procedures should not be followed. The Public Accounts Committee's criticisms of the Woolwich development are highly relevant—
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: They are not.
Mr. Richard: If the hon. Gentleman will follow me for a moment, I think I shall convince him that they are not only relevant but extremely relevant.
The difference between the Woolwich case and the Hendon case is that, in the former, land was released slowly as the
174
Ministry no longer required it—[Interruption.] That was the position, if the hon. Gentleman would care to check the facts. The criticism of the Committee in the Woolwich case was simply that the Ministry had not tied up the contractual side of the release sufficiently so that, as land was becoming vacant and was no longer required, the Greater London Council was not contractually tied to take it up quickly and the agreement by the Treasury to waive interest arose, as the hon. Member will see from the Report, very simply because no one foresaw at that time that there would be any delay in the successive stages of contract being gone through.
What the Committee said in the Woolwich case was that the Ministry of Defence had been wrong in not ensuring that land upon the purchase price of which interest would have been payable was taken up quickly, and money paid quickly. If that is the criticism over Woolwich, it applies with even greater force in relation to land over which there was no question of its gradually being released by the Government as they no longer required it, and which is one plot of land available for sale in one block, at one time, to one purchaser. If the Committee's criticisms are valid in relation to Woolwich, they are doubly valid in relation to the Hendon case.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: The whole matter turns, I maintain, on the definition of the term "quickly". I maintain that four and a half months from 28th October to 15th March, is not "quickly" in relation to the five years of the negotiations.
Mr. Richard: It does not turn on that: it turns on the fact that, in the Woolwich case, the land to be sold came on the market slowly as was released from Government use, but in Hendon it is available in one piece for sale to one purchaser at one time. If the Ministry can be criticised for delay between the stages by which the land was released at Woolwich, it is doubly open to criticism, a fortiori, in the case of a plot of land available for sale in one block.
Therefore, one should perhaps consider the suggestions of the Barnet Council in this case. The first was that it should acquire the property but should postpone payment not until the financial year

175
1968–69, but even further, until 1969–70. I hope that the hon. Member will agree that that it was right that that was turned down by the Ministry. I am sure that, had it been accepted, the Ministry would have been subject to severe criticism on later scrutiny—
Mr. Ian Orr-Ewing rose—
Mr. Richard: With respect, it would be a good idea if the hon. Member allowed me to try to develop the case. He may not think much of it, but, having looked at it as carefully as I can in 24 hours, I think that the merits of the arguments are on the Ministry's side and not on the side of the Barnet Council.
The first suggestion made by Barnet would have meant treating the whole acquisition in two parts—the physical hand-over of the property, and the later and postponed payment. There could be no possible justification for that course.
The second suggestion was perhaps even more fanciful—whether the Barnet Council could take possession of the land in the autumn of 1968, with completion and payment to be postponed as long as possible, nearly to the end of the financial year, on 15th March, with the Defence Department waiving interest in the interim. The interest has amounted to £124,000.
I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that in normal commercial procedures this would be almost totally unheard of. If he bought a house or perhaps an office block and decided that he wanted to decorate one floor prior to completion, I have never heard of a transaction in which he could do it and in which the vendor would say, "I will not charge interest on the whole purchase price from the time you take possession." That is the normal commercial rule, and there seems to be nothing in this case to take it out of the normal practice.
176
I turn to the two arguments being put up by the Barnet Council to justify the exemption it claims. The first is the one the hon. Gentleman put this evening, that the work it is doing is partially on behalf of the Defence Department, and that that somehow entitles it to special treatment. But nothing it is doing on behalf of the Defence Department meant that it had to get possession of the land six months earlier. One cannot say that the percentage of the sewers coming to the Department's part of the development necessitated an earlier possession date or postponed completion. One cannot say that the earlier possession date can be attributed therefore to the fact that the development was joint, though I suppose it may be attributed to the fact that, rightly, the Barnet Council wanted to get on with the job.
The second ground is that pressure was being put on the council, as on all others, by the Government to build, particularly in the public sector, to house those on its waiting list. Obviously, that is absolutely true. Pressure has been continually put on local authorities by the present Government ever since they came to office to build more council dwellings. We have been more successful with some councils than with others. I am not aware that the Government have ever said that local authorities are entitled to receive what would in effect be a hidden subsidy if the land on which the houses were to be built was Defence Department land rather than land they acquired on the open market.
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 twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  B.A.O.R. (Offset Agreement)
  B.A.O.R. (Offset Agreement)
  Middle East
  Middle East
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Pamphlet "Conflict in Nigeria—the British View "
  Pamphlet "Conflict in Nigeria—the British View "
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Vietnam
  Vietnam
  Nassau Agreement (Renegotiation)
  Nassau Agreement (Renegotiation)
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Italy (Detained British Subjects)
  Italy (Detained British Subjects)
  New States (Recognition)
  New States (Recognition)
  British Journalists, Kenya (Deportation)
  British Journalists, Kenya (Deportation)
  Nigeria
  Nigeria
  Mr. L. T. Pudaite, (Hong Kong Arrest)
  Mr. L. T. Pudaite, (Hong Kong Arrest)
  Aircraft (Hi-jacking)
  Aircraft (Hi-jacking)
  Sir Con O'Neil
  Sir Con O'Neil
  Passports
  Passports
  New Zealand (Exports)
  New Zealand (Exports)
  Iraq (Trials and Executions)
  Iraq (Trials and Executions)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Union of Arab Emirates
  Union of Arab Emirates
  Suez Canal (Detained British Ships)
  Suez Canal (Detained British Ships)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Mr. Anthony Grey
  Mr. Anthony Grey
  European Convention on Establishment
  European Convention on Establishment
  United Nations Relief and Works Agency
  United Nations Relief and Works Agency
  British Citizens, Western Europe (Accident Assistance)
  British Citizens, Western Europe (Accident Assistance)
  Political Prisoners (Representations to Foreign Governments)
  Political Prisoners (Representations to Foreign Governments)
  Australia and New Zealand (Minister's Visit)
  Australia and New Zealand (Minister's Visit)
  Libya
  Libya
  East-West Security Conference
  East-West Security Conference
  Mr. Gerald Brooke
  Mr. Gerald Brooke
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Dustmen's Strike (Supplementary Benefit Payments)
  Dustmen's Strike (Supplementary Benefit Payments)
  Blind Welfare
  Blind Welfare
  Invalidity Pension
  Invalidity Pension
  Low-paid Council House Tenants, Hull (Social Security Benefits)
  Low-paid Council House Tenants, Hull (Social Security Benefits)
HEALTH
  European Economic Community (Doctors)
  European Economic Community (Doctors)
  Medicines Commission
  Medicines Commission
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Dental Estimates Board
  Dental Estimates Board
  Leprosy
  Leprosy
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
HOSPITALS
  Referred Patients (National Health Service Numbers)
  Referred Patients (National Health Service Numbers)
  Leicester Royal Infirmary
  Leicester Royal Infirmary
  St. George's Hospital, Morpeth
  St. George's Hospital, Morpeth
  Scientific and Technical Services
  Scientific and Technical Services
  Nurses' Pay and Conditions
  Nurses' Pay and Conditions
  Volunteer Workers
  Volunteer Workers
  Willesden General Hospital (Nursing Staff)
  Willesden General Hospital (Nursing Staff)
ROADS
  A5 Trunk Road (Improvements)
  A5 Trunk Road (Improvements)
  Chequers Corner, Dagenham
  Chequers Corner, Dagenham
  Ampthill, Bedfordshire (Bypass)
  Ampthill, Bedfordshire (Bypass)
  Road Surfacing
  Road Surfacing
  South Lancashire Motorway (Route)
  South Lancashire Motorway (Route)
  Hixon Level Crossing Accident (Inquiry Report)
  Hixon Level Crossing Accident (Inquiry Report)
  "D" Ring Road, London (Route)
  "D" Ring Road, London (Route)
RAILWAYS
  Derailments
  Derailments
  >Ashford-Ore Line
  >Ashford-Ore Line
TRANSPORT
  Learner Motor-Cyclist Training Scheme
  Learner Motor-Cyclist Training Scheme
  Commercial Vehicles (Tests and Spot Checks)
  Commercial Vehicles (Tests and Spot Checks)
  Mopeds (Licensing and Taxation)
  Mopeds (Licensing and Taxation)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Overseas Defence Expenditure
  Overseas Defence Expenditure
  Inland Revenue Computer Centre, Hilsea
  Inland Revenue Computer Centre, Hilsea
  Import Deposits
  Import Deposits
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  H.M.S. "Victorious"
  H.M.S. "Victorious"
  Armed Forces and Civilian Employees
  Armed Forces and Civilian Employees
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Blackburn
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Blackburn
  Portsmouth Dockyard (Electrical Fitters)
  Portsmouth Dockyard (Electrical Fitters)
SCOTLAND
  Royal Commission on Local Government
  Royal Commission on Local Government
  Island Shipping Services
  Island Shipping Services
  >Occupational Medicine
  >Occupational Medicine
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Training Centres, Northern Region (Waiting Lists)
  Training Centres, Northern Region (Waiting Lists)
  Unemployment (North Ayrshire)
  Unemployment (North Ayrshire)
  Jute Industry, Scotland (Employment)
  Jute Industry, Scotland (Employment)
AVIATION
  Bahamas Airways (Services)
  Bahamas Airways (Services)
  Gatwick Airport (Night Jet Traffic)
  Gatwick Airport (Night Jet Traffic)
  Heathrow Airport (Aircraft Movements)
  Heathrow Airport (Aircraft Movements)
  Heathrow Airport (Noise Monitoring) System)
  Heathrow Airport (Noise Monitoring) System)
  Aircraft (Separate Compartments)
  Aircraft (Separate Compartments)
  Stansted Airport
  Stansted Airport
BOARD OF TRADE
  Water-Based Recreation (Search and Rescue Organisations)
  Water-Based Recreation (Search and Rescue Organisations)
  Industrial Development (Grants)
  Industrial Development (Grants)
TECHNOLOGY
  Shipbuilding Industry (Assistance)
  Shipbuilding Industry (Assistance)
  Future Policy
  Future Policy
  Nuclear Power Stations (Output)
  Nuclear Power Stations (Output)
  Aircraft, Nuclear Power Plant and Machine Tools
  Aircraft, Nuclear Power Plant and Machine Tools
  BOOK (PUBLICATION)
  BOOK (PUBLICATION)
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (COMPENSATION PAYMENTS)
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (COMPENSATION PAYMENTS)
AGRICULTURE
  Unsterilised Knacker Meat
  Unsterilised Knacker Meat
  Livestock Welfare (Codes)
  Livestock Welfare (Codes)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Building (Costs)
  School Building (Costs)
  Tiepolo Painting (National Gallery Purchase)
  Tiepolo Painting (National Gallery Purchase)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Football Matches (Vandalism)
  Football Matches (Vandalism)
  Mr. and Mrs. Kroger
  Mr. and Mrs. Kroger
HOUSING
  Building Programme
  Building Programme
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Flood Insurance
  Flood Insurance
  Councillors (Remuneration)
  Councillors (Remuneration)
  Public Convenience Coin Locks (Decimal Currency)
  Public Convenience Coin Locks (Decimal Currency)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Car Radios (Licences)
  Car Radios (Licences)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Labour-Only Contracting
  Labour-Only Contracting

Preamble
Reassembling after the Summer Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock: The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter

EAST GRIMSTEAD CHALK QUARRYING
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the treatment of East Grimstead, Wiltshire, is an indication of their attitude towards the preservation of the countryside.]
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY. MINISTRY of HOUSING and LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the decision taken last year to allow quarrying of chalk at East Grimstead. to which I think the noble Lord refers, was taken by my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government after a most careful weighing up of the needs of industry and the export trade against the damage to amenity. The permission lasts five years, and for the details I will send the noble Lord copies of the inspector's report and the decision letter which were issued in September last year.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that this was the first planning application ever to be held in secret? Will he tell your Lordships under which section of which Act these proceedings were authorised? Would not the noble Lord agree that, as half a million planning applications a year are held in public, objectors should have been warned that on this occasion they had no chance?
Lord KENNET: My Lords, the appeal was not, as such, heard in camera. Out of a hearing which lasted a great many hours, twenty minutes of the pro-
1208
ceedings were in camera. The inspector was perfectly within the law—I am sorry that I cannot quote chapter and clause—in agreeing to that course, which was proposed by the company. The reason he agreed to it was that the justification for working chalk in this beautiful area was that the chalk was of a special kind, and the company could not answer the question of what special kind without divulging commercial secrets, which would have put them at a disadvantage with foreign competitors. That was the justification for the unusual course of taking a small part—I emphasise a very small part—of the hearing in camera.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, this is not the first time that chalk quarrying has caused trouble. Can the noble Lord tell us whether, under this procedure, there was any opportunity at all for the objectors to bring geological evidence to rebut the evidence which was given on behalf of the company in secret? If there was not, there must be something wrong with the procedure.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if I remember rightly some of the geological evidence was not heard in camera, and of course there the normal procedure applied. However, the matter was looked at with the help of Government scientists, and this may be some reassurance to those who doubt the validity of the testing which was given to this evidence.

ROYAL PARKS: USE AT NIGHTS
2.38 p.m.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their policy to continue to allow people to sleep in the Royal Parks after the Parks are supposed to be closed for the night.]
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, Hyde Park, Kensington Gardens and Regent's Park are closed at night and it is an offence to be there after closing times. St. James's Park is permanently open. This year Green Park was left open experimentally and some people took the opportunity to sleep there at night. Many were young

1209
overseas visitors and tourists who often find difficulty obtaining overnight accommodation in London. My right honourable friend has received reports about the experimental opening and is studying them before reaching a decision about the future opening arrangements.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, is the noble BARONESS saying in regard to Green Park that the majority of those sleeping there were people who had tried to get accommodation and had failed?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I could not possibly verify that they had tried individually to obtain accommodation, but I think it is well known that there is at the moment a phenomenal shortage of proper accommodation for visitors in London.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, can the noble BARONESS say how soon we can be told about what the policy is going to be for Green Park?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I understand that my right honourable friend will be making up his mind in the very near future.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether she agrees that so long as these people are asleep in the Park no harm is being done, and it is only while they are awake that any damage might be caused?

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE AND SEA-BED ARMS CONTROL
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what decisions were made at the Geneva Disarmament Conference, particularly in regard to biological warfare and the demilitarisation of the sea-bed.]
THE MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Chalfont): My Lords, the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament is still in session in Geneva. Useful and detailed discussions have taken place on the draft Convention which Her Majesty's Government have
1210
put forward for the prohibition of Biological Methods of Warfare, and the associated draft Security Council resolution. Further versions of the drafts, revised to take account of comments that have been made on them, were tabled on August 26. We expect the drafts to be submitted to the current session of the United Nations General Assembly with the report on the work of the Committee on Disarmament. We hope that the General Assembly will commend our drafts and that it will call on the Committee on Disarmament urgently to pursue the search for international agreement on effective and realistic measures in the C.B.W. (Chemical and Biological Warfare) field when it re-convenes.
On the subject of arms control on the sea-bed, I am happy to say that on October 7 the United States and Soviet Co-Chairmen of the Disarmament Committee tabled a joint draft treaty calling for a ban on the emplacement of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction on the sea-bed outside a twelve-mile coastal zone. This draft will now be discussed by the Disarmament Committee and it, too, will be referred to the United Nations General Assembly, under the Committee's report.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us greatly appreciate the initiative which the British Government have taken on this matter, which has placed these subjects on the agenda for serious international consideration? Also, may I ask the noble Lord what plans are in the minds of the Government, carrying out the indication by the Minister at the Geneva Conference, for extending this consideration to chemical weapons as well as to biological weapons?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think my noble friend is aware of the reasons why we tackled these matters separately. Biological weapons are at an earlier stage of development than are chemical weapons. So far as we know, they have never been used in war, and so we thought it would be easier to get agreement on their prohibition. So much for the
reasons why we took them separately. But the draft Convention includes an article under which parties to the biological Convention would undertake to pursue in good faith negotiations on effective measures to strengthen existing

1211
constraints on chemical methods of warfare.
As my noble friend will be aware, in the field of chemical weapons there are complex problems of definition and interpretation to be considered. We think that the Secretary-General's report will help us in the future consideration of these measures and in the future consideration of means of restricting chemical warfare, as well as biological warfare, which we shall pursue both in Geneva and in New York.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I also ask my noble friend this question? While welcoming the accord between the United States and the Soviet Union in proposing the prohibition of nuclear, chemical and biological warfare under-seas, are Her Majesty's Government prepared to support the proposals made by Sweden and other Governments at the Geneva Conference for the total prohibition of the sea-bed for war implements?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, this is an extremely complex problem. If it were simply a problem of extending the prohibition from nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction to other weapons, this might be a matter for sympathetic consideration. But when we talk about complete demilitarisation of the sea-bed, Her Majesty's Government cannot support proposals of that kind because it would make it impossible for us and our allies to use the sea-bed in a number of ways that are of great importance to our security. Therefore complete demilitarisation is a matter that we find it difficult, if not impossible, to support, although we see no reason why in due course we should not extend the present definition of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction.

IMMIGRANTS: ACCOMMODATION FOR DEPENDANTS
2.45 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the police cannot be relieved of the invidious duty of vetting accommodation intended for dependants of Commonwealth immigrants.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, we have consulted the local authority associations about the suggestion made by the Wilson Committee on Immigration Appeals, that inquiries into accommodation and similar matters arising from entry certificate and visa applications might be undertaken by local authority welfare services rather than by the police. The local authority associations on the whole took the view that such inquiries were not a suitable task for welfare workers in local authority services. But the Corporation of the City of London and the London Boroughs Association have taken a more favourable view of the Wilson Committee's suggestion, and consultation with them is proceeding with a view to setting up a pilot experiment in Greater London.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether she is aware that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is probably glad to get rid of me, and that even she will have a tough job rivalling his patience and concern over issues like this? Is the noble BARONESS also aware that I am asking her about the stumbling block to good relations between the police and the immigrant community?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, we are aware of the difficulties, and I think we would accept that the use of the police for this particular service is not always ideal. As I pointed out in my reply to the noble Lord, we are seeking possible and appropriate alternatives to the use of the police for this service, but in the meantime we have to provide a 24-hour service, and the police are providing it well.
LORD WADE: My Lords, may I ask the noble BARONESS whether there are not a certain number of voluntary services which might be willing to assist the local authority welfare services in this matter?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, in certain cases, such as, for example, the case of a relative other than a parent who wishes to bring a young child into this country, the local authority children's service is used. Similarly, one might think of certain voluntary services being used in this way. But I understood the noble Lord's Question to apply to the

1213
scheme as a whole, and I can assure the House that this matter is under active consideration by my right honourable friend.

THE ORGANISATION OF GOVERNMENT
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half-past three my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a statement on the organisation of Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of allowing the Statute Law Repeals Bill [H.L.] to be taken through its remaining stages to-morrow.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL
2.48 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Perhaps I may first offer your Lordships a word of explanation about the number of Government Amendments which have been put down for Third Reading. Only three of these are Amendments of substance and they modify Amendments that we made in Committee and on Report. The remainder are drafting and technical Amendments and I hope the House will agree that, in order to expedite business, I can move them in most cases fairly formally.
Some of the Amendments are consequential on Amendments which were made earlier, and a number of them dealt with the extension of parts of the Bill to Scotland and Northern Ireland. I remember that when my noble friend Lord Stonham moved these "cross-Border" provisions on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, speaking from his long experience of these matters,
1214
warned us that this was a field in which it was very easy to make a slip and he hoped that we had got it right. I am afraid that a close study of the Bill in London, Edinburgh and Belfast showed that we had not got it quite right and I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is desirable to put the matter in order now, even at the expense of certain Third Reading Amendments.
As to the Amendments of substance, one amends an important new provision which the House added on Report, and it has taken account of the discussion which we had then. The other two Amendments concern an identical point which arises on two provisions which we added in Committee. The point was raised with us by an
outside body, the Justices' Clerks Association, whose vigilance we welcome but who unfortunately did not put this particular point before us until the Report stage. I am sure the House will feel that we should be failing in our duty if we did not take this last opportunity to consider all these matters and to add some further improvements to the Bill before we finally pass it.
Turning now to the first group of Amendments—Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 35, 48 and 49—these arise out of the Amendment made on Report which added a new condition (b) to subsection (2)—
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble BARONESS for one moment? I do not wish to interrupt at all on the merits of the Amendments, but in order to put ourselves in order. Do we not generally take the Third Reading first, then have the Amendments and, finally, have the debate, if necessary, on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass? I thought that we did not have the particulars of Amendments on Third Reading until we had passed the Third Reading.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I apologise to the House if the procedure is wrong. I can only say in explanation that I was anxious to get on with the business.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I think we should do that if the noble BARONESS simply moved that the Bill be now read a third time. We should then

1215
resolve that, and then deal with all these Amendments.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(BARONESS Serota.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 1 [Care proceedings in juvenile courts]:
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out")
The noble BARONESS said: My Lords, perhaps I may begin again. I am sure the House will not wish me to repeat the serial numbers of the Amendments that hang with Amendment No. 1, but those Amendments are merely, as I was saying, to add a new condition (b) to subsection (2) of Clause 1, and a new subsection (7) to Clause 2. In those subsections the word "mentioned" is ambiguous, and the Amendments—that to Clause 2 is on page 4, line 5—accordingly replace it by "set out". All the other Amendments in this group which I have already mentioned are similar, and they are made only to ensure consistency of drafting throughout the Bill. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I, too, hope that I am not going to get out of order, but I can assure the noble BARONESS and the House that it is my intention to do all I can to help her to rattle us through this very big bunch of Amendments which she has produced for us—and I am very glad that she is doing so. But I should like to take this opportunity to say—and I hope she will forgive me if I do—that on this occasion my gratitude towards her is tinged with a real regret that it is not the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who is taking this Bill, which he has done so much to father, through its final stages.
I suspect that we may be saying something from this side of the House in a moment about the latest batch of Ministerial changes—almost as many changes as there are Amendments at this Third Reading stage here—and all I wish to say now is that I was really very sad indeed
1216
to hear on my car radio last night that the noble Lord was leaving the Government and the Home Office, to which Department he has made so distinguished and marked a contribution during the past sixty months. We all know the dedication which he has given to this work—typically, in this Bill, for example; or in his work in Northern Ireland—and not least, I think, almost all of us know how much the noble Lord has done to forward the cause of prison reform in this country. That being so, I suspect it must have been a great source of pleasure to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to attend last week the opening of the new industrial prison near Bisley, which marks a very real step forward in prison reform, to which the noble Lord has made a distinguished personal contribution.
At an earlier stage of this Bill the noble Lord said, if I may quote his words:
"I should like to think that I have a great many personal friends on the other side of the House and that we mix on terms of very warm personal friendship."—[Official Report, 18/7/69; col. 596.]
I should like to assure Victor Stonham that this is the case. He has many friends on this side of the House. He has earned them by the sincerity of his work and by the courtesy which he has invariably extended to all those who are working in this field, whether opposing him temporarily or not, as the case may be. Given the Lord that he has carried in your Lordships' House in the past years, I fail to see how this House is going to get on without him. Be that as it may, while we on these Benches are really sad to see the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, leaving the Home Office, we are delighted to note that he has been made a Privy Counsellor, and we know that on later occasions we shall be hearing a great deal from him with his great experience in these fields, and we look forward to that.
Meanwhile, having said that, may I merely say that so far as this batch of Amendments is concerned I think that "set out" is an improvement on "mentioned".
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may add just one word from this Bench of profound regret that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has left the Government Front

1217
Bench. He has always treated the House, as Leaders have, with the greatest possible courtesy; he has always given the most careful consideration to everything brought forward, and he has always answered any debate without shirking any question. I should like to say, from this place, how very much we regret that Lord Stonham will no longer grace—and I use "grace" deliberately—that Front Bench.
LORD REA: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches cannot possibly be left out of this tribute to a man whom they have admired so long for the fine work which he has done. He and I both suffered a certain illness which comes to those getting on in years, and how he has done so much work since then I cannot imagine: I could not possibly have done it. He has been quiet, efficient and diligent in the accuracy and detail which he has brought to his work. What I think is most notable is that so many unfortunate people—prisoners, mentally retarded people and so on—owe such a debt to the noble Lord, who is giving up his post, in which we have admired him for so long.
LORD DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, as a Back Bencher from this side who has worked in the same field and behind my noble friend Lord Stonham, I want only to endorse every word that has been said.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, at the risk of being out of order twice in a very short period of time, may I say that I am sure that all noble Lords in all parts of the House would wish to join in the tributes that have just been paid to the work of Lord Stonham in his period of office at the Home Office. This I have always felt was to him the flowering of a lifetime of voluntary work in this particular sector. I myself have in the last two years sat by his side on many occasions long into the night, and have admired the courage and fortitude with which he has, with endless patience and courtesy and without a single complaint, dealt with Government business, with questions and with Amendments at a time when many of us were flagging.
It has fallen to me to speak of his work. I am sure that if my noble Leader, Lord Shackleton, were here he could speak with far greater power and effectiveness
1218
than I can. We all shall miss him, particularly on this Front Bench, and join in congratulating him on his latest ho tour. With the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, I am sure that there is much in life still for him to do, and we look forward to seeing him here regularly in his new position.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, quite unexpectedly but with great humility I have listened—in particular to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe—to words that never used to be said until after a man had died. They have been most moving and heartening I thought I should mention this because the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, in the course of his most generous tribute, inadvertently said that I had left the House. I should like, therefore, to make it clear that it is my earnest hope that I shall have the pleasure and privilege of sharing with Members from all side of the House in the work that we have done together, nearly always in complete agreement, and to say once more what I have long felt and often said in public, that although it may not be possible to justify the means by which we come to this House, whether it be by heredity or by appointment, once here we find this the most democratic Parliamentary Chamber in the world. And despite the uniformly bad Press that we get—even if we get a Press at all—the work that is done here is uniformly constructive and helpful to our country. I hope that we shall all be spared to go on doing it for a long time to come.
On Question, Amendment agreed 10.
Clause 2 [Provisions supplementary to s. 1]:
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 44, leave out ("shall bring him forthwith") and insert—
("(a) may make arrangements for his detention in a place of safety for a period of not more than seventy-two hours from the time of the arrest and it shall be lawful for him to be detained in pursuance of the arrangements); and
(b) shall within that period, unless within it the relevant infant is brought before the court aforesaid, bring him").
The noble BARONESS said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 and Amendments Nos. 9, 21 and 50 that hang with it are the Amendments to which I referred earlier which had been put down to meet a point which was put to us by the

1219
Justices' Clerks Society. As at present drafted, Clause 2 (5) requires a person arrested on a warrant issued in care proceedings to be brought before a justice forthwith if he cannot immediately be brought before a juvenile court. Juvenile courts do not sit daily and it may be some days before he can be brought before the juvenile court which issued the warrant.
It has been put to us by the Society that the word "forthwith" in this context may require the child or young person to be brought before the justice unnecessarily, e.g. at night or perhaps at the week-end. These are cases where a juvenile court has issued a warrant for the purpose of securing the child's attendance before it, and it is proper that such a warrant should constitute authority for detention for a reasonable period and should specify where he shall be detained during that period.
The first Amendment accordingly requires the young person to be brought before a justice within 72 hours if he has not been brought before a juvenile court within that period and authorises detention in a place of safety meanwhile. The Amendment to Clause 16 makes similar provision in relation to a person arrested on a warrant issued in supervision proceedings. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out").—(BARONESS Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 9. leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out").—(BARONESS Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Further supplementary provisions relating to s. l (2) (f)]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 2, leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out").—(BARONESS Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Alterations in treatment of young offenders, etc.]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I move Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 together. These are both drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 22, after first ("order") insert ("as is mentioned in this subsection")
Page 12, line 35, leave out ("making") and insert ("exercising a power to make").—(BARONESS Serota.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 8 [Finger-printing of suspected young persons]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, this Amendment hangs with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 26, leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out").—(BARONESS Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Provisions supplementary to s. 15]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 29, leave out ("shall bring him forthwith") and insert—
("(a) may make arrangements for his detention in a place of safety for a period of not more than seventy-two hours from the time of the arrest (and it shall be lawful for him to be detained in pursuance of the arrangements); and
(b) shall within that period, unless within it the relevant infant is brought before the court aforesaid, bring him").—(BARONESS Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, this is merely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 39, leave out ("foregoing") and insert ("preceding").—(BARONESS Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, Amendment No. 11 corrects a misreference which unfortunately occurred in the printing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 26, leave out ("(6) of that") and insert ("(5) of the preceding").—(BARONESS Serota.)
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I have checked on that. The noble BARONESS is quite correct.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Powers and duties of local authorities et cetera with respect to persons committed to their care]:
3.6 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 15.
Page 30, line 10, leave out from ("If") to ("and") in line 14 and insert ("a person who is subject to a care order and has attained the age of five is accommodated in a community home or other establishment which he has not been allowed to leave during the preceding three months for the purpose of ordinary attendance at an educational institution or at work")
Page 30, line 15, leave out ("during that period")
Page 30, line 20, after ("not") insert ("lived with or")
Page 30, line 21, at end insert ("during the preceding twelve months")
The noble BARONESS said: My Lords, I hope the House will allow me to move Amendment No. 12 and together with it Amendments 13, 14 and 15. Your Lordships will remember that on the Report stage my noble friend Lord Stonham introduced a provision which is now embodied in subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 24 requiring the appointment of a "visitor" for certain children in care. This provision was drafted in the very short space of time that occurred between the Committee and the Report stages of the Bill, and the Amendments which I am now moving are the result of further reflections during the Recess which have taken into account some of the comments made on the Amendment when we discussed the new provisions on the Report stage.
Subsection (5) as it now stands requires the appointment of a visitor where a person subject to a care order has throughout the preceding twelve months been accommodated by virtue of a court order in an establishment where care, treatment and education are given wholly or mainly on the premises forming part of the establishment, and where he has not visited or been visited by either of his parents or guardian during that twelve months. The House will remember that this was a matter to which the closest attention was given by various noble Lords. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe,
1222
suggested that a shorter period than twelve months might be appropriate. We have looked at this point again, and on reflection we feel that it would be preferable to lay down a separate, shorter period of residence in a closed situation before the duty to consider the appointment of a visitor arises, keeping the twelve months' absence of parent; I contact as the long-stop when the duty to appoint a visitor becomes absolute. One effect of this first Amendment is to reduce the specified period in a closed situation from twelve months to three months. I think this is the change of direction in which the noble Earl hoped that the House would go and which he was suggesting to my noble friend Lord Stonham.
We have also looked again at the definition of a "closed situation" which was the subject of comment during the debate. Subsection (5) at present refers to
"an establishment where care, treatment and education are given wholly or mainly on premises forming part of the establishment".
The difficulty with this formulation is that there may be community homes in which some of the children go out to school or to work and some do not. In the clause as it stands, the definition would be ambiguous in relation to such homes. It might mean, for example, that because some children were going out of school, others, who were not, did not qualify for a visitor.
The Amendment which we have put down avoids this difficulty by relating the duty to appoint a visitor to the situation of each individual child. The object is to provide for a visitor to be appointed for a child who has little or no parental contact and who is in a closed situation in that he does not regularly go outside the establishment and have contacts with the outside world. The Amendment defines this situation as being in an establishment
"which he has not been allowed to leave during the preceding three months for the purpose of ordinary attendance at an educational institution or at work."
This, of course, excludes such things as church attendance or casual outings.
Noble Lords will note that children under five have been excluded from the provision. Inevitably, young children spend most of their lives in the establishment where they live, and the younger

1223
they are the more time they are likely to spend there. In our earlier discussions I think we all agreed that our major concern here was with the older child or young person who spends nearly all his time in community homes. The second and fourth Amendments to this clause are consequential. The third covers the situation where a child has lived with his parents during the previous twelve months—that is, before coming into care—and where the reference to being visited by his parents would not be appropriate.
My Lords, I have dealt with these Amendments at some length because I know the concern which the House showed for this part of the Bill. If I may try to sum up, the effect of this subsection with the Amendments I am now moving would be this: if a child is subject to a care order and has been in a closed situation in the sense that I have just described for three months, the local authority must appoint a visitor if they think this appropriate, because communication between the child and his parents or guardian has been so infrequent; and in any case if the child has not seen his parent or guardian for twelve months. Compared with the subsection as it stands there are two main changes. The definition of a closed situation, we think, hits the nail more firmly on the head; and the prescribed period spent in such a situation is reduced from twelve months to three months. That is in the direction for which I think that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was asking. I hope that with that explanation the House will be prepared to agree to the Amendments which I have just moved.
3.15 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble BARONESS for her clear exposition of these Amendments and I am grateful, too, to the Government for the care which they have given to this part of the Bill. As the noble BARONESS reminded us, this is a part of the Bill which has greatly exercised many of us on both sides of the House. As I said during the Report stage discussions, I think that the Amendment which was then introduced by the Government went at least part of the way to afford the safeguards to the children and young people concerned which we felt were necessary. By and large, I think that
1224
these grouped Amendments are a further improvement on the position.
I should like to say straightaway that I am glad that the Government have conceded that this new machinery should operate within a shorter period than twelve months. I note the period of three months and I assume that although it is mandatory on the local authority to appoint a visitor after three months if the other criteria are met, there is absolutely no bar to their doing so beforehand if they consider that desirable in the special circumstances of a particular case. If the noble BARONESS can confirm that, I should be glad.
I see no objection to the age limit of five which has been proposed. I made it clear during our previous discussions that it was the older child about whom we were really concerned, and five seems to me to be about reasonable, although I am not certain why five has been chosen. I said that by and large these grouped Amendments seemed to me to be an improvement, and I think that they are, but I must say that I am still unclear why this additional and important safeguard is restricted (and it is clearly designed to be restricted by the Government) to children in secure accommodation, in the approved-school type of accommodation. I would agree straightaway that safeguards are probably more necessary here than when the young person concerned is in a more open situation, but I still believe that this safeguard would be useful as a stand-by provision where children are in some form of residential accommodation but, normally speaking, going out to work or for education.
If I recall correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. in arguing the more restricted case, referred to the children who were being fostered and to the obvious absurdity, when they are being befriended and have somebody in loco parentis, as it were, of having an additional visitor; and that I would concede absolutely and straight away. Nevertheless, just because we do not wish to extend the provision to children with foster parents, I see no need to restrict it. as is so clearly done here, to children in closed, approved-school type establishments; even though I concede that it is probably less often necessary in the more open type of establishment. Personally

1225
I should much have preferred Amendment No. 12 if it had been put before us without the qualifying words "which he has not been allowed to leave" and the next two or three lines.
I regret that the Government have not seen their way to meet this particular point which was urged upon them during the Report stage, not only from this side of the House but also from the Benches opposite. Having made that reservation to my welcome to this Amendment in general and to this subsection as improved by the Amendments which the noble BARONESS has moved may I ask one question? Am I right in thinking—I think that I am, after glancing at subsection (6)—that if for any reason a visitor gives up or is sacked from his job immediately thereafter it is incumbent on the local authority to appoint another visitor? That is certainly my reading of the Bill as at present drafted, but I should like confirmation that that is the case.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I think this is a very useful addition and improvement to the Bill. I merely wish to ask the question: what kind of person is this visitor to be? Is this visitor to be a kind-hearted lady or gentleman from the general community—a "do-gooder" as they are called—or is it to be a children's officer in the employment of the local authority? My mind goes back more than 25 years to my early days on the Essex County Council when we inaugurated what we called a system of "uncles" and "aunts" whereby kind-hearted men and women would, so to speak—I put the word in quotes—"adopt" a child in one of the children's homes or with a fosterparent, and pay regular visits to that child. We thought that a very good scheme, and so it proved to be. If it is that kind of person who is to be a visitor, it is one thing. If, on the other hand, it is to be a disciplined children's officer from the headquarters of the county council or the county borough council who is to be the visitor, it could be another kind of question. I do not say that one is better than the other, or worse than the other. I merely want to know what kind of person the Government have in mind as a visitor under this clause of the Bill.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, with regard to the first point that the noble
1226
Earl, Lord Jellicoe, put to me, as the Bill stands at present, a local authority cannot appoint a visitor within the meaning of Clause 24 before three months in a closed situation. My noble friend Lord Leatherland has told us of the kind of informal work that many children's authorities do in this field. They can of course encourage a suitable person from outside to take an interest in the children, but that person would be a friend, an aunt or an uncle, and would have no right to take a case to court, unless he was a visitor within the statutory meaning of the phrase as we have put it in this Bill.
My noble friend asked what kind of person—is it to be a children's officer? I can only refer him to the Bill itself, where the kind of person is spelled out on page 30, at line 32:
"In this section 'independent persons' means a person satisfying such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State with a view to securing that he is independent of the local authority in question and unconnected with any community home."
I think that that definition is quite clear.
I am glad that the noble Earl feels able to accept these Amendments. I can assure him that the greatest thought has been given to their wording. I think that they meet almost to the full extent the particular points he made to us, and I hope that the House will now rest content and pass them.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 28 [Detention of child or young person in place of safety]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will move Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19 en bloc, as they follow from Amendment No. 1, to which the House has already agreed.
Amendments moved—
Page 35, line 6, leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out")
Page 35, line 9, leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out")
Page 35, line 24, leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out")
Page 35, line 26, leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out").—(BARONESS Serota.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to ensure consistency between sub-paragraph (b) of

1227
subsection (4) and subsection (5). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 17. leave out ("has reason to believe") and insert ("considers").—(BARONESS Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Detention of absentees]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, this Amendment hangs together with Amendment No. 1, and therefore I beg to move it formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 39. line 39, after ("section") insert ("2 (5), 16 (3) or"). —(BARONESS Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Financial provisions applicable on cessation of controlled or assisted community home]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, this, too, is a drafting Amendment, which substitutes a straightforward reference to designation as a community home for the reference to paragraph (9) (1) of Schedule 3. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("then") in line 12 and insert ("were designated as a community home in a regional plan approved by the Secretary of State").—(BARONESS Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 [Extension of disqualification for keeping foster children]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 13, leave out ("foregoing") and insert ("preceding").—(BARONESS Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 [Interpretation and ancillary provisions]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, this Amendment I regard as a technical drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 73. line 16, at end insert ("and (5)").—(BARONESS Serota.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Clause 73 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
3.25 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, we now come to a great block of ten Amendments, from No. 25 to No. 34, all to Clause 73, so, with the leave of the House, I will move them together. These are technical Amendments, which relate to the application of certain provisions of the Bill to Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. These are the set of Amendments to which I referred at the outset and on which we were warned by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and 1 offer them now to the House to make amends. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 75, line 16, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section")
Page 75,line 19, leave out paragraph (6) and insert—
("(b) section 72 (2) and Part II of Schedule 4; ")
Page 75, line 21, after ("35") insert (", 38")
Page 75, line 29, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section")
Page 75, line 32, at end insert ("section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 and")
Page 75, line 36, leave out from ("1933") to end of line 37 and insert (", paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 to the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961, sections 10 (1) and (2), 53 (1) and 65 (5) of, and paragraphs 27, 34 and 50 of Schedule 3 to, the Act of 1963 and sections 73 (2), 76 (1) and (2) and 77 (0 (6) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968; ")
Page 75, line 42, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section")
Page 75, line 44, leave out ("section 53 (1) of") and insert ("paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 to the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 and section 53 (1) of, and paragraph 34 of Schedule 3 to, ")
Page 75, line 46, leave out ("extends") and insert ("and this section extend") at end insert—
("(7) It is hereby declared that the provisions of sections 69 and 70 of this Act extend to each of the countries aforesaid so far as is appropriate for the purposes of any other provisions of this Act extending to the country in question.").—(BARONESS Serota.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Modifications of Part IV of Criminal Justice Act 1967]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 33, leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out").—(BARONESS Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Approved schools and other institutions]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 36 to 43 to Schedule 3 are all purely drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 83, line 28, leave out ("accordance with")
Page 83, line 30, leave out ("are") and insert ("is")
Page 83, line 42, leave out ("accordance with")
Page 83, line 43, leave out ("are") and insert ("is")
Page 84, line 38, leave out ("accordance with")
Page 84, line 40, leave out ("are") and insert ("is")
Page 86, line 4, leave out ("accordance with")
Page 86, line 7, leave out ("are") and insert ("is").—(BARONESS Serota.)
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, we took the last large block of Amendments on trust, and I hope that we were right to do so. All I can say about this block is that we can much more easily understand them, and we are certain that they are neater.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, this is a technical Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 27, leave out ("the information was") and insert ("apart from this paragraph the information would have been").—(BARONESS Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, Amendments 45 and 46 can be taken together. The object of the first Amendment is to avoid casting any doubt on the extent of paragraph (9) of Schedule 4. The second Amendment is consequential to the first. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 91, line 20, at the beginning insert ("Without prejudice to the preceding paragraph")
1230
Page 91, line 21, leave out ("paragraph 9 (a) of this Schedule") and insert ("sub-paragraph (a) of that paragraph").—(BARONESS Serota.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down as it is felt that the word "commencement" is inappropriate here, because there are different dates on which the different provisions of the Bill will be brought into force. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 16, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("passing").—(BARONESS Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments of enactments]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, Amendments 48 and 49 to Schedule 5 form part of the group that I dealt with under Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 94. line 44, leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out")
Page 97, line 16, leave out ("mentioned") and insert ("set out").—(BARONESS Serota.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, this Amendment, No. 50, hangs together with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 9, after ("section") insert ("2 (5), 16 (3) or").—(BARONESS Serota.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Wilson of Langside): My Lords, Amendment No. 51 is yet another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 1, after the word ("person") insert the words ("to whom the notification relates").—(Lord Wilson of Langside.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will take Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 together. No. 53, as it appears on the Marshalled List of which your Lordships have a copy, has been printed wrongly, and it is accordingly necessary that before moving the Amendment I should draw the attention of your Lordships to the error. The error consists in the omission at the end of Amendment

1231
No. 53 of the figure (2), in brackets. This Amendment in the correct form has previously been printed and circulated on Amendment Sheet 160 (b) of October 3. I propose to move the Amendment in its correct form.
These two Amendments are designed to clarify the way in which the Secretary of State is to exercise the various powers to prescribe which are set out in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, whether by order, by regulation or by rule. Section 90 (1) of the 1968 Act provides that the power to prescribe shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, but does not state whether this shall be regulations, rules, orders, or by some other form. The intention when the Bill was enacted was that the Secretary of State should choose whichever form of statutory instrument seemed most suitable, but it is now thought preferable, for the avoidance of any doubt, to set out specifically the way the power is to be exercised in each case. It is to achieve that end that these Amendments are moved. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I did not follow where the figure (2) should be.
LORD WILSON OF LANGSIDE: My Lords, it should appear after the last word "order" at the foot of page 5 of the Marshalled List.
Amendments moved—
Page 107, line 36, at end insert—
(". In section 90 (1) of the said Act of 1968, the words 'or to prescribe any matter,' shall be omitted.")
Page 107, line 37, after the word ("1968") insert—
("(1) after the definition of "place of safety" there shall be inserted the words—
"prescribed" means—

(a) in section 3, prescribed by regulations,

(b) in section 44, prescribed by rules, and

(c) in sections 62(2), 66(1) and (2), 94, paragraphs 2(2) and (3), 4(3) and (4) of Schedule 7, prescribed by order).

(Lord Wilson of Langside.)
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to express gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, for making it unnecessary to point out to him that there was this slight inaccuracy, and to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for getting the (2) in the right place.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Repeals]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will move Amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 56 together. They are consequential on the abolition of approved schools, remand homes and fit persons orders. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 112, line 12, at end insert—

("1937 c. 37.

The Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937.

Sections 82, 86, 87 and 89. In Schedule 2, paragraph 13.")

Page 116, line 53, leave out ("'and 53 (1)'") and insert ("' Subsections (1) and (2) of section 10 and', 'and 53 (1)' and '27' and '34'").
Page 116, line 56, after ("27") insert ("33, 34,").—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD WILSON Of LANGSIDE: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 52. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 118, line 16, at end insert—
("In section 90(1) the words 'or to prescribe any matter, '")—(Lord Wilson of Langside.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, this last Amendment is purely a drafting Amendment to correct an omission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 118, line 18, after ("words") insert ("from").—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE ORGANISATION OF GOVERNMENT
3.37 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient to your Lordships if I were now to repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. I must warn your Lordships that it is rather a long Statement. It says:
"As the House knows, I announced a few days ago certain changes in the machinery of Government and departmental responsibilities, and I am taking this first opportunity of informing the House about them. There are two main areas where the responsibilities affecting a number of Departments are

1233
concentrated under a senior Minister, following the principle which has already been applied in the fields of defence, overseas affairs and health and social security.
"In the industrial field a great deal more responsibility will now be concentrated under the Minister of Technology. He will take over the duties of the Minister of Power, and, subject to the approval by Parliament of an Order which is being laid to-day, the two Ministries will become a single Department. The Ministry will also take over from the Board of Trade responsibility for the remaining principal manufacturing industries of which the Board of Trade has been the sponsoring Department. The expanded Ministry will also take over the responsibilities of the Department of Economic Affairs in the field of industrial policy including the Statutory responsibility for the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation.
"The responsibility for the distribution of industry, including industrial development certificates, advance factories, industrial estates in development areas, building grants and loans will also pass from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Technology, as will the responsibility for paying investment grants to industry.
"This change means that the same Department, as sponsoring Department, dealing with the greater part of private and public industry, will also be responsible for executive decisions concerning the location of industry.
"As a result of these changes the same Ministry will now be responsible for electricity generation as well as nuclear power and the electrical plant industries, for gas and oil as well as chemicals, for the steel using industries, as well as for the production of steel, for the whole range of mineral development, for textiles as well as textile machinery.
"With the transfer of many industrial functions from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Technology, the Board will concentrate the greater part of its energies on overseas trade and export promotion including a considerable proportion of the sectors responsible for invisible earnings. In ad-
1234
dition to its responsibilities for external commercial policy (including tariff policy) and export policy and services the Board of Trade will remain responsible for civil aviation, shipping, tourism, hotels and insurance. On the home side, its work will be primarily related to commerce including the administration of the Insurance and Companies Act, patents and copyright. It will continue to be responsible for consumer protection, for the distributive and service trades, including retail distribution, for newspapers, printing, publishing and films, these being more in the field of communications than in industries as normally conceived. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade and my noble friend the Minister of State "will be able to spend more of their tine in direct contact on exports with industry throughout the regions, in addition to promoting the sales of British exports overseas. The regional export organisation will be strengthened.
"I shall continue to take the Chair at meetings of N.E.D.C, and responsibility for N.E.D.C. in connection with the agenda and consultations thereon with industry, and also the vote and establishment of the National Economic Development Office will be in the Cabinet Office.
"Certain other aspects of the change in responsibilities will be set out in the statement, which, with permission, I will circulate in the Official Report. This deals with the question of extractive industries, certain aspects of the work of N.E.D.C, and with the transfer of a number of productivity services from the Board of Trade to the Department of Employment and Productivity.
"The other area of Government where a concentration of responsibilities is taking place lies in the field of housing, local government, regional planning, land use, transport and the environment generally. This will be particularly important in connection with the consultations on the Redcliffe-Maud Report, and the work which will follow those consultations. The House will, I think, have drawn from the Maud Report the clear conclusion that in the modern world the work of local government and the range of decisions concerned with

1235
planning, land use and transport, social and environmental development, cannot in practice be separated. A Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning has therefore been appointed. He will have working under his general direction, the existing Ministers of Housing and Local Government, and Transport. My right honourable friend will take personal charge of the local government negotiations, following the Redcliffe-Maud Report.
"My right honourable friend, assisted by my honourable friend the former Minister of State for the Department of Economic Affairs (Mr. Urwin), will be responsible for the Government's regional policy as a whole, taking over the work in this fiield previously carried out by the Department of Economic Affairs, and responsibility for the Regional Economic Planning Boards and Economic Planning Councils, as well as the follow-up to the Maud recommendations for greater devolution to the regions. My honourable friend the Minister of State will act in particular as Minister concerned with Northern Region affairs with direct responsibility to the Secretary of State.
"To an increasing extent, as the House knows, the work, reports and plans of the Regional Economic Planning Councils are not confined to purely economic development, but are concerned with transport planning and social development, urban renewal, the removal of pit heaps and other amenity questions covering the wide range of environmental problems.
"I have asked the new Secretary of State to go urgently into the question of environmental pollution in all its forms and to make proposals to me on how this should be dealt with, including any changes he may feel it right to recommend in the machinery of government or the law. His responsibilities of course extend only to England, but in this matter of pollution he will of course make his recommendations in consultation with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales who will retain all their present responsibilities and statutory functions.
1236
"The House will be aware that for the time being the existing Ministries of Housing and Local Government, and Transport will continue, with the same statutory functions, but working under the general direction of the Secretary of State. I have, however, asked him to report to me on the changes which, in his view, should be made at a later date with a view to creating a more integrated Department.
"The House will be further aware that with the appointment of my honourable friend the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the Department of Education and Science as Minister of State in Housing and Local Government, the very valuable work he has been doing on sport, local and national, will now pass, with him, to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which I feel is now the right place for these duties to be exercised.
"The other change in Ministerial responsibilities which I should report to the House is that my right honourable friend the former Minister Without Portfolio, Mr. Thomson, now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, moves to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, where he will be the deputy to my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary over the whole range of duties of that Office. In addition, he will take personal charge under the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on all questions affecting relations with Europe, including the conduct of negotiations with the European Communities.
"The draft Order in Council providing for the formal merger of the Ministries of Technology and Power and certain other transfers of functions in the industrial and economic field is being laid to-day, and will require prior Parliamentary approval. Separate Transfer of Functions Orders relating to statutory responsibilities for sport will be laid before the House shortly. As the House knows, this will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.
"These changes in Ministerial responsibilities will involve some alterations in the arrangements for answering Questions in this House.
"Where the changes in responsibility have not required Parliamentary

1237
approval, interim arrangements for the remainder of this Session have already been made after discussion through the usual channels. Discussions will be held about the roster for the new Session."
The last paragraph, as your Lordships know, is not really applicable to us, but some arrangements will be necessary here.
Following are the other aspects of the change referred to in the Statement:

MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT CHANGES
1. The main changes in the Machinery of Government, announced by the Prime Minister to-day, are as follows:

(i) The Ministry of Technology will take over the responsibilities of the Ministry of Power, and will become a single Department under the Minister of Technology.

(ii) The expanded Ministry of Technology will assume responsibility for certain additional functions in relation to industry which were previously in the Board of Trade and the Department of Economic Affairs.

(iii) The work of the Board of Trade will be concentrated upon exports and overseas trade, and trade and commerce in the United Kingdom.

(iv) A Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning is appointed.

(v) The allocation of the functions of the Department of Economic Affairs is as set out in detail below.

Technology, Industry and Trade
2. The Ministry of Technology becomes the Government Department with the main responsibility for industry both in the public and private sectors.
3. The merger with the Ministry of Power will bring together in one Department responsibility for all primary fuels and plant industries for electricity generation, together with other power and energy supply and plant industries.
4. The expanded Department will also be concerned with the structure of industry and with industrial productivity. It will therefore assume responsibility for the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation.
5. The industries concerned with mineral development in both the public and the private sectors (except those which are closely linked with the construction industry) will also be brought together under the Ministry of Technology. The Ministry will thus have the main responsibility for all general questions relating to mineral development.
6. The Ministry of Technology will assume the Department of Economic Affairs' responsibilities in the field of regional economic development and also the related distribution of industry functions of the Board of Trade. The regional organisations of the Ministry of
1238
Technology and of the Board of Trade will be adjusted so as to reflect the new division of responsibilities between the two Departments.
7. The Ministry of Technology will assume responsibility for investment grants.
8. In addition, the Department of Employment and Productivity will assume responsibility for a number of bodies concerned with the provision of certain of the productivity services to industry hitherto handled by the Board of Trade.
9. The Board of Trade will concentrate on overseas trade and export promotion, including the many activities which contribute invisible earnings to the balance of payments. Thus, in addition to its responsibilities for external commercial policy (including tariff policy) and export policy and services, the Board of Trade will retain responsibility for civil aviation, shipping, tourism, hotels and insurance.
10. The Board of Trade's other field of responsibility will relate to trade and commerce in the United Kingdom. It will continue to be responsible for the distributive and service trades, including retail distribution, newspapers, printing, publishing and films. It will also retain a number of general responsibilities in relation to commerce including the administration of (he Insurance and Companies Acts, Patents and Copyrights.
11. As has been announced, the Government is urgently reviewing the question of the public accountability of firms in industry, including the role of the Monopolies Commission and the National Board for Prices and Incomes. The future departmental responsibility for monopolies, mergers and restrictive practices will be decided in the light of the Government's decision which will be announced shortly.
N.E.D.C. and the National Economy
12. The Prime Minister will remain Chairman of the N.E.D.C. Responsibility for coordinating advice on the content and priorities of the Council's business and for supervising the Vote and staffing of the N.E.D.O. will pass to the Cabinet Office. The Government's consultations with the "little Neddies" will now pass to the relevant sponsoring Departments.
13. Responsibility for medium and long term economic assessment will pass to the Treasury as part of the reorganisation; and that Department will assume co-ordinating responsibility for those aspects of the work of the N.E.D.C. which relate to the continuing process of preparing, producing and following up planning documents and for co-ordinating the consultations between Department and industry on these.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL PLANNING, AFTER THE MAUD REPORT
14. The new Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning will coordinate the work of the Ministries of Housing and Local Government and Transport. He will be particularly concerned with following up the recommendations in the Maud Report. He will take personal charge of the negotiations for carrying through the reform

1239
of Local Government in England. Responsibility for the Regional Planning Councils and Boards will pass, with their staffs in the regions, from the Department of Economic Affairs to the new Secretary of State.
15. The Secretary of State will also have special responsibility in relation to all aspects of environmental pollution. He will coordinate the activities of the executive Departments in this field. The Prime Minister has asked him as a matter of urgency to submit recommendations for improving the machinery for dealing with pollution problems. The Secretary of State's responsibilities in this field cover England, but he will have the task of securing co-ordination with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, whose responsibilities and statutory functions remain unchanged in this and in all other matters.
TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS ORDER
16. The creation of the new post of Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning and the re-distribution of the functions of the Department of Economic Affairs take effect at once; and the Minister of Technology will for the time being become Minister of Power. But the actual merger of the Ministries of Technology and Power, and the transfer of functions from the Board of Trade, as well as the transfer of responsibility from the Department of Economic Affairs for the I.R.C., have to be effected by an Order in Council, which requires Parliamentary authority. For this purpose it is intended to lay a draft Transfer of Functions Order as soon as possible after the two Houses resume.
3.48 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will want to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating that Statement, and congratulate him on his stamina in reading it. All I can say is that even though I had a copy before me I was as bewildered as I was before he started. It is one of the most complicated Statements that I have ever heard read in this House. I only hope that it will not take those in the Departments as long to understand what they are all supposed to be doing now, and to whom they are responsible, as I am sure it will take your Lordships to get into the habit of referring to different people by different names, working for different Departments.
We shall obviously have an opportunity to debate this matter when the Orders are before this House. All this really leads me to wonder whether, at this stage in a Parliament, it really is very sensible to make radical changes of this character. However, the Government have decided to do it, and we must see how it goes. At
1240
first blush, I should have thought there was a great danger in creating two enormous Ministries which will be so big that they will really be unmanageable. But here again we must see how it goes.
Before I sit down, I should like to associate myself with the congratulations which have been voiced, following these changes, to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and to the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, on their promotion; and also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on his very well deserved honour. It gives much pleasure to everybody in this House, as I hope it does to the noble Lord.
3.50 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, particularly in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on the honour which he has received, and to thank him particularly for all the courtesies which we in many parts of the House have received from him during his term of very difficult office. As to the Statement, I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I am a great one for change, but for change in its right place. I think that as a piece of political reorganisation, a piece of political rationalisation, this reconstruction may well go down as being extremely beneficial, but I have some grave misgivings about its timing. I should have thought that a radical reorganisation of this kind ought to be brought about when a Government can look forward to three or four years of office, and not in the fag end of a Parliament. I do not know whether the Leader of the House would like to say what positive achievements he hopes to see between now and the General Election, or how many months will be required for this machine to be running in.
In addition, there are only two points I should like to ask the noble Lord. Can he say what is the new relationship between Mr. George Thomson and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who up to this point, I believe, had quite a number of responsibilities in relation to Europe? The other point is: what has happened to the Coal Board in all this?
3.52 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should like first of all to thank the noble

1241
Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for what they have said about certain of my noble friends. I had myself thought to say this, but I thought it came less appropriately after a very long Statement, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to pay these tributes. I understand that a number of tributes have already been paid to my noble friend Lord Stonham. Nevertheless, I am bound to pay my own personal one. He has been a colleague of mine in this Government for five years now, and to speak of his energy, his thoroughness, his devotion, his courtesy, makes him sound almost like a very unlikely paragon; and I am sure that noble Lords opposite would say that it is almost impossible to find such an individual in a Labour Government. But I must say that he is outstanding among my colleagues, and I am absolutely delighted that he should have had this very notable honour—and it is a very notable honour—and a very just reward for his services. I do not doubt that he will continue to be as active and energetic in a number of fields where his interests will still continue. Much as one regrets his going, I am sure he will continue to help us very much. Of course, we particularly recognise his work in Northern Ireland.
May I also say how pleased I am regarding the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. He has laboured very long and we are delighted that he is a Minister of State. And those who know the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, from his time in another place will know that we have had an access of very high ability to our Front Bench.
If I may turn to the noble Lord's points. I agree that it is a complicated Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has been away from Government for a long time. Government can be complicated, and whenever the Government explain something in detail of course we are attacked for telling too much; if we had not explained this we should have been told that we had not explained it enough. None the less, his remarks were kindly. But I assure him there is a very determined attempt to rationalise the functions of Government, which is a very complicated business, and complication always arises particularly in relation to the borders of different
1242
bodies. Therefore, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for suggesting that in fact this reconstruction: should yield benefit.
As to whether this is the right time, this question seems to be based on some vague misconception that there may be a Government of a different colour after the next Election. It so happens that I think that after the period of experience we have had with Government it is right now to initiate changes which have been considered for a very long time. I am quite certain that, in the unlikely event of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, finding himself in Government, these changes will stand in good stead any Government of this country who are seriously setting out to face the problems that confront us.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Byers, who asked what my noble friend Lord Chalfont will do. I do not think he is here.
LORD CHALFONT: Yes.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord is here. The noble Lord will have an opportunity to deal with this matter in the debate on the Queen's Speech. As to my right honourable friend Mr. Thomson, I have explained what he is doing and his particular responsibilities for Europe. I understand that my noble friend Lord Chalfont will take over some of the duties Mr. Mulley has been doing, particularly in the field of disarmament, as well as having certain territorial responsibilities.
May I say just one thing on size? It is very easy to get this out of perspective. The actual numbers of staff are not increasing very much. The Ministry of Technology goes up by about 4, 000; the Board of Trade goes down by 2, 000, and the Ministry of Power and the D.E.A. disappear, except that certain D.E.A. functions go elsewhere; so there is enormous variation in the size. Of course, none of these Departments is remotely as large as the Ministry of Defence, which the previous Government very rightly created.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, would the Minister be so good as to clarify one point? It will be within the memory of the Leader of the House that some years ago, when civil aviation was transferred from the

1243
Ministry of Transport to the Board of Trade, the argument was very strongly put that it was necessary that manufacturing and operation should be under the same Department. Now I understand that the functions of civil aviation will remain with the Board of Trade, but from what the Leader of the House said I gather that what I call the manufacturing and technical aspects of production will go to the Ministry of Technology. If that is the case, we shall then get back to the very position the Government were saying they wished to avoid in the past.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the manufacturing responsibilities for aviation have been with Technology for some while now, and this is one of the areas where there is in fact no change. I assure the noble Lord, because when I was at the Ministry of Defence I did my best to prevent it from going to the Ministry of Technology, so I know the argument very well. But there are powerful arguments either way and the basic argument is that sponsorship of the aircraft industry should not be confused with sponsorship of civil aviation; and I think there was a real danger of schizophrenia. There are, I agree, powerful arguments, but this was a decision taken probably two years or more ago, which seems to have escaped the attention of the noble Lord.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, which Minister will be responsible for the siting of airports?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, the siting of airports will continue, as I understand it, with the President of the Board of Trade.
LORD ERROLL of HALE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could give the House an assurance that these very important changes were fully discussed democratically in the Cabinet as a whole before being implemented.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I can only say to the noble Lord that I regard that as a somewhat improper question.
LORD ERROLL of HALE: My Lords, surely there is nothing improper in asking. I was only hoping that as the noble Lord said he is in difficulty if he gives
1244
too much information, and in a difficulty if he does not give enough, he might at least vouchsafe to us this piece of most important information.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, there is impropriety in the question's coming from somebody who himself is a former Cabinet Minister and President of the Board of Trade. The noble Lord knows that the machinery of Government is the responsibility of the Prime Minister and the consultations he chooses to have with his colleagues are for him.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether there was prior and democratic consultation in the Cabinet when Mr. Macmillan sacked seven of his Ministers overnight?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask one supplementary to the question I put previously? In the interesting Statement that the Leader of the House read to us he used the word "pollution" to cover, I think, various threats to the environment. Is it clear that he includes in what he said pollution by noise?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am never quite sure whether the roads themselves do not constitute a form of pollution. Let me say that I am speaking personally. It may well be that in another two hundred years' time we shall not need roads and they will be as difficult to deal with as are all the runways from the last war. I would agree with the noble Lord that, if one is going to look at the environment, it covers a very wide range, but I should not like to specify before my right honourable friend the new Secretary of State has looked across the board at these questions. I know that Mr. Greenwood was interested in problems of noise, and I think the important thing is to place the responsibility; and thereafter it will be a matter of consultation as to where the limits are drawn.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend for his Statement and also in congratulating both the noble Lords who have been promoted and the noble Lord who has resigned. Does not my noble friend feel, however, that as a result of the concentration into one sponsoring Department with conflicting interests—it is not so much a question of

1245
the size of the Department as of conflicting interests among the sponsored—the quality of decision-making may suffer and certain democratic control over decision-making will be weakened? Moreover, does he not feel that as a result of the inevitable immense increase in the control of the Treasury over decision-making as a result of these changes we shall tend to get back to a situation from which we have emerged?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, my noble friend has raised an interesting point. The extent to which one makes use of creative tension in Government raises interesting philosophic aspects, and there are times when there are arguments that the responsibilities should be separate, and there are other arguments that if we put them all together and provide the right representation within a Department, we shall arrive more effectively at a decision with somebody with responsibility across the board, thereby diminishing the amount of work that has to go to inter-departmental committees. There are such arguments—and I think possibly modern thinking is going in that direction—but I should not like to be dogmatic and say that this is a principle which should be followed in all circumstances because we should then have only one Department of State for the whole of Government. I could not accept what (he noble Lord said about the Treasury, but I noted it with interest.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL
4.3 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. On the Second Reading of the Bill, the House gave it a general and warm welcome. Of course we had our points of difference subsequently, and one of these concerned a crucial issue which was the subject of a particular Amendment, which no doubt we shall return to at a later stage. But I think it is fair to say that there has been wide support in this House for nearly all the provisions of the Bill, and total support for its broad aims.
Some of our most important discussions have been concerned with the situation of children and young people, particularly adolescents, who have such serious behavioural problems that they
1246
require special care and treatment in a carefully controlled setting. Parliament, rightly, has been vigilant to ensure that there are proper safeguards for these children, and our discussions have had an important outcome in the provision of a "visitor". Of course, most of the children with whom we are concerned will not be in a secure establishment, but a relatively small number have to be kept in conditions of security while an attempt is made to provide the treatment they need. Paragraphs (c) and (e) of subsection (2) of Clause 43 will enable my right honourable friend to make regulations providing special safeguards in these cases. In view of the very close interest which the House has taken in this aspect of the Bill I thought it might be useful to summarise what it is intended to provide in the regulations that are to be made under these powers. At the outset I should like to make it clear that I am talking only of those children and young people in the care of local authorities under a court order; there will be no special provisions to allow restrictions on the liberty of children who are received into care voluntarily and at the request of their parents.
The regulations which are to be made by my right honourable friend will provide that no part of any community home may be used for the purposes of restricting liberty, beyond the extent, of course, of normal parental powers, unless expressly approved for this purpose by the Home Secretary. In this way my right honourable friend will control both the extent to which secure accommodation is provided in different parts of the country and the actual condition:; in the accommodation itself including, for example, the arrangements for staff supervision.
The procedures for admission to this secure accommodation will be carefully graded according to the length of stay considered necessary. We have to cater for a wide variety of situations ranging from a sudden but, we hope, temporary outburst to a need for long-term treatment and care in a secure situation. I would stress that this accommodation will not be available for punishment. The regulations will thus permit the person in charge of the home to admit a child for up to 24 hours, as a short cooling-off measure. If a longer period is necessary

1247
the managers of the home (or the local authority in the case of a local authority home which has no managing body) will have to authorise any further period in the secure accommodation, but this authorisation will not last beyond 14 days at most. Should the assessment of the child's needs be that he should remain for a period longer than 14 days, the express consent in writing of the local authority to whose care the child has been committed would be required, and this written authority would not last for more than three months at a time.
The regulations will also set out the special review procedures, involving the participation of at least one completely independent person. The committee undertaking these reviews will consider all proposals to extend a written consent by the local authority for a child to be kept in secure accommodation; that is, each consent will be reviewed not less than every three months. On each occasion all the circumstances will be fully examined before deciding whether or not the child must be kept for a further period in such accommodation. My right honourable friend will be discussing with the local authority associations just how this review machinery is to be set up, and in particular whether there should be one review committee for each local authority, or whether, in those cases which exist in certain parts of the country, where several authorities share in the use of a home with secure accommodation, there should be one committee for that home including representatives of each contributing authority. The inspectorate of the Children's Department—and all of us who know that inspectorate have the highest regard for its professional skills and quality—will watch the working of the review committees to ensure that there is no question of their becoming "rubber stamps".
My Lords, I have explained the proposed content of these regulations in some detail as the House has regarded this as one of the most important issues raised by the Bill. However, I do not wish to minimise in any way the importance of all the other provisions, and in particular of those relating to the work of the juvenile courts and of all the services concerned with children who are in trouble, but not in residential care. What
1248
we are doing in this Bill is to re-write the basic framework of law within which these services perform their functions. In doing so, we are re-emphasising the constructive aspects of their work while recognising the need to provide control as well as help for children according to their individual needs. We are also, rightly, removing some of the more rigid and inhibiting features of the present law while preserving intact the essential judicial safeguards for the rights of the children and of their parents. I hope and believe that we have devised a flexible framework which will be capable of great development and will serve for a considerable span of years. But at the end of the day I know that all noble Lords will agree that this will depend, as it always does, on the individual people who deal with the individual children.
Whatever arguments we have had about particular aspects of the Bill, I am confident that we would all stress the need for a harmonious working partnership between all those in the statutory and voluntary field who have a part to play in implementing the different sections of this Bill. It is they who have the difficult job of tackling individual and social problems to which no society has yet found a complete answer. The Bill is based on the principle that we should support the men and women who actually do the job, who actually have the day-to-day contact with the children and their families and all their problems. This Bill, as I see it, is an enabling measure in the best sense of that term, in that it is designed to enable them to do a better job; that is, to meet the needs of individual children more effectively. It is for this purpose that the Bill emphasises the need for more flexible arrangements, for the effective use of resources, and for full judicial safeguards.
Society must surely ensure that the necessary care and control are provided for children who are in trouble, both in the child's interest and in its own interest. The Bill is therefore based on the fundamental recognition that these two interests are not separate and that they can both best be met by dealing with the child within his own family and within the community wherever possible, with the help of the normal services available to all children and all families,

1249
and avoiding the separation and isolation of the difficult or delinquent child. This is a Bill for children, and I think it is right that we should end our long debates on its various provisions with our attention focused firmly on this essential objective.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Serota.)
4.12 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, during our Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, claimed that this Bill was
"part of the historical process of making the law about children more humane, juster, and more effective".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19/6/69; col. 1128.]
We have, as we have made dear at the various stages of the Bill, entertained, and in certain cases we still do entertain, doubts about the Bill. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord's claim will be justified by events so far as this Bill is concerned, warts and all, although I think it would have been even more justified if we had been able to remove rather more of the warts. I only wish that the noble Lord in making this claim had been able to add that it made the law about children and young persons less complicated. I think we are at one in this House in urging future Governments to tidy up and simplify and consolidate the law here. It is realty appallingly complicated, at least to the layman like myself.
This Bill deals, of course, with cure rather than prevention, and this should not blind us to the fact that here, as elsewhere, prevention is more important than cure. There was a Clause 1 of the 1963 Act, which is important here, but I think even more important is the action which could flow from Seebohm. During our Second Reading debate the noble Baroness said:
"… we will make every possible effort to make a statement as soon as is humanly possible … "—[Official Report, 19/6/69; col. 1209.]
about the Government's views on the Seebohm Report. I listened with rapt attention to her speech to learn whether it has yet been possible for this human and fallible Government to achieve the humanly possible. It would seem that the miracle is still to be awaited, and I hope the noble Baroness will soon be able
1250
to enlighten us as to when we may expect the Seebohm Tablets to be handed down from on high.
When this Bill was before us earlier I expressed the hope that we should be able, as we conventionally do, to say on Second Reading that the Bill would leave your Lordships' House better than when it came to us. I think that, by and large, this has been the case. The Government have introduced some Amendments to meet undertakings given in another place and to meet some of the administrative and technical points which have been made from this side of the House by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, by the noble Baroness who sits beside him on our Front Bench, and by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. But I regret that in some respects the Government have not shown themselves a bit more flexible. I regret the fact that they were not able to meet the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Colville, and indeed by myself, in favour of giving the courts rather more latitude, for example, in invoking the aid of the Probation Service in the case of a child under 14 where the Service was already involved with the family and where the local authority have no objection.
I wish again we had succeeded in persuading the Government that they were wrong to make it possible for the supervisor entirely to ignore the supervision order of a court. It is a small point, but it shows how obdurate and inflexible all Governments can become. I am sad that we were not able to persuade them to treat the co-opted members of regional planning committees rather better, at least in this legislation. Apparently some people prefer them to be deaf, dumb or absent.
That said, I think it would be churlish of me not to recognise that in two important respects this Bill has been materially improved in its passage through your Lordships' House. I think that Clause 1 is better. I believe the Government were absolutely right to introduce the new paragraph (b) of subsection (2) to deal with what are termed the "battered baby" cases. Likewise, I hola, although I grant that this is perhaps more debatable ground, that this clause has been materially improved as a result of the vote of your Lordships' House in

1251
Committee by the elimination of the so-called double test. But that of course was not the Government's doing, and they have made it clear that they will seek to reverse in another place the judgment of your Lordships' House, a judgment in which a number of noble Lords opposite happened to concur. Secondly, there is the additional safeguard now to be found in subsection (5) of Clause 24 which we discussed just now when we were dealing with the Amendments. The Bill introduces a more flexible form of treatment, but this of course increases the responsibilities placed upon the local authorities. I was glad the noble Baroness gave us some further inkling of what is in the Government's mind here as regards the regulations to be introduced.
In any event, your Lordships do not need reminding that we argued long at the earlier stages of the Bill whether the safeguards for young children in care were adequate. We did not get all we asked for from this side of the House, but I think we have obtained something quite substantial from the Government, namely, the provision for a visitor to be appointed to stand in the position of parent or guardian for the child who is in a closed establishment and who is neglected by his parent or guardian. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, may have had something to do with the introduction of this new piece of machinery, and, ifso, it is typical of the care with which he always addressed himself to points made in debates in your Lordships' House, from wherever they came. I only regret, as I said, that this machinery is not going to be extended to the more open establishments, as we pressed for from this side and as indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, also advocated. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, did not cover this point rather more fully when she was dealing with the Amendments at Third Reading.
I have only this to say in conclusion. I suspect that we may not have entirely done with this particular Bill; but, be that as it may, it would be wrong if we were to delude ourselves that in this troubled, mobile and constantly changing society we can afford in this area to rest on our laurels or on legislation alone. Laws may help, but clearly they are not
1252
enough. And here I would associate myself entirely with what the noble Baroness has said. There is need for the closest possible co-operation between the statutory authorities and the professionals, and the voluntary organisations and the volunteers; and there is a great pool of voluntary effort here still untapped, waiting to be tapped. The particular field with which this Bill deals is, above all, a field where all hands, whether they be statutory or professional or voluntary, are required to be put to the community pump and kept there. That said, I should like to wish this Bill well when it becomes legislation.
4.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friends on the Front Bench, and in particular Lord Stonham, my valued friend of many years, for having put this Bill before this House and carried it so far. I wish to thank him for a number of reasons. To begin with, I think that it represents a most valuable revolution in the way we treat children. For that reason alone I would give this Bill my most hearty welcome. I am myself a bit of a revolutionary—I only hope that my noble friends do not at times find me too revolting. I wish to thank them also for educating me. I have learned a lot in the course of listening to the proceedings on this Bill as it went through this House. I only hope that all noble Lords have learned as much as I have. I am not too sure about that, but I personally, as I say, have learned a lot.
I believe that this Bill will do a great deal of good. I see two large fields where we shall need to do a great deal of practical work if we are to put this Bill to its best possible use. One is the bricks and mortar side. We have a large number of establishments operated by different people for many different purposes which are not necessarily in line with the types of establishment, or number of establishments, or the number of places that we need. There is much practical work to be done in this connection. I am thankful that that particular field falls outside my own activities.
But one field in this work does fall within my own activities and, as was
mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe,

1253
it concerns those who work in all possible ways with children, both the professionals (I suppose that I am now one of those) and the volunteers. In this field, a great deal of co-operation is needed, but in my opinion it is not now taking place. Here I am pointing a finger at myself, at my own lapse in this field, as well as at other people. It is quite clear that all of us who have anything to do with children, whether in their school time, in their leisure time, or anywhere else, have to get together, to pool our information, so that we have some sort of basis for knowing, and knowing it at the earliest possible moment, whom we ought to be serving.
I still feel that this Bill is lacking, in that there is not in some ways power to collect information about the children as well as it should be collected or as early as it could be collected. That may need to be put right at some later date. But it is quite clear to me that if, under this Bill, we are to do our best for children all of us who do anything whatever in regard to them must put our heads together as soon as we can in regard to each individual child, so that as soon as possible we can use this Bill to cure the situation which has arisen and help children in general.
Those are two fields where I think that those of us dealing with children have now to step in. roll up our sleeves and put in the heavy work. This Bill gives us power to start that work. It may be that we shall need a further Bill of the same type to deal with this matter further at a later date.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

DIVORCE REFORM BILL
4.25 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I believe it is in accordance with your Lordships' general practice that when there are on the Paper Amendments for consideration on Third Reading the Motion for Third Reading is normally taken formally and the debate arises on the subsequent Motion, That the Bill do now pass. On the assumption that I am right in so understanding, and that your Lordships would desire to follow it in this particular instance, may
1254
I formally move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Stow Hill.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 2 [Proof of breakdown]:
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 is a purely drafting Amendment. I do not know whether it would be for your Lordships* convenience if with Amendment No. 1 were taken Amendment No. 2, which is to precisely the same effect and also purely drafting. I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and, if your Lordships will allow me, to move Amendment No. 2 also.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects I will put Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 23, leave out ("being a period")
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("being a period").—(Lord Slow Hill.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4 [Decree to be refused in certain circumstances]:
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 3:
Leave out Clause 4 and insert the following new clause—
"4.—(1) The respondent to a petition for divorce in which the petitioner alleges any such fact as is mentioned in paragraph (e) of section 2 (1) of this Act may oppose the grant of a decree nisi on the ground that the dissolution of the marriage will result in grave financial or other hardship to him and that it would in all the circumstances be wrong to dissolve the marriage.
(2) Where the grant of a decree nisi is opposed by virtue of this section, then,—

(a) if the court is satisfied that the only fact mentioned in the said section 2 (1) on which the petitioner is entitled to rely in support of his petition is that mentioned in the said paragraph (e). and

(b) if apart from this Section it would grant a decree nisi,

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 in all the circumstances be wrong to dissolve the marriage it shall dismiss the petition.
(3) For the purposes of this section hardship shall include the loss of the chance of acquiring any benefit which the respondent might acquire if the marriage were not dissolved."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this may appear to be a pretty massive Amendment, but I assure your Lordships that it is not nearly so formidable as it may appear at first sight. The changes I propose to Clause 4 could have been made by tabling three Amendments to the clause, but I thought it might be to your Lordships' convenience to see exactly how the clause would read if it were amended, so as to be able to contrast the clause as it would read with the existing clause without having to fit the Amendments into the Bill.
I will, of course, explain what are the changes I propose, but first may I remind your Lordships of what the present clause does. It enables a respondent to a divorce petition to oppose the petition on an entirely new ground. No matter how frequently he or she may have committed adultery, no matter how grave the cruelty proved against the respondent, and even if there has been desertion and the marriage is really at an end, the respondent can nevertheless oppose the grant of a decree nisi on the ground that the dissolution of the marriage will result in grave or other financial hardship to him or her and that in all the circumstances it would be wrong to dissolve the marriage. If he or she does that, then the court has to go into all the circumstances of the marriage, including the conduct of the parties to the marriage and the interests of those parties and of any children or of other persons concerned. Having completed that inquiry, the court, if it is of the opinion that dissolution would involve great financial or other hardship to the respondent, and that it would be wrong in all the circumstances to grant a decree nisi, must dismiss the petition.
That, as I understand it, is the effect of the clause as it stands. And while I doubt whether a respondent who was proved to have committed adultery on a number of occasions, or to have been guilty of great cruelty, would be able by invoking this clause to get the court to dismiss a petition—although perhaps it might be easier to do so where there is desertion—the fact remains that every time a respondent opposes on this ground
1256
there must be, as the Bill now stands, that inquiry into all the circumstances before a decision is reached as to whether or not a decree nisi should be granted.
So far as petitions based on the facts contained in Clause 2 (1) (a), (b) and (c) are concerned, I can see no valid reason for saying that there should be this ground for the opposing of a decree nisi. Where a petition is based on these grounds I feel that it would be much better to let the inquiry as to financial provision, as to custody, and all those matters, be dealt with after, and not before, the granting of the decree nisi. If the Bill is left as it is—and I think this is the great danger about this clause—it will give a spiteful respondent (and some respondents are extremely spiteful) ample opportunity to delay a decision on whether or not a decree nisi should be granted. Once the court has to inquire into all the circumstances of the marriage, the conduct of the parties, and the interests of any children or other persons, as the Bill stands the inquiry has to be embarked upon if the respondent opposes on this ground, and then indeed there must be some delay, and in a good number of cases a really considerable delay, in the court's decision whether or not to grant a decree.
When we discussed this matter on the last occasion on July 24 the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, who I am glad to see in his place, said:
"I have always understood, when we were discussing these things before the Bill was drafted, that these rather exceptional provisions in Clause 4 were drafted with Clause 2 (1) (e) in mind and nothing else."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24/7/69, col. 1138.]
That has always been my understanding, but I think it is the case that the clause as it now stands goes far wider than that. I do not know what your Lordships have felt throughout, but I have felt that the real need for a clause on the lines of Clause 4 relates really to petitions based on a five-years living apart, which is Clause 2 (1) (e). It is in an endeavour to make Clause 4 correspond with what I have always thought was the real intention behind it, that this Amendment has been tabled.
Your Lordships will see that under the Amendment the clause has been slightly rearranged. The power of a respondent to oppose a petition for divorce on this ground is not fettered,

1257
but where the change comes is that if this Amendment is carried it does not automatically follow that the court has to make this inquiry into all the circumstances of the marriage, but it will be bound to do so when it comes to the conclusion that the only facts on which the petitioner would be entitled to rely for the grant of a decree are the facts mentioned in Clause 2 (1) (e), the five years living apart. The court has got to come to that conclusion, and also to the conclusion that, but for this Clause 4, it would grant a decree, before it has to embark upon the inquiry into all the circumstances, et cetera, of the parties.
I do not think that there is any other material change which this new clause makes. I commend it to the House for a variety of reasons. I think that on the last occasion we debated it I perhaps did not make myself as clear as I should have done; but unless this Amendment is carried, I feel there is a serious risk that Clause 4, instead of proving a beneficial change of the law, will prove a weapon in the hands of respondents, and particularly spiteful respondents, whereby they can delay the obtaining of justice by petitioners, whether male or female. I do not think that in fact respondents will suffer if these changes are made, because in future, as now, after a decree has been granted on the ground of adultery, cruelty, or desertion, the full circumstances can be gone into, and they will continue to be gone into, and the issue here is whether those circumstances of the marriage really can justify the refusal of a decree when it is clear that the marriage had broken down because of adultery, cruelty or desertion, the grounds in Clause 2 (1) (a), (b) and (c).
At the last stage it was suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Denning that we ought to keep Clause 4 in its present form (and I think I summarise correctly the effect of his speech) because it would now enable the court to have regard to those discretionary bars which this Bill purports to abolish. I do not think that that was ever the intention of Clause 4. I do not think that that would be any justification for keeping Clause 4 in its present form. I hope that I have made this point clear.
It would be right to tell your Lordships that since the last discussion in this House
1258
I have had the advantage of a very valuable discussion of this matter, not only with the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, but with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and others, and I am indeed grateful to them for having had the opportunity of doing so. I am also most grateful for having been given the help of Parliamentary counsel in the drafting of this Amendment. I hope that this is one of the few occasions when it will be said that the Amendment is; technically in order. I beg to move.
4.37 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, there have on this point, throughout all stages of the Bill, been difficulties and, I believe, anxieties on all sides of the House, and we all owe a great debt of gratitude to my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne for having now set those difficulties and anxieties at rest. I hope that Her Majesty's Government and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to say that there are no objections to this Amendment, and that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, will be able to accept it.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, in my view Clause 4 of the Bill as originally drafted and Clause 4 as now amended are utterly unsuitable for the Bill in every conceivable way. You take two people who have similar circumstances in their lives; one man is wealthy and succeeds in getting a divorce, and the other man is in a very poor financial position and fails to get a divorce. Now what on earth has that to do with a Bill which is for the reform of the divorce law? However, I say that because your Lordships are determined, and have been determined for a long time, to fill up hundreds of pages of Hansard in creating the greatest possible complications. Indeed, Clause 4, whether it is left alone or whether it is amended, will be of enormous benefit to an unmentionable profession.
4.40 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, I support this Amendment and I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, for laving tabled it. I stand by what I said in this House in July, which the noble and learned Viscount quoted. I think that Clause 4 as it now stands in the Bill

1259
makes a nonsense. As the noble and learned Viscount has said, it will mean that a person whose behaviour has manifestly been most responsible for the breakdown of the marriage will be able to put in a plea that if the divorce goes through he or she will suffer grave financial hardship. Of course, any man who has married a very wealthy wife would suffer grave financial hardship if the marriage were dissolved.
Under Clause 4 as it now stands, it would be possible to oppose almost any petition for divorce. But the new Clause 4 would be a very important clause and would give a further necessary protection to the spouse who might be divorced against his or her will. It is in the situation covered by Clause 2(1) (e) that this question of grave financial hardship is really strictly relevant, and the new clause will be a great improvement to the Bill in protecting such persons to some extent. I hope very much that the Amendment will pass.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I greatly hope that your Lordships will feel convinced by the reasons which have been so clearly put before the House by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and by the right reverend Prelate who has just sat down. I very strongly support this Amendment which raises a very short, simple issue. Your Lordships know that if this Bill is passed into law divorce will be obtainable on any one of five grounds—if I may state the effect not with complete accuracy, but so far as I think is necessary for the purpose of this Amendment—adultery, cruelty, desertion, consent after separation for two years, and after living apart for five years with or without the consent of the party who is the respondent.
As at present drafted, Clause 4 enables a respondent, against whom divorce is claimed on any of the five grounds, to require the court to investigate whether the granting of a decree would cause grave hardship to the respondent. I respectfully submit that that is a position which cannot be justified. I should have thought, when one is talking of a case in which divorce is sought by one party, despite the wish of the other, after they have lived apart for five years, that everybody would desire that, at the request of
1260
the respondent, the court should be empowered to investigate the whole question of whether the granting of a decree in those circumstances, against the wish of the respondent, would cause the respondent grave hardship; and that, if it came to the conclusion that the granting of a decree would cause the respondent grave hardship and that it would be wrong to grant a decree, the court should be empowered to refuse to grant a decree of divorce.
But those considerations surely do not apply—they never have and they surely should not now—when the husband or the wife seeks divorce on the ground of adultery. It would be surely wholly illogical, if a respondent is shown to have committed adultery with all and sundry in the most shameless way, for that respondent nevertheless to ask the court to investigate whether a decree should not be refused on the ground that the respondent would suffer grave hardship. Similarly, if the respondent has been grossly cruel to the petitioner, it surely cannot be relevant whether the respondent will suffer grave hardship; and, equally, in the case of desertion.
But it goes even further. As Clause 4 is at present drafted, if two parties, by consent, have lived apart for two years and one seeks a divorce and the other consents to the divorce and says to the petitioner, "I consent", even then the consenting party can turn round and say, "Oh, no! I ask the court to decide whether the granting of a decree would cause me hardship." That cannot be relevant. I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate and the noble and learned Viscount. I have always thought that the whole purpose of Clause 4 was to provide a safeguard in the case of an application for a decree by one party, despite the wishes of the other, after they had been apart for five years. That is what the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount does, and it does only that. I respectfully submit to the House that it is a proper change which greatly improves the Bill before your Lordships' House.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I have no entitlement to be regarded as any sort of expert on this question, but I should very much like to be permitted to raise one philosophic doubt before we leave

1261
this question. The Amendment has one other effect which has not yet been mentioned. This is, I think, the only clause which enables a court to consider the interests of the children. I speak subject to correction on this point. But if the court is to consider the interests of the children only in considering a divorce under Clause 2(1) (e), are we perhaps neglecting a point which ought to be considered under Clause 2(1) (b)?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am not inclined to agree with my noble friend. At the last moment, on the Third Reading of this Bill, we hear my noble friend behind me declare that he has completely changed his mind about the meaning of the clause. I remember that on the Second Reading of the Bill he spoke on the clause with equal strength and asked the House to support it as it was. I feel that what we are doing is weakening the clause to such an extent that, apart from paragraph (e), women—and obviously it is usually women who have to appeal on the grounds of hardship—will find their position very much weakened. I want to be assured by my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack that this is not going to be the case. We have the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter changing his mind at the last moment, since he is supporting the new clause. He is changing his mind, as I recall that on the Second Reading he supported the Bill as it stood and did not oppose it.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, I indicated during the Committee stage on July 24 that I favoured an Amendment of this kind.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I want to enter a caveat here on behalf of those women who come under the other paragraphs and who, after the petitioner has asked for a divorce, feel that their position and the position of their children should be fully investigated before a divorce is granted. I understand that if this new Clause is accepted their position will be considerably weakened.
It is quite clear to me that it is of little use my going into the Division Lobby on this Amendment against all those who supported the Bill in the first place and who now support the noble and learned Viscount who has moved
1262
this Amendment. But I express my profound misgivings that at this last moment, when so many of us have been engaged on this Bill and when the provisions of this Bill have been discussed outside the House by women's organisations throughout the country, and by lawyers of all kinds—those who are sympathetic to the Bill and those who are against it—a most important safeguard of women is being withdrawn. I want to express my very deep feeling on this matter, because when this unfortunate Bill—as it will come to be regarded by posterity—comes to be implemented, there will have been removed what I felt was some safeguard.
LORD REID: My Lords, I think the House can accept this new clause with equanimity. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, made it perfectly clear in the earlier stages of the Bill that Clause 4 in any form can apply only in the most exceptional cases—one might say once in a blue moon, and I am inclined to think not as often as that—because it is so tightly drawn. You have got to have both grave financial hardship and circumstances which would make it "wrong to dissolve the marriage". What that means one does not know, but I think the court would be very slow to use it.
My own impression is that we are really speaking about a matter which will have the very smallest amount of importance in the future. Whether the Clause is amended or not, it will scarcely ever apply; and the difference which I think is being made by the new clause, which I agree is an improvement, is so minute that I do not really think that anybody is going to be prejudiced by it.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, may I thank those noble Lords who have supported my speech and the Amendment which I have moved, and may I shortly reply to the noble Lord and the noble BARONESS who have criticised it in certain respects. The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, seemed to think that if the existing clause was not retained, with is present width, it might prejudice the interests of children because, he said, it is the only Clause in the Bill which deals with the position of children in relation to divorce. My Lords, I think the noble Lord has forgotten Section 33 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, and, if I

1263
may, I will read the first subsection of that section. It reads as follows:
"Notwithstanding anything in Part I of this Act but subject to the following subsection, the court shall not make absolute a decree of divorce or nullity of marriage in any proceedings begun after 31st December 1958, or make a decree of judicial separation in any such proceedings, unless it is satisfied as respects every relevant child who is under sixteen that—

(a) arrangements for his care and upbringing have been made and are satisfactory or are the best that can be devised in the circumstances; or

(b) it is impracticable for the party or parties appearing before the court to make any such arrangements".

I will not read the whole of that section, but that indicates that the real issue here is not the question of whether the interests of the children shall be considered, because they will be under that provision if they are not under the new Clause 4 in every case. The real question here is whether a petition which is based on the grounds mentioned in Clause 2 (1) (a), (b) or (c) can be dismissed by invoking Clause 4.
The noble Baroness criticised this Amendment. She appeared to think it wrong that it was brought forward at the very last moment—at the Third Reading of this Bill. My Lords, if I may remind the noble Baroness, I raised the same issue on the Report stage, when it was perfectly proper to bring it forward. We discussed it at some length then, and I withdrew my Amendment on that occasion because there were still drafting and technical difficulties which had to be resolved. I really cannot share her view that this Amendment weakens the position of women. It really does not. Their position will remain the same as it now is if they are found guilty of adultery, desertion or cruelty. Their financial situation and all the rest of it can be gone into after the decree nisi, as it now is.
What the noble Baroness seems to want—and I really think she is alone in this—is that no matter on how many occasions adultery may have been committed by a woman, no matter how clear it may be that in consequence of that adultery the marriage has broken down, nevertheless the guilty woman (I use the word "guilty" in the sense of her being guilty of adultery) should be entitled to oppose the grant of a decree because the result
1264
of that decree, brought about by her own conduct, would be to inflict financial or other hardship on herself. I do not think that can be right, and I certainly do not put this Amendment forward with a view to prejudicing the position of women in any degree at all.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.56 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. May I say at the outset that it would be churlish indeed on my part not to express my very deep gratitude to your Lordships' House for the most careful examination to which these proposals have been subjected in the course of their passage through this House—and my debt of gratitude to your Lordships will be the same whether or not, as the upshot of this debate, the Bill passes.
It is a measure which is of the utmost social importance. If I might try to pick out what are the salient features, the major changes which it introduces, I would list them as follows. First and foremost, my Lords, it replaces the present system (for which, I think I am right in saying, nobody in the course of our debates has said one single good word) by a system which will conduce much more to the dignity of divorce proceedings and to the dignity of marriage as a whole, and which will contain ample safeguards against wanton or hasty recourse to the divorce court. Every provision, I would submit to your Lordships' House, has been embodied in an attempt to secure that the parties become reconciled instead of proceeding to asking for a final decree. Every attempt has been made to introduce into the Bill opportunities for further reflection by the spouses in the hope that, however much the marriage may seem to be in danger of breaking down, nevertheless, at the last moment, it may be rescued. It does not undermine the institution of divorce: it does precisely the opposite. That is the first thing it does. The second thing that it does—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lord said that it does not undermine the institution of divorce. I think he must have meant the institution of marriage.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I was so carried away by my enthusiasm that

1265
my logic, I am afraid, gave way to my impulse. I apologise to your Lordships' House.
The second change which the Bill introduces is what has been described as "divorce by consent". If two persons part by consent and live apart for two years, and if both consent to the pronouncing of a decree, the courts are given jurisdiction to pronounce such a decree. Surely that is right. I would respectfully submit to your Lordships that it really is almost unthinkable and really uncivilised in our community that if two reasonable, adult people come to the conclusion that they simply cannot make a success of their marriage and decide, in perfect amity and in a civilised spirit, to part; if they show by living apart for not less than two years that they really do mean to put an end to their marriage—that it is not simply a passing whim or tantrum of some sort, but that their marriage really cannot last—and if, then, by consent, they approach the divorce court, then the court should have no power ever to grant them a decree. But that is what the existing law provides. If they part by consent and both consent to a divorce, and they live apart for two years, under the existing system the court can never grant them a decree. They have, if they wish to get a decree, to resort to the disreputable subterfuge of a simulated adultery or something of that sort. I have always thought that situation a blot on civilised proceedings and the Bill puts an end to that.
Then one comes to what is possibly the most controversial aspect of the Bill; namely, the granting of a decree at the instance of one spouse, despite the wish of the other, when they have lived apart for five years. I ventured to cite at the outset of our debate the case of two people who had been apart for twenty years. Years and years before, one had formed a new union with another person, a stable union in every sense. They had lived together for years and years. They had a child, illegitimate in law, and they were drawing towards the close of their years. It was their great desire to become lawfully married. Paragraph (e) of Clause 2(1) would enable them to do so. There is no argument that I have heard—and I would respectfully submit that there can be no argument—why these two people, after being apart from their lawful spouses for years and years,
1266
should not be entitled to get married after having obtained a decree of divorce from the courts.
I suppose I should be right in saying that a number of your Lordships were anxious lest, in circumstances of that sort, cases might arise where, in particular, a wife who was divorced against her will and who was in a technical sense innocent. innocent in the sense that she had not committed a matrimonial offence, might be seriously disadvantaged in the economic sense. Clause 6 of the Bill vests in the court extremely drastic powers to prevent that happening. Those powers are much more drastic than are contained in the existing law in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965; although all the existing powers are also retained. They are not in any sense annulled; they are supplemented by extremely wide powers now conferred on the courts by Clause 6.
My Lords, a good deal of discussion has taken place in your Lordship's House as to when the Bill should be brought into operation. After much consideration your Lordships decided that the Bill should be brought into operation in January, 1971, with a specific objective. That objective was that the House and the country should know, before the Bill actually was brought into operation, what proposals designed to improve the situation, among other things, of wives in that condition were forthcoming from the Law Commission; and that ample time should elapse before this Bill was brought into operation to enable the Government to give legislative effect to those recommendations of the Law Commission which they thought were appropriate.
The Law Commission have now reported. If I may respectfully say so, I should have thought that their Report was one of the utmost value. It examines fully the financial situation which may arise on divorce and makes very far-reaching and drastic recommendations. It is now October, 1969; and some 15 months will elapse before this Bill (if it passes into law) is brought into operation in January, 1971. Before it is brought into operation, unless some unexpected event takes place it is reasonable to suppose that there will be on the Statute Book those provisions which the Government feel appropriate as a result of the Law Commission's recommendations. One recommendation, I feel sure, will

1267
give great pleasure to my noble friend Lady Summerskill. That is the one—if she would look at page 102 of the Report—which amplifies and extends the provisions of the Act of which she has so much right to be proud; namely, the Matrimonial Homes Act, in which she played such a large part. One of the recommendations extends the provisions of that Act very drastically in favour of a spouse, nearly always the wife, who may have devoted money or money's worth to the maintenance or improvement of the real or personal property of the two spouses. I am sure that that will give her gratification. I think it a very valuable provision.
My Lords, that is the general effect of the Bill. No Bill of this sort can be perfect. It is bound to leave doubts in the minds of some Members of your Lordships' House. But I respectfully submit to your Lordships that on balance it will do very great good. If it has defects, those defects will be easily outweighed by the greater happiness it will bring to very large numbers of people and the distress that it will end in numberless cases for persons who live in the utmost unhappiness at the moment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Stow Hill.)
5.7 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I believe your Lordships will agree that the first thing to do is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, on his skill in steering this intricate and controversial measure through this House and in making the best of what is inevitably a bad job—as is all divorce—and then to thank him for his courtesy and the pains he has always taken to consult with those Members of this House who have been particularly concerned with the Bill and to go as far as it was humanly possible for him to go in meeting the points that we had to raise. I should like also to thank Her Majesty's Government and especially the Chief Whip for so arranging our affairs that we could consider this tremendously important social re-form really thoroughly and to see that proper time was devoted to it.
I cannot forbear to ask your Lordships to note and to contrast our proceedings on this Bill in this part-time, unpaid
1268
House with those in another place. We had a single, thorough, full, seven-hour debate on Second Reading, while another place had to take it in two bites, one late on a Friday afternoon and another, nearly a fortnight later, late on a Tuesday night. We took the whole of our Committee stage on the Floor of the House in three full days, with never less than 100 Members voting in Divisions and with one Division as high as 160. The other place sent their Bill Upstairs where the total votes cast in the largest Division did not exceed 16; and one day of the Committee had to be adjourned for lack of a quorum. This I find an interesting contrast between a professional paid House and an unpaid, part-time one.
My Lords, I believe that it is time now that we devoted greater attention to prevention rather than cure in this field and to our social aims rather than to the social diseases that this matter of divorce represents; more attention to the quality of married life as it is meant to be lived than to the failures in it which, to some extent, we are all unfortunately heir to. I take the context of this final debate on the Bill to say this, because, after all, the quality of life, like life itself, stems first and in the main from the quality of love between fathers and mothers.
The lesson, to me at any rate, of these important but very dreary debates that we have been having on divorce is that more positive attention must be given to love within the holy estate of matrimony. Not indeed more legislative help from us—God forbid that—but more attention by all citizens, whether specialists in the marriage guidance movement; whether professionals, like teachers, social workers or clergy; whether amateurs, like parents and grandparents. More attention must be given by all those who can help boys and girls, young men and maidens, to be what above all else they all want to be; namely, loving parents and lasting partners; more help to achieve what is after all, my Lords, the highest civic duty and the greatest joy.
5.11 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, for many years my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill and I have engaged in a very happy verbal combat, but this time I thought I detected a little

1269
more asperity. Nevertheless, we have come to the end of it now and, of course, neither of us bears any ill-will.
I felt very strongly about this matter because in both Houses there is a tiny minority of women, and it is inevitable that in social measures of this kind, which are concerned with the relationship of the sexes, there must often be a subjective approach. It is difficult for people always to be objective and to adopt a strictly legal attitude to matters of this kind, and I take it that that is why during these debates I have had the wonderful support of some of our Law Lords who have been able, over the years, to adopt an objective approach and a strictly legal attitude. Even at the end I was very pleased to hear my noble and learned friend Lord Reid comfort me (because he, after all, knows precisely how the courts are going to administer this Bill) and tell me that it will not make any difference in the courts when the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, is taken into account. But, my Lords, we should congratulate ourselves, because in this House we have amended this Bill in two ways, and I hope very sincerely that there will be no organised attempt in another place to reverse the decisions to which we have come.
May I briefly recall the two Amendments? The first will ensure that in those cases where a divorce is sought after two years' separation the positive consent of the respondent must be obtained. The second Amendment delays the operation of the Act until January, 1971. And, of course, as my noble and learned friend has just said, the object is to provide time for the introduction of a Bill making provision for a wife who is innocent of any matrimonial offence yet is divorced against her will.
It is this omission from this Bill that has been responsible for most of the opposition, and we have been promised over months, almost over the years, that the Law Commission would produce a document—in fact it is more than a document: it is a very thick tome—on the financial provisions in matrimonial proceedings in order that a Bill should be introduced in the coming Session which will be complementary to the
1270
Divorce Bill. In the other place, of course, if an honourable Member were to make a remark like that a Whip would leap up and say that on Third Reading Members may speak only on those matters which are actually in the Bill; but I think that in this case it is quite in order that one should speak on a Bill which must be complementary to this Bill. Despite this, I feel that we are passing this Bill blindfold or that, as The Times described it on July 2, we are taking a leap into the dark.
I cannot recall an occasion on which the Committee stage of a Bill was completed and the Third Reading given on the understanding that a complementary Bill, designed to remedy injustices, would be introduced. I sincerely hope that our confidence will not prove to be misplaced, but I have grave misgivings. I have read the draft Bill which is incorporated in the Report on Financial Provisions
in Matrimonial Proceedings and it seems to me that it leaves the whole question of financial provision to the discretion of the courts. Partnership in marriage, for which the women in this country plead has not been clearly defined. It would seem that the whole issue has been blurred by a prolixity of words and this overflows into pages and pages of explanatory notes.
My Lords, I should have thought that it could be assumed that the readers of this Report were already well aware of the issues; that they were informed people; that they were attracted to it only because they were involved either in Parliamentary business which was concerned with the contents or because they were on some committee outside Parliament. Therefore these profuse explanations are a little suspicious and, frankly, they tend to create doubt as to the validity of the proposals. A measure based on equity can speak for itself; it does not need all this explanation. A Bill that calls for so much detailed explanation is not good law: it must bewilder the court which will have to administer the Act and, in consequence, justice must suffer. I believe that the chances of the first wife and her children being given justice are remote if the court is guided by the explanatory note on page 71 (and I ask my noble and learned

1271
friend to look at it), which says, in paragraph 3:
"It would clearly be unjust to insist on a settlement which would leave nothing for the new dependants."
My Lords, if the resources of those in the lower income groups must take into account the new dependants which a man may produce after he has divorced his first wife, how can there be any chance of an equitable sharing of the goods acquired during the first marriage? The judge has got to say—I presume that in some cases he will be put in the position of having to sum up the virility of the man who wants a divorce—"How many more dependants will he have? Because I am directed that before I settle how much, what kind of share, the first wife shall have out of the resources the man has, I have to anticipate how many more dependants he may produce." This makes nonsense of the great, thick wedge of reading matter for which we have been waiting, and which has, at last, been produced. That is why I say that I have the greatest misgivings.
We have delayed the commencement of this Bill until January, 1971, in order that another Bill may be passed to provide for, and give justice in terms of finance to, the first wife. We have said—I have said it over and over again—that the woman who makes a contribution to the home in terms of services over the years should have some recompense. Although it is not she who has brought in the wages, she has in fact enabled her husband to earn wages or a salary. It is she who has cooked, worked and brought up the children, having borne them in the first place; but after fifteen or twenty years of marriage she has no nest egg. This fact has been accepted; but now this document has been produced, and we are told that the courts have not to consider what finances or goods have been acquired during a marriage but have to keep in mind that those goods should be used for the new dependants which a man may produce in another marriage. Is this just? Surely this is not what the House expected. Certainly it is not what the women's organisations expected—and they have discussed this matter ad nauseam.
Finally, I have to say that one can only deduce from this that these proposals
1272
are designed only with the well-to-do man in mind, the man who will be able to escape his matrimonial responsibilities every five years, irrespective of the innocence of his wife. Consequently, after all this debate and all the discussions as to what form this other Bill should take, it is clear that the Bill, which is to me complementary to this Divorce Reform Bill, is one that will be of use only to the wealthy man. Therefore, I say that the title, "The Casanova's Charter", remains as appropriate as ever.
5.22 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I rise to support the passing of this Bill. My noble friend Lady Summerskill says that we are passing this Bill blindfolded. This is absolute nonsense. This Bill was discussed for a considerable time in another place and has gone through this House—the noble Lord opposite pointed out the number of hours that has been spent on it—and has emerged, even though there have been compromises, as a Bill which, in my opinion and in the opinion of a majority of your Lordships, provides a far more realistic form of marriage, a far more humane and understanding approach to divorce, doing away with a great deal of hypocrisy and cleaning up the procedure and processes that now have to take place if people are to get a divorce.
My noble friend Lady Summerskill criticised the explanatory note on page 71, which says that it would be clearly unjust to leave nothing for the new dependants. What does she want? Is she against divorce altogether, or are we to have the sort of law in this country in which we say that once people are divorced they must not marry again unless they have a certain income? My noble friend is as aware as I am that this income problem applies to separation as well as to divorce. It is a most difficult task, almost at times impossible, to stretch money over two families where sufficient money is not existent.
I believe that my noble friend does far less than justice to the draft Family Law Reform Bill, from which she quoted. I think that a far more relevant quotation is from Clause 5 (1) (d), which states, for the first time in any legislation in this country, that the contribution made by each of the parties to the welfare of

1273
the family, including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family, shall be taken into account. In my opinion, this is a tremendous step forward socially. It is something which, I suggest to my noble friend, she should put before women's organisations instead of, if I may say so, encouraging them to take a rather negative and unproductive view of this Bill.
If it had not been for the introduction of this Divorce Bill, as I think we are all aware, the draft Family Law Reform Bill (and it is a draft Bill, which is not before us to-day, and there will be ample opportunity for my noble friend and others of us to try to improve it, if we can, by Amendment) would not even be in the draft form it is in to-day. The plight of the deserted wife is constantly discussed, but I think we should remember the number of deserted husbands who are left to look after their children. We are apt to concentrate on fatherless families but there are also many motherless families, and many husbands and fathers who also need both social and economic help.
If we do not pass this Bill to-day, what shall we have achieved? We shall have stopped thousands of people living in illegal unions from being able legally to break up a marriage that has already broken down completely. We shall also leave thousands of illegitimate children, who cannot be legitimised. We shall do something else which to me is very important. I think that paragraph (d) of Clause 2(1) in the Bill represents the most civilised attitude towards divorce. Naturally, nobody is for divorce: I agree with the noble Lord opposite that we want to prevent it as much as we can. But we are all aware that not every marriage is going to survive, and if people do make a mistake—and we are all human—and marriages break down, surely the most civilised way of handling it is by the two parties themselves agreeing that the marriage has broken down and that, in spite of everything, they must bring it to an end.
There are so many good points in this Bill, it contains so much help for a great many people, that it is a better basis for the education of young people for marriage than the present law. I think it is far more likely to strengthen the institution of marriage than weaken it and I
1274
hope that your Lordships will pass the Bill.
5.28 p.m.
LORD REID: My Lords, I do not desire to detain the House for long, but I should like to make one or two comments on what I think are the excessive claims made by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. In the first place, he says that this Bill will replace the present system by a new one. With all deference, it will do nothing of the kind. It is perfectly true that if we read only Clause 1, it does indicate that. But fortunately—and I think we have to thank the Law Commission for this—the promoters of the Bill have been persuaded to accept other clauses in the Bill which virtually deprive Clause 1 of all effect, and 95 per cent. of the cases which come before the divorce court will go on in exactly the same way and have exactly the same result as if this Bill had never been passed. We have at least that to be thankful for, because if this Bill did what Clause 1 says it wants to do it would indeed be a disaster.
I think it is a pity that we have to have drafting of this kind. I quite see how it has happened. Those who believe in words and in theories have hung on to Clause 1: those who believe that the practical side is more important than verbiage have inserted Clause 2, thereby keeping the present three main grounds of divorce—adultery, cruelty and desertion—practically unaltered. The result is that we have a Bill which speaks with two voices. I hope that when the Law Commission or others come to consider further Bills dealing with family law there will not be this conflict in the draftsmanship and that we shall have a Bill saying clearly and precisely what is intended. But I quite see that when we have a Bill promoted by private Members of the other place (or, indeed, it might be of this House) we are likely to get this kind of jargon. It is most unfortunate, but nevertheless, I think it will do comparatively little harm.
The other point is the five-years clause. If it were not for this pernicious theory, we could have had quite a good Clause 5. I would never assert that spiteful people ought to be allowed to have their own way. But the trouble is this theory that you must have everybody alike, and have the five years separation provision no matter what the circumstances are, what is the cause of the separation or

1275
who is to blame. It would not have been difficult to draft a five-years clause which covered all the cases of which so much has been made in this House, where two apparently deserving people are kept from being married—of course, they will have been living together for years—by the spite of a discarded wife. That could easily have been provided for without making it necessary that the innocent discarded wife should be divorced by her guilty husband, with all the consequences, social and financial, which might follow from that. It is that to which I object. But it is too late now to put the matter right. We put down some Amendments, but the House did not accept them. Now we must just see how much injustice this Bill will do. It will do some justice, I agree; but it need not have done all the injustice it will do had it not been that the theorists prevailed and insisted on this universal provision. However, there it is.
Now I come to the safeguards. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady
Summerskill, that the Law Commission document, able though it is, is of very little use in this connection. Where there is money to apply, it makes provision for making the best use of that money. But neither the Law Commission nor anybody else is going to be able to provide for the case where there is not enough money to cover the needs of two households, unless you take the very drastic step (which I should be prepared to take, but few others, apparently, would) of saying that the man who discards an innocent wife should regard her as a first charge on his income, and his new wife and new family as only a second charge. If we did that, of course, we should need drastic provisions for the courts to make large allotments out of the man's wages, which he would try to avoid, and a drastic system of follow-up would be required, so that the man when he disappeared or changed his employment could be traced, and thus, make it possible, as a social service, for the allotment of the discarded wife to be collected in full every week. But I am afraid there is no sign whatever that the Government or the Law Commission are prepared to do that, and unless we go as far as that we cannot safeguard the interests of the discarded wife as against the new family.
1276
Therefore, I agree that all this talk about safeguards is not going to be any good at all. It will help where there is money; but it will not help where there is no money. Therefore, we have to take it that the innocent. discarded wife is to suffer the stigma of divorce; she is to suffer financial hardship in many cases without any protection, all to bolster up this theory that breakdown ought to be a ground for divorce.
5.35 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, this is a Bill about men and women. I have been married for only 47 years, so, as yet, I do not know very much about women. But I do know something about my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill, and I hold him in very high esteem as a social reformer. Our acquaintance goes back for many years. I think he will probably remember the night when we both addressed a meeting in Essex and he came home with me to my old rectory and we shared a cold chicken and a bottle of wine together. So I look upon my noble friend Lord Stow Hill as a political friend. He made a sentimental appeal on behalf of the man and woman who have been living twenty years together in an irregular union and and who want to endow that union with the sanctity of marriage. I have not much sympathy for that couple. They did not regard their first legitimate marriage with very much sanctity, and I do not think we should get over-sentimental about them at this stage.
I should like to ask my noble and learned friend a question—it is not a political question, but I have been asked the question by many members of the public—to which I am sure he will be able to give an answer. With regard to Clause 2 (1) (c), which provides that a divorce should be granted after two years' desertion, does the two years start in January, 1971, when the new law comes into operation, or does it cover any period of desertion before January 1, 1971?
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, my reading of the Bill is that it covers any period, whether it starts before January, 1971, or after.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I thought that might be so, and I asked the question only because so many people have put it to me and I was not quite sure.

1277
I opposed the Second Reading of this Bill, not because I objected to some of the liberalising reforms that it proposed to introduce, but merely because of the financial plight of the wife who was left in the lurch. It is a fact that the Report of the Law Commission and the draft Bill which accompanies that Report make some financial improvements. But I do not think—and here I agree with my noble friend Lady Summerskill—that this is a complete remedy, because in many cases it is the second woman who will get her hands on the man's wages and on a good deal of his pension rights, and the legitimate wife will have to resort to what used to be called the National Assistance Board and is now known as the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I hardly think it is right for us to propound a moral law where the wages of sin take priority over the rewards of virtue. Nevertheless, the Law Commission's Report constitutes a considerable improvement upon the bare bones of the Bill that we had presented to us a few months ago.
I should like, however, to ask a few questions about what is to happen to this Law Commission Bill, and I presume that not my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill but my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will be answering these questions. First of all, when is the draft Bill contained in the Law Commission's Report to be introduced? Secondly, will at least its full terms be embodied in the document that is put before us, or are they likely to be diluted in any way? Thirdly, will this be a Government Bill, or will it be subject to the luck of the ballot in another place? Fourthly—and I know my noble and learned friend cannot commit the House, any more than we can commit the other place—is the Government's attitude of mind towards this Bill such that they are not inclined to make any considerable concessions during its progress through both Houses? Fifthly, will the financial improvements that this draft Bill suggests be applicable to Clause 2 (1) (a), (b), (c) and (d), as well as to paragraph (e), because otherwise the ordinary, normal wife who tries to get a divorce will be deprived of very substantial advantages which might possibly accrue to those who are divorced under paragraph (e).
1278
If any concessions are proposed by the Government in this Bill—that is to say, the draft which accompanies the Law Commission's Report—then we are passing this Divorce Bill to-day without knowing exactly what we are doing. So we want a definitive pledge on this question as to whether a substantial version of the Law Commission's Bill is going to be introduced. I merely ask those questions; we are far too late in the day to indulge in any polemical argument about it, and I should be very grateful indeed if we could hare an answer to the specific points that I have raised.
5.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the Motion before the House is, That the Bill do now pass. The debate we have been having has been a most interesting one. It seems to me to have been very largely on a Report from the Law Commission dealing with another Bill—a Bill which is not before the House: it is in draft, but has no: been presented to Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, concluded his speech by asking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a series of questions. I should have thought they were more appropriate for the Order Paper, in which case the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would have notice of them.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, would the noble and learned Viscount—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if I may just finish what I was saying, I should have thought the noble Lord's remarks were more appropriate for the Order Paper, in which case notice of them would be given, than on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. I do not want to be controversial, and I do not want to take up time by saying anything about a Report of the Law Commission which this House has not before it for consideration to-day, or that draft Bill. I will reserve my comments. I shall be very interested to see whether any machinery can be found whereby provision can be made for the first wife when the husband who has married again has not the means to support two wives.
I have risen to-day to express, simply and shortly, my congratulations to the

1279
noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, on his success in piloting this extremely controversial measure through your Lordships' House. If it came to a Division on this Bill—and I know it will not—I am not at all sure how I should vote. There are parts of it I like; there are parts of it which we sought, unsuccessfully, to amend in Committee in the later stages. Some parts of it are
good, some are not. I do not suppose for one moment that this is the last Divorce Bill which will be considered in this House. There have been many before. I remember introducing one in another place but, unlike this Bill, my Divorce Reform Bill received a Second Reading in another place "on the nod". I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for we have had some interesting debates and a very full expression of views. I, for one, shall certainly not oppose the passage of this Bill to-night, and I hope that my fears with regard to certain aspects of it will prove unfounded.
5.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, this Bill is now most likely in its final form. I believe that it is, on the whole, a good Bill, but I also believe that it is marred by one particular flaw, which is so serious that I think it is actually dangerous. I feel this so strongly that I hope your Lordships will not think me wasting your time if I briefly explain it.
It is generally supposed that the effect and the object of the Bill are to make the irretrievable breakdown of marriage the sole ground on which a decree of divorce may he granted. This, however, is not, strictly speaking, so. What the Bill says in Clause 1 is that an irretrievable breakdown is the sole ground on which a petition for divorce may be presented to the court; and grounds for petition and grounds for divorce are not necessarily the same thing. This may sound like hair splitting, and if applied to four out of the five grounds for petition perhaps it would be; but not if applied to the fifth admissible ground, on which it would be possible to obtain a decree without proving irretrievable breakdown.
I refer, as your Lordships will perhaps suspect, to Clause 2 (1) (e) under which
1280
one may secure a decree after five years of living apart, as defined in Clause 2 (5). I am not objecting simply that a five-year separation is not proof of irretrievable breakdown. I know very well that adultery, cruelty, desertion and consent after two years of separation are not proof, either. All they do, as one of the highest legal luminaries in the land has pointed out to me, is to provide a prima facie supposition that such a breakdown has occurred; and from that point onwards it is the business of the court to investigate the facts and decide whether or not it has in fact occurred. In that respect, therefore, I am told Clause 2(1) (e) does not differ from Clause 2(1) (a), (b), (c) or (d). But, my Lords, I say, with the greatest respect, that it does so differ—and for this reason. In cases (a), (b), (c) and (d) the burden of proof is on the petitioner, who is required to satisfy the court that the marriage has irretrievably broken down; but in case (e) he is required to satisfy the court on nothing except that he and his spouse have been living apart for the last five years.
To turn that into proof, or even evidence, of irretrievable breakdown it is necessary, in my humble submission, to show some causal connection between the separation and the breakdown; that is to say, that the one either gave rise to or resulted from the other. But it has been made abundantly clear in earlier debates on this subject that a part, or even the whole, of the separation might be quite unconnected with the breakdown, either as cause or as effect. In short, the evidence that the court is empowered to ask for is not enough to prove the case. Nor has anyone asserted that it is. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has made no such assertion. Just what he has asserted I will consider in a moment, if I may, when I come to the end of my immediate thread.
Let us imagine a case in which a husband petitioner has satisfied the judge that he has been separated from his wife for five years. So far as the judge can see, the separation has remarkably little to do with any marital difficulties; but what is the judge to do? Even if the case is defended, what can he do? What can the defendant respondent do? She cannot rebut the petitioner's evidence of irretrievable breakdown, for he has not

1281
offered any, and he is not required to do so. It is hardly likely that she will be able to convince the judge that the marriage has not irretrievably broken down, in the face of the petitioner's insistence that it has and that he means to have no more to do with her.
The one small safeguard remaining to her is that contained in Clause 3(2). I am supposing that there is no question of hardship such as might arise under Clause 4. If it appears to the judge that there is "a reasonable possibility of a reconciliation" he may adjourn the case to give her a chance to bring the erring spouse back into the fold. But suppose she fails. In that event the judge has no option: he must grant the decree. "And why not?", you may ask. "Obviously the marriage has broken down." I agree that it has, but the Bill is not interested in marriages breaking down unless they have broken down irretrievably.
Your Lordships may perhaps argue that even in such a case as I have postulated it may be clear that the marriage has in fact broken down irretrievably. Perhaps it has, and perhaps the judge thinks it has, so No injustice will be done. But what are the facts before him that have led him to that conclusion? They are two in number: first, the fact that the petitioner has resisted attempts at reconcilation and is obviously determined to have nothing more to do with it, and, secondly, the corroborative fact that he and his wife have been living apart for—how long? Why, from the time when he decided to present his petition until the present moment. Any time of separation before that may or may not be corroborative also, but he is under no obligation to show that it is, only to show that the separation existed.
What then is the point of the five years if they contribute nothing at all to the evidence? Why should the period be five years? Why not three, or two? Make no mistake, my Lords: this question will be asked again, perhaps in no far distant future, in a Second Reading debate on another Divorce Reform Bill designed to amend this one. I confess that at the moment I do not see what logical arguments will be open to resist the reduction of the period of five years to a period of two years; and that will be the end of Clause 2(1) (c), because then
1282
not only will a deserted spouse be able to petition for divorce against the deserter, but the deserter will be able to petition against the deserted. That having happened, out will go also the last few words of Clause 2 (1) (d):
"… and the respondent consents to a decree being granted".
So after two years' separation, however caused, it will always be available to either party on demand. Do I make it clear, my Lords, why I think this subsection is dangerous?
I return, as I said I would, if I may, to the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and I do so because it shows how Clause 2 (1) (e), with the definition of "living apart" in Clause 2 (5), is justified by the sponsors of the Bill. In the debate on Report stage on July 24 the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said this:
"… supposing somebody comes and says that A and B have been apart for five years—not for one, two or three years, but for five years—and that A has approached the divorce court to ask for a decree of divorce, I should have thought that any reasonable person would say: 'Well, if there is one thing which is patently obvious it is that the marriage between A and B has broker down.' He will not start asking why they were apart for five years."—(Official Report; 24/7/69, col. 1114.)
Well, perhaps I am not a reasonable person, but I am afraid that that is not what I would say. I would say, "Well, if there is one thing that is patently obvious it is that A wants to get rid of his wife." That indicates some kind of breakdown, I concede, but I repeat that the Bill is supposed not to be interested in breakdown unless it is irreparable or, as the Bill says, irretrievable. If I wanted to know how serious it really was I certainly should start asking why they had been apart those five years and what was the connection, if any, between the separation and the breakdown.
But those responsible for the Bill are not interested in that at all. I refer not only to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and to Mr. Abse, but also to the Law Commissioners and the Parliamentary draftsman. The policy on which they have based this subsection is that all the court needs to know about the separation is that it occurred. The states of mind of the parties during all or any part of the separation, and whether either of them intended to return to the other or was determined to stay away—these things

1283
are irrelevant. I think I express their attitude correctly, as they were good enough to explain it to me, but if I am wrong no doubt either the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will correct me.
Several noble Lords, including noble and learned Lords of Appeal, have stated their conviction, in supporting Amendments that I have put down at earlier stages on the Bill, that states of mind should count very much indeed. They would like to know, if possible, when the intention to separate—what lawyers call animus separandi—germinated in one or other of the parties. And so would I. It seems to me to be of the very pith and marrow of the matter. Why then does it not seem so to those learned and distinguished personages responsible for the Bill? I think another quotation from the same speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, will make the answer clear. The noble Lord said:
"The question is: does living apart for five years, followed by an application from one of the parties to the divorce court for a decree of divorce—do those two things conjoined together—spell the breakdown of a marriage? I should have thought that in the ordinary course of affairs it is almost impossible to say that when these two situations are conjoined marriage has not come to an end".—(col. 1115.)
In many cases I should find it quite possible to say exactly that. I should know that the petitioner wished to bring the marriage to an end but I should suspect, perhaps, that he was using the five-year period of separation, during some or much, or even all, of which he had had every intention of reunion, as a convenient excuse. And, as I have pointed out, the respondent has no defence.
But now here comes a strange thing. As I have quoted the noble Lord, he relies on a simple conjunction of those two factors, separation and petition. Three sentences later he says this: that it is
"… fairly obvious that it does not really matter why the spouses were apart; the question is whether or not they were apart, and whether their separation led one of the two to approach the divorce court and ask for a decree."—(col. 1115.)
In that sentence the noble Lord has introduced a third factor, the factor of causation, the very causal connection
1284
that I asked for at the beginning of my speech and of whose absence from the Bill I complain. What is more, he is about to introduce a fourth factor, none other than a decision to part arising as a consequence of the separation.
"What happens, unfortunately"—
he says—
"is that there is a separation, one party gradually comes to the conclusion that he or she wishes for a divorce and then, after five years, asks for it; and all the court does when it pronounces a decree is to recognise that there is the pre-existing situation which has led to the breakdown of the marriage."—(Col. 1115.)
But, my Lords, how are we to know that that is what will unfortunately happen? How is the court to know that, at some stage in the separation, one party gradually came to such a conclusion, if the law prevents it from taking animus separandi into account? Without having any idea of when one party came to the conclusion that he or she wished for a divorce, how can the court, in the words that I have just quoted,
"… recognise that there is the pre-existing situation which has led to the breakdown of the marriage"?
To meet the kind of objection that I have outlined many attempts have been made to improve, by Amendment, the definition of "living apart" in Clause 2 (5). All have failed, probably inevitably, for I doubt if it is possible to produce a satisfactory definition. An Amendment might, then, have been proposed to take out the definition altogether. That might have been even worse. It would have left to the courts a power of interpretation of Clause 2 (1) (e) and Clause 2 (5) so infinitely wide that it might well have given rise to more difficulties than it would cure.
One possibility remained: that of taking Clause 2 (1) (e) out altogether. It is too late for that now. The attempt was made in Committee by the noble and
learned Lord, Lord Reid, and your Lordships rejected it by 85 votes to 35. In that Division I myself abstained. I could not vote against the provision because I am inclined to approve the principle that it enshrines. I could not support it in the absence of satisfactory definitions; or perhaps I should put it the other way round and say "in the presence of unsatisfactory definitions".

1285
For the same reason, I cannot support it now, even as part of a Bill for which I have a considerable regard. On the other hand, I feel that to reject the whole Bill would be a price too high to pay for the loss of Clause 2(1) (e), dangerous though I believe it to be. So, for what I hope are perfectly positive reasons, I shall abstain again. My Lords, I have no more to say, except to express the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, will not think me lacking in most respectful admiration of the patient and devoted labour, if I may respectfully say so, that he has lavished upon this Bill; nor am I lacking in any way—definitely I am not—appreciation of the no less patient and unfailing courtesy which he has extended personally to me.
5.59 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I feel that if I said nothing in reply to the requests that have been made to me the House might think me discourteous. The House is, I think, well aware of the Government's position in relation to this Bill. Some of the members of the Government support the Bill; some of the members of the Government are opposed to the Bill. But, as your Lordships know, when it became apparent that there was a majority in each House who were in favour of a Bill on some such lines as these, and particularly after last Session's Bill had failed for want of time, the Government thought it would be only right to provide the time so that Parliament might be able, on a free vote, to come to a conclusion. Also, in accordance with modern practice in these cases, they provided the services of Parliamentary draftsmen. Apart from that the Government have been neutral. I have confined my interventions to cases in which it appeared to me, rightly or wrongly, that an Amendment had not been aptly worded or else was not going to achieve its object.
I must congratulate my noble friend Lord Stow Hill on the way in which he has piloted the Bill through the House. So far as credits are due, it was really your Lordships' House which started this, with the long debate on Putting Asunder, the publication of the Committeee appointed by the most reverend Primate, which came out firmly in support of the proposition that instead of having a divorce law based on the view
1286
that marriages break down only because somebody commits a matrimonial fault, we should altogether abandon that view and provide as the sole ground of divorce the fact that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
I do not want to get involved in a long argument about a report of the Law Commission which we have not yet considered, but in answer to the observation made by my noble friend Lady Summer-skill I must remind her of what I have on more than one occasion already pointed out to her. For example, in the debate on July 15 I said to her:
"I have done my best to make it plain to my noble friend, and so has the Chairman of the Law Commission, that it is no good relying on a financial provisions Bill to do much that is not already in this, the Divorce Reform, Bill. The arrangements affecting financial provision which the courts can make, at the dissolution of a marriage can be improved. It is for the purpose of improving them that the Law Commission is engaged in producing the financial provisions Bill. That would be necessary in their view, whether the Divorce Reform Bill is passed or is not passed."
I then went on to say:
"As the Chairman said in the letter which the noble BARONESS read out, he wanted to make it plain that those improvements would in the main apply to people whose marriages were now being dissolved. This Bill itself contains Draconian powers which no petitioner has ever had before."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15/7/69, col. 235.]
I then went on respectfully to point out that it is no good looking to me or to the Law Commission or the lawyers or anybody to provide money which simply is not there, and that the main cause of the financial difficulty of deserted wives has nothing to do with divorce; it is due to the fact that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. Therefore to that extent I can only repeat what I then said.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Leatherland, may I say that my undertaking has been that before this Bill comes into force the Government will introduce a Bill based on a Report to be made by the Law Commission about financial provisions; and in answer to his further question my reply is that the contents will, as I have said, be substantially the contents recommended by the Law Commission. It will be a Government Bill. He asked what concessions the Government would be prepared to make. As the whole history of this Government shows, it is always only

1287
too happy to consider concessions. I hope, with those who have spoken, that if this is the will of Parliament the other place may feel able to accept the Amendments which we have made here, so that this very interesting Bill may reach the Statute Book next week.
6.4 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I do not know whether, in conformity with the custom and by permission of the House, I may make a few concluding observations. May I thank those noble Lords who have made kindly references to myself. I am most grateful, and deeply appreciative of what they have said. As I have already said, I feel most grateful for the care and the objective approach with which this Bill has been examined. I do not think I can add much to the debate. May I say to the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, that I do not think I can answer his questions otherwise than by again repeating the passages from my speech which he read out and which contain the only answers that I can give. I am sorry I cannot be more explicit than that.
It would be a poor compliment to this House if we all agreed upon a measure of this difficulty. Obviously, people feel extremely strongly about it. I know how strongly my noble friend Lady Summerskill feels. She used the word "animosity". I hope she will withdraw that word: I certainly feel no animosity and I do not think she has displayed any against me.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I thought I said that I did not feel any animosity.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am much comforted. I think one can say with complete confidence that the Bill has passed through all its stages in an atmosphere of the greatest goodwill, although of course with extreme anxiety, as it should. In those circumstances I hope the
anxieties which have been expressed will be allayed when experience shows how the Bill works. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, feels so pessimistic about what we have tried to embody in this Bill. I remember years ago in the other place when we said the same sort of things to each other across the Floor of the
1288
House as he has been saying to me this evening. I was always an optimist and I think that in his heart of hearts he is rather an optimist too, and I hope that things will work out better than he believes.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

COLLIERY SPOIL HEAPS: RATING AND RECLAMATION
6.7 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, to secure further improvement of the countryside by the removal of disused colliery spoil heaps, they will give urgent consideration to the desirability of introducing legislation to exclude such spoil heaps which are being used to provide "fill" material for civil engineering projects and motorway construction from liability to rate levy. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the past the working of disused colliery spoil heaps—or for that matter, I think, possibly all industrial spoil heaps—has not, generally speaking, been rated. But a change has come about which has altered the position in a very serious way; seemingly because a useful purpose has been found for this waste material. I shall have more to say on that later in the course of my remarks.
I asked a Starred Question on July 17, and I have tabled this Unstarred Question to-day because the replies given seemed to me then, as they do now, to warrant further and fuller consideration, and because the problem is indeed an urgent one. On that occasion my noble friend Lord Kennet said:
"The Government have no power to absolve local authorities from their obligations to levy rates on spoil heaps from which material is being taken away … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col 467]:
He went on to say that if there was a case for a change,
"Legislation would be required."
I am asking to-day that urgent consideration be given to the desirability of introducing such legislation. On the earlier occasion, my noble friend also stated:
"the removal of what is in the tips and their use for some good purpose … is going to make only a very small impression on the problem, which is quite colossal … "
If I may, I will return to that a little later.
My noble friend also referred to Government grants being available to local authorities who undertake (he reclamation of derelict areas, ranging, as he put it, from 85 per cent. to 50 per cent. I do not know what sums have been paid from national funds on this score, or what have been provided in current approved programmes—or, indeed, whether there is any figure for the expected ultimate cost of such programmes. If the figures are not easily available to-day perhaps it might be helpful if I indicated that I would ask the question on some future occasion.
I am pleased to see that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield is to speak later. He has spent his life among peoples who have invested their lives in coal, and he brings to this matter experience and expertise which I cannot claim. My interest, if I may so put it, is in the pursuit of a socially desirable objective, and I doubt whether many, if any, would quarrel with it; for the problem of dereliction in Britain is a blot on our landscape, nothing short of a national disgrace. I am asking that what seems to me like common sense should be applied in support of this socially desirable objective, to help in what is the most effective way possible in usefully putting underground as much as we can of this particular form of dereliction.
Since July 17 the problem has received some well-merited publicity. There was a full-page article in the Sunday Times of July 20 entitled "The Ruin of Britain", by John Barr, the author of the Pelican book, Derelict Britain, which I think was published on July 31. There was also an article in the Daily Telegraph, under the heading "Taxing the tips", by John Bosworth on August 4. Some of your Lordships may have heard a talk on radio in the schools programme on September 29 which described how the "Wigan Alps" were being landscaped, were being turned from an eyesore to provide a range of amenities. I do not recall that in the talk the cost was mentioned, but it must have been a considerable figure.
I was interested, too, listening to the radio the other day, to hear references to the new Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning. Among his many responsibilities listed on
1290
that occasion was that of dealing with dereliction. In that I wish him every success. He is a very able man, for whom I have tremendous respect and admiration, and I hope that, among other achievements, he will improve the face of Britain by replacing dereliction with amenity. And I hope he will appreciate that: the derating of colliery spoil heaps where they are being used for "fill" material could make a very worthwhile contribution.
My Lords, the problem of dereliction is indeed a very large one. In England and Wales, I understand, there are some 112, 000 acres, and in Scotland another 15, 000 acres. So far as the coal tips are concerned, they amount, I think, to some 28, 000 acres; or, to put it another way, some 2, 000 million tons. My Question refers to the removal of "disused colliery spoil" heaps being used for civil engineering projects and motorway construction. I understand that for some years the National Coal Board have been disposing of some 5 million tons of burnt and unburnt shale a year for this particular purpose; and in the year 1968-69 those sales should rise to 7 million tons. There appear to be excellent prospects of increasing sales still higher, and the estimated figure at the moment, I believe, is some 12 million tons—if the cost of the shale can be kept at a competitive level.
One would think that this was a welcome contribution to the clearance of dereliction, perhaps not as large as one would like, but nevertheless a solid contribution; and, since it secures the burial of the eyesore, a pretty effective one. The point I wish to make, and indeed to stress, is that there is at the present time in the North-East road programme an opportunity which exists in this connection. I understand that the M.62/M.18 motorway project in Yorkshire itself will require some 20 million tons of "fill". If we miss this and similar chances, they will not recur.
I have mentioned that disposals of colliery waste tips have risen from 5 to 7 million tons, and are expected to rise to 12 million tons. But there is a development which threatens the position. I am given to understand that in the past, colliery shale has not been generally rated, except in Scotland, and there only by a very small amount; and,

1291
so far as the Midlands and Yorkshire are concerned, it seems that there has been no general acceptance of rating, probably, I venture to think, because the workings have been over comparitively short periods. That position has now changed in, if I may say so, a quite dramatic way. The decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Ryan v. Morgan in 1965 established, as it were, the principle of liability to rating. The decision last year of the Lands Tribunal, when they upheld an appeal against Smiles and Co. Ltd. brought home the full significance of that decision, not only in regard to rating for current workings but for "back" ratings. My noble friend Lord Blyton touched on this point in a supplementary question he put on July 17. He mentioned on that occasion a figure approaching £500, 000. I think that probably it lies somewhere between £300, 000 and the £500, 000 that he gave.
My Lords, if these eyesores are to be rated when they are being removed to provide "fill" material, then the cost of that material will certainly rise—and this is a very competitive market. If rates are added to the cost, there is grave danger that these tips will not be moved and usefully buried, but that they may become subjects for grant for re-contouring or re-landscaping. As the Daily Telegraph article of August 4 stated:
"If the rates come out of the realisation then the business becomes unattractive to the seller; if they are tacked on the price, the product becomes unattractive to the buyer."
And if the contractors are called upon to pay back rates many will be forced to consider going out of business.
I should like now to touch on one of the main competitors to colliery waste for use as road "fill". This is material dug out of "borrow" pits—in layman's terms, huge excavations cut into the land nearby the particular project which is to be supplied—holes which, if left, are themselves an added dereliction. I have with me to-day a photograph showing what such dereliction looks like. I only wish that I had enough copies to send them to all your Lordships. I think you would appreciate that this is a form of dereliction that ought not to be permitted. I have heard it said that in one such case serious consideration has been given to filling such a hole with colliery
1292
shale. Who would bear the cost of that I certainly have No idea. As I understand it, these "borrow" pits do not pay rates. The position is, as the Daily Telegraph put it:
"Scarring the landscape below the ground is free, but reducing the ugliness above the line is chargeable."
Furthermore, there seems some doubt whether "borrow" pits are checked by way of planning consent, and because "borrow" pits are conveniently placed to the site contractors are able to use unlicensed transport. And this is in competition with colliery waste, where one of the very big items of cost is transport, and it must be licensed transport.
My Lords, if I appear to be doing a little special pleading may I seek to justify it by quoting John Barr's article in the Sunday Times. He wrote:
"The ugliness, and the depression of whole areas, the dangers to life that our industrial wastelands bring—all these apart—in a crowded, land-short island, dereliction is simply plain bad economics."
In this matter there is surely an overriding consideration: that we should do all we can to remove spoliation; to get rid of wasted acres and restore the land to its original condition, and particularly recognise the debt that we owe communities in the affected areas.
There is a particular question that I think might be asked on the subject of disused colliery spoil heaps: cannot the Coal Board itself carry the cost of rates? I gather that the sale of colliery waste produced to the Board in 1968-69 a revenue of about £600, 000. The cost to the Coal Board of maintaining tips is, I believe, running at some £4 million per annum, and that sum is at the present time a charge on the cost of coal which eventually has to be borne by the consumer. The sale of shale, and the increasing sale of shale, could ease the burden which the industry has to meet out of revenue. There is,
too, an aspect which I think should be held to the Board's credit. The present uses of colliery waste are largely, if not entirely, the result of research undertaken and paid for by the Board.
If I may sum up briefly, my Lords, I put it in this way. Derating is surely cheaper than landscaping. Usefully burying waste is the best way of disposing of it. Using the waste avoids the creation of additional dereliction such as

1293
"borrow" pits may create. The more shale is used, the more chance there is that new and additional uses for it may be found. Because the motorway programmes are in hand there is great urgency to consider the matter. In conclusion, I suggest that perhaps there is a case for considering the derating, not only of disused colliery spoil heaps but of all spoil heaps being used for similar puposes to those I have mentioned. I believe that it might well be cheaper than grants for re-contouring and, in the long run, prove the best way of helping to remove these industrial excrescences. I hope that I may have a helpful answer from my noble friend who is to reply.
6.23 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for raising what has come to be regarded as a most important question, that of colliery spoil heaps. Judging from his Question, there is no doubt at all that he is most interested in the further
improvement of the countryside by the removal of disused colliery spoil heaps. As my noble friend said, I have lived within sight of pit tips, as we call them, for the whole of my life. Only last week I was going through Sherwood Forest, on the edge of which there is situate a colliery. In the forest itself thousands and thousands of tons of this unsaleable rubbish have been deposited. If Robin Hood were to come back I do not know what he would say about such vandalism so far as Sherwood Forest is concerned.
In my view, recent happenings have brought the question of colliery spoil heaps greatly to the fore. This is not because they are new creations, because they have been there a very long time indeed. More people are talking about them
to-day than ever before. I think there are two main reasons for this, about which I want to say one or two words to your Lordships. The first is the tragedy of Aberfan. I make no apology for mentioning Aberfan because I believe that it has impressed itself upon the minds not only of those living within the vicinity of the tips themselves, but of the people throughout the length and breadth of the land. The sad and tragic happening at Aberfan was different from the question posed by my noble friend. There the question was one of safety
1294
and of danger to life and limb and to the property of those whose homes are in the vicinity of these tips.
Recently, within this Session, there has been legislation to deal with the safety angle so far as these tips are concerned, and the removal of danger is now in legislative form. The regulations that are laid down impose greater duties upon those who are responsible for these spoil heaps, and reports have to be made to Her Majesty's Inspector of Mines to ensure that they are in a safe condition. I am sure that all your Lordships will certainly agree with that, and will echo this sentiment: may we never have another Aberfan!
The second reason why I think that the public is talking about these spoil heaps is because of the permanent closing of collieries. In some cases, the headgear is dismantled, the machinery is taken away and only the spoil heaps are left. I submit that the very presence of these things in the places where the pits were once situated, as my noble friend has said, focuses attention upon what I call the tidying up of dereliction caused by mining operations over many years.
I have no doubt in my mind that the artistic sense in our people is so developed that everyone is desirous of removing these ugly monstrosities. There will be no disagreement about removing those colliery spoil heaps which are unsafe and are regarded as a danger. But there are two kinds of tip or spoil heaps: those which are regarded as dangerous and those which are not—and some are not dangerous in the sense that Aberfan was. But, as the Question postulates, even
those which are not dangerous spoil the countryside. They destroy amenity value, and attractiveness is forfeited where such spoil heaps exist.
That leads me to ask this question: is there a way of carrying out this tidying-up operation? I think there is. As my noble friend has demonstrated, the best way is to clear the heaps away and use the material for constructive purposes. This is now possible. At one time it was regarded as not being within the ambit of possibility. I remember many years ago being a member of a local authority where the argument was put forward: "Cannot this material which comes out of the pits and cannot be sold be used,

1295
for instance, for roadmaking?". In those days we were told that that was not a possibility; but now it is, and that is what is taking place.
For the sake of emphasising what my noble friend has said, I may have to cover a little ground to indicate the practical possibility of using this material from these spoil heaps. This is very recent history. By the middle '60s, which is not so very far away, the National Coal Board were disposing of about 5 million tons a year, as my noble friend has indicated. To begin with—and I think this is important because some spoil heaps fire and others do not—it was only burnt shale from these heaps that was a marketable commodity, but now I am informed that it has become possible to use unburnt or "black" shale, as it is sometimes referred to. Last year the National Coal Board, because of this discovery in the use of this material, were able to dispose of about 7 million tons. I do not think anybody would dispute that these sales are an extremely good thing. My information is that they have been achieved by cooperation with roadworks contractors, and that the building up of a good market reputation has been accomplished. I would emphasise a point to which my noble friend referred, that it is visualised that within two years sales could reach anything between 10 and 12 million tons per annum—and here comes the fly in the ointment, the little snag—provided that No impediment is put in the way which could possibly destroy the market for the disposing of this material from colliery spoil heaps. That is the purpose of my noble friend's Question, a purpose I heartily support.
If we were to go into various parts of the British coalfields, particularly the North-East (from where my noble friend Lord Blyton comes) the North-West, and the West Midlands, we should see that an impact has been made on derelict land. I admit that there is a lot more of this material left, but what has been removed from the heaps even up to now has made an obvious difference to the countryside. What attracts me about this matter is that no public funds are involved. It is a useful improvement in amenities, and in fact what has already
1296
been accomplished, in the form of landscaping as I have outlined, has been done at a saving to public funds.
May I mention one single case from Durham. A pit in Washington closed down, leaving behind it a big spoil heap. My noble friend Lord Blyton will know much more about this than I do. I understand that in the main the whole spoil heap was removed for motorway construction, for housing sites and so on. By doing so the first point that strikes us is that first-class land was released for development. In addition, had this colliery spoil heap not been removed the new town of Washington could have applied for a grant from public funds, which could have been anything up to 85 per cent., as my noble friend has indicated. It was estimated that the landscaping of this particular colliery heap in the new 'town authority of Washington would have cost £250, 000.
We have many motorway projects in the county of Yorkshire, and it could well be that from some of these tips or heaps shale to the extent of 20 million tons could be removed and used for this constructive purpose. May I say that if they do not have enough in Yorkshire, we in the counties of Nottingham and Derbyshire should be very pleased to supply them with some, because we have millions and millions of tons.
I now turn just for a few moments to the question of the impediment which could bring to a halt this very useful business of improving our countryside. The impediment, as my noble friend has indicated, is that the valuation officers have been pressing for rates respecting the sale of material from these spoil heaps. My information is that in the North-East, where activity in this field has been greatest, at present there are 50 cases in dispute, involving quite a large sum of money. No doubt these cases are sub judice, and it would be imprudent on my part to make any observations upon them at all. Therefore, I say only this—and this is my main concern—that it would be a pity if the opportunity of removing these spoil heaps is lost, and the improvement of the countryside in these areas where these heaps exist goes by the board. It could well be that, unless this Government give urgent consideration to the
desirability of introducing legislation to exclude such spoil heaps

1297
from liability to the payment of rates the opportunity for doing something important in this field will be lost and perhaps gone for ever.
May I briefly mention a few of the repercussions which could follow if rates have to be paid for the removal of this material? First of all, if these heaps are not removed they will have to be landscaped and the cost will fall on public funds. Secondly, the nation will lose the difference between second-class land created by landscaping, and first-class land which could be freed by complete removal of this material. Thirdly, motorway constructors and other civil engineering contractors may turn to more expensive material, and that would put up the cost of construction of projected motorways.
May I put this question on colliery rating to my noble friend who is to reply? This subject has intrigued me for a long time. Am I right in assuming that colliery rating takes two forms? First, there is the plant—the headgear, the screening plant, the washery, the winding engine houses and every other item which comes under the term "plant". Is that rated separately from output? Because, as I understand it, colliery rating is double edged: the plant is assessed and then there is an assessment on output. I can understand that, because the plant may be within the area of one local authority, while some of the output two miles away may be in the area of another authority. I know that this matter is rather complicated and tricky, but I should like to have some
information about it. The important question which I should like to ask is this: is the assessment made on the colliery's global output or on the saleable output? If the assessment is made on the global output, then rates will already have been paid on the material which constitutes the spoil heaps.
There are precedents for not levying rates. I recall the Local Government Act 1929, which absolved agriculture from the payment of rates. Under that legislation all industrial hereditaments were relieved of 75 per cent. of the rates. Agriculture is still derated and I believe that industrial hereditaments are derated to the extent of 50 per cent. Those are the observations which I wanted to make.
1298
In conclusion, may I say that, for the reasons which my noble friend has outlined, I hope the Government will consider the suggestion outlined in his Question. I know that there are complications, but I hope it will be possible for them to look favourably upon my noble friend's suggestion. By so doing, they will assist in the work of removal of these colliery spoil heaps. If that work can go on unhindered and if every facility is given, then we shall reach a stage, which I think we all want, of beautifying the countryside and making it more attractive.
6.46 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I do not intend to keep the House very long at this late hour, but because I come from the county of Durham which has had more pits closed than anywhere else in the country I thought I should say a word on this issue. When a colliery closes and a twilight village is left, these hdeous pit heaps still face us and spoil the whole area. In the Government's development plan for my area to meet the unemployment problem, the clearance of pit heaps plays a prominent part. But if by this rate upon the heaps, we make it uncompetitive to lift this material for filling-in roads, then at some time in the future it will fall on the Exchequer or the local rates to clear them in conformity with the Government's regional plan to combat unemployment in the North-East. In the last few years I have seen pit heaps cleared to make marshalling yards for the railways and for pinning new roads, and, as a result, land is being reclaimed for other uses such as agriculture and building.
I ask myself the simple question: why do we now penalise the shifting of these heaps, to let posterity pay in the future? To me this is a penny-wise and pound-foolish policy. We know contractors in Durham who are in financial difficulties because this rate was fixed and made retrospective. I believe the Minister said at that time that he would consider their position. I cannot tell whether he has or not, but I can tell the Government Front Bench that as part of planning I saw a large pit heap taken away eight years ago from the colliery at which I worked for 32 years, and it was buried in the roads of new housing estates. That was a godsend to us, because from my

1299
window at home I had never been able to see the landscape beyond the pit heap.
If we make this work uneconomic as we are doing, we shall most certainly be inflicting an injury on our mining people. I want to be quite frank with the Ministry. In these twilight villages of my own county, now that the pits have gone every encouragement ought to be given to shifting these heaps away, so that the people left in the villages who are getting on in years, may at least see something other than the hideous heaps which have been left behind. Let us try to make their amenities a little better.
In the years that are gone we paid for putting that stuff down. We paid rates on it, because one had to pay rates on anything that was in gainful occupation. Now that the pit heap has burned itself out, now that it can be crushed for roads and made suitable for pinning, I plead with the Government not to make posterity pay for it. For the little bit of rate that is put on it and which makes it uneconomic, it is not worth it. For heaven's sake take it off! Let us "get shot" of the stuff as fast as we can, and make these villages which have been left derelict happier and brighter places to look at.
6.50 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kennet and I have between us listened to the speeches which have been made this evening, and as he has been called away upon urgent business I am going to reply for him. I would say at the outset that we think the speeches have been of an extremely high standard; and we all know the tremendous interest which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has always taken in this matter, and how often he has raised it with us. I shall not be able to reply in very great detail to the more technical aspects of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, as I am sure they will understand—indeed, one or two of the points I have not completely understood—but I will do my best.
I should like to say at the very beginning that the Government are in sympathy with the spirit in which these points have been made. We understand it and are very much in sympathy with it.
1300
I must say, however (which, in a way, may be disappointing), that it is not yet possible to give the result of the Government's consideration as to whether there is a case for introducing legislation to exempt from liability to rates spoil heaps which are being worked to provide "fill" for civil engineering works—and I know that this is the basis of the noble Lord's case. As the House was informed in July, the deputation which came to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry was asked by him for more detailed information. Some further information was supplied within a week or so, but it was found not to give sufficient evidence of the economics of shale extraction for the case to be properly considered, and he was obliged to ask for more evidence. This has now been supplied, but we received it only a fortnight ago and there has not yet been time for the Ministry and the other Departments concerned to consider it fully. I very much hope that this consideration will not take much longer, and that we shall be able to end the uncertainty in the minds of those who are deeply concerned with the question.
According to the Question, the purpose of exemption would be to secure further improvement of the countryside by the removal of disused colliery spoil heaps. But one of the assumptions behind this idea must be that the removal of spoil from heaps for the purpose of providing "fill" material for civil engineering works secures this improvement by the removal of the heaps. If this were true, it would obviously be very attractive to the Government to secure the removal of unsightly spoil heaps by encouraging it as a means of gainful enterprise, rather than to pay heavy contributions towards a reclamation programme.
The shale contractor contributes to the removal and reclamation of derelict spoil heaps, and the Government hope that this readily exploitable source of "fill" material for road-making and other civil engineering projects will be used wherever possible, and particularly in preference to the digging of borrow pits. Our information is that local authorities, with the full backing of the Ministry's regional offices, take into account the value of some, anyhow, of these heaps in drawing up their reclamation programmes. Where, for instance, road works are imminent—and the

1301
noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to roads—near a heap containing suitable "fill" material, the form and timing of the reclamation scheme may be geared to the requirements of shale extraction.
But it is an exaggeration to assume or suggest that this is likely to be of great significance in the clearance of the vast acreage of derelict tips despoiling the countryside. I am afraid I must say that the House should not be left under any delusion that any foreseeable contribution to derelict land reclamation from shale extraction for civil engineering works is going to be more than infinitesimal beside that which the Government agree is necessary and are encouraging by the system of grants. Moreover, all the Ministry's experience shows that the presence of theoretically valuable material in a heap as often delays reclamation as it accelerates it. This is because the owner's hope that some local engineering enterprise may one day turn a lump of waste into a gold mine is often sufficient to paralyse outside initiative towards reclamation.
I was very much struck by the description by the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, of the landscape which was improved by the removal of a heap. I am afraid I cannot claim that the Government were responsible for that at any stage, but we very much accept the spirit in which he made his speech, and I shall draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Kennet to that sort of problem and hope that it will be dealt with in the way Lord Blyton wishes. I did not entirely understand the question of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, about global or saleable output. I think the answer is that shale heaps are assessed on saleable output and the assessment is based broadly on royalties, but if I have not entirely understood him I will write to him, if I may.
The most important question which we must deal with is about financial assistance and the particular question of exemption from rates. There are two
interests which are concerned with exploiting the use of shale from colliery tips, the National Coal Board and the contractors. The National Coal Board obtain royalties from the contractors, and out of these, of course, they have to meet expenses which they have to incur as a result of the extraction; but the remainder is profit to them. The con-
1302
tractors have to pay the royalties and their other expenses (including rates at present) in extracting the shale and marketing it, and, of course, they hops that the sale proceeds will leave something over for profit. Presumably, therefore, there is a balance between the Coal Board's profit on royalties and the contractor's profit on exploiting the tips, if other things remain equal. One way of altering that balance, if the contractors are finding that exploitation is no longer worth while, is to assist them, either by subsidy or by relief from rates or taxes. Another way would be for the National Coal Board, if they can without losing all their profit or making a loss, to reduce the royalty they charge.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, if my noble friend will permit me to interrupt her, will she, before she develops this point, give an indication that in fact the margin the Coal Board receive is sufficiently large to enable them to do what she is suggesting? I am very sorry to put the point, but I should not like it to be assumed that this is manageable. She is being so very precise that I am extremely sorry to be a little difficult.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the noble Lord is never difficult—no one would ever think that. I entirely take his point. I cannot, naturally, answer it in detail at the moment, but I take the point and I will bring it to the attention of my noble friend. Apart from the immediate effects that the step suggested would have on the market equilibrium, it would probably have a secondary effect on the rates assessment, which, broadly speaking, is based on the royalty. I am not in a position at this moment to say that this is the appropriate solution, because the figures submitted are still under consideration. I have not looked at them myself; nor has my noble friend as yet, but I suspect that at present the scales may be weighted a little too much in the Coal Board's favour.
I am not pre-judging the issue, and I hope that my noble friend will not think that the Government have prejudged it. But it is only fair to emphasise that a real case, and a strong case, has to be made before exemption from rates can be considered. I think that all those who

1303
are closely concerned in this subject know that. I very much hope that it will not be long before the Government can say whether they think that the case made is strong enough. I am bound to say that I think that the excellent speeches we have had to-night, the obvious care and concern that noble Lords have displayed in this issue, will go a long way towards helping the Government to make their decision quickly.

WALSALL CORPORATION BILL WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at seven o'clock.